The Washington state Senate was expected to vote endorse legalization of gay marriage Wednesday night, which would move the state a step closer to becoming the nation’s seventh to recognize same-sex unions.
[...]
Democratic Senator Ed Murray, its chief sponsor, said last week proponents had secured the 25 votes needed for a simple majority in the 49-seat chamber. Murray has said he hoped to end up with 27 or more votes, though the controversial issue was likely to result in a lengthy floor debate that could last well into the night.
With passage in the state House of Representatives already seen as virtually assured, opponents of same-sex matrimony say they will seek the measure’s repeal with a referendum asking voters to reaffirm marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman.
The House will likely vote on the bill in the coming weeks and Governor Chris Gregoire will sign it.
Of course, Religious Right bigots will then try to repeal the bill through referendum, blaming “activist legislatures,” at which point they just might get handed a nice big loss, in which case they will blame “activist voters.”
Rick Perlstein doesn’t think Mitt Romney’s Mormonism will ultimately matter to Evangelical voters, and I tend to agree. You should read the whole thing, but here’s how his piece starts:
I’ve never been impressed with the argument that Mitt Romney makes for a weak Republican nominee because conservatives don’t like him. That’s not how that party works. Like they say, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.” Don’t believe me? Think back four years. When the race was still up in the air, the venom aimed at McCain was ten times worse than anything being suffered by Mitt. I collected the stuff back then: Rush Limbaugh said McCain threatened “the American way of life as we’ve always known it”; Ann Coulter said he was actually “a Democrat” (oof!); an article in the conservative magazine Human Events called him “the new Axis of Evil”; and Michael Reagan, talk radio host and the 40th president’s son, said “he has contempt for conservatives, who he thinks can be duped into thinking he’s one of them.”
Then McCain wrapped up the nomination, and Mike Reagan suddenly said, “You can bet my father would be itching to get out on the campaign trail working to elect him.” One thing Republicans understand: In American elections you have to choose from among only two people – not between the perfect and the good.
He adds a bit later:
I think they’ll get over it. In American religious history, theological qualms tend to get pushed aside when politics intervenes.
Consider that little more than a generation ago, Catholics had it even worse than Mormons do now. “Theological qualms”? Try this one on for size: Once upon a time many, if not most, Protestant fundamentalists identified the Roman Catholic Church as nothing less than the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth – the dreaded “Whore of Babylon” described in Revelation 17 and 18. More prosaically, they identified Catholics as an alien force. Billy Graham reassured his followers in 1960 that it was legitimate to vote against Catholic John F. Kennedy out of religious prejudice, because the Roman Catholic Church “is not only a religious but also a secular institution, with its own ministers and ambassadors.”
Fast forward to now: extremist Catholic voters and activists are in lockstep with extremist Evangelical voters and activists, because conservative religious people in this country, at least of the “Judeo-Christian” variety, have united about that which they hate.
It’s actually a little bit astonishing to look at how much American theology has changed in the past century. Rick’s piece looks back on that time not so long ago when Evangelicals really, honestly, didn’t care about abortion. For some of us who weren’t around in the 1970′s, it’s hard to imagine, but they used to consider that a Catholic issue and they kinda sorta totally hated Catholics. Now the enemies are gays, women, Muslims, etc. We’ll keep hearing the prognostication about whether Evangelicals will vote for a Mormon up to the day that Romney ties up the nomination. At that point, wingnuts, like they do, will fall in line.
When I wrote about Cynthia Nixon’s remarks last week, that her gayness was a choice, the main thrust of my argument is that people like Cynthia, and the rest of us in the LGBT community, need to tell more of our experience, not less. It was never that anyone was trying to deny Cynthia’s own experience, as some seemed to feel. I’m glad to see that she has indeed told more of her own story to The Advocate:
“My recent comments in The New York Times were about me and my personal story of being gay. I believe we all have different ways we came to the gay community and we can’t and shouldn’t be pigeon-holed into one cultural narrative which can be uninclusive and disempowering. However, to the extent that anyone wishes to interpret my words in a strictly legal context I would like to clarify:
“While I don’t often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have ‘chosen’ is to be in a gay relationship.
“As I said in the Times and will say again here, I do, however, believe that most members of our community — as well as the majority of heterosexuals — cannot and do not choose the gender of the persons with whom they seek to have intimate relationships because, unlike me, they are only attracted to one sex.
“Our community is not a monolith, thank goodness, any more than America itself is. I look forward to and will continue to work toward the day when America recognizes all of us as full and equal citizens.”
The thing is, when she made her original statement, I got what she was saying, as did most of our readers. Statements like this help, though, because there are many out there who probably didn’t get what she was saying. We on the side of fairness and equality, unlike the Religious Right, always benefit from telling MORE of the truth, not less.
For Wayne’s take on this, where he examines the implications of our ideological opponents misusing our language and our stories against us, click here.
Ever since it was reported the other day that actress Cynthia Nixon, a bit indignantly, said that for her, being gay is a “choice,” I’ve been trying to get my thoughts together on exactly how I feel about what she said, and why it bothers me. Here’s the exact quote, and then I’ll tell you what I think about it:
I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.
Writer Alex Witchel reports that “her face was red and her arms were waving” as she continued, “It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate,” Nixon said. “I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive.”
Cynthia Nixon’s experience is Cynthia Nixon’s experience, of course, so to be clear, we are not debating that. I think that the biggest problem with her quote is that it’s irresponsible, because it introduces a concept and a reality that is really hard to capture in a sound bite. The trouble with that is that the very same bigots she refers to are simply not going to go beyond the sound bite, and choose instead to point at her and say, “see? She said it’s a choice! Now change.”
The truth of the matter, as science has been discovering for a while now, is that sexuality is far, far more complex than we’ve understood in the past, and that indeed, one of the major “x factors” involved in how people experience sexuality has more to do with how many x chromosomes they have, and less to do with whether they’re homo-, hetero- or bisexual. Tracy Clark-Flory examines this at Salon:
Activists have long combated extremist attacks on LGBT identities by highlighting the science showing that homosexuality is genetic — or, in the words of Lady Gaga, that gay people are “born that way.” It may be that simple for some, but research increasingly suggests that it isn’t for all — especially for gay women.
Lisa Diamond, a psychology professor at the University of Utah, spent over a decade tracking sexual identity changes in a group of 100 women for her book “Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire.” She wrote, “Women’s sexuality is fundamentally more fluid than men’s, permitting greater variability in its development and expression over the life course.” Based on her research, she describes three main ways that sexual fluidity is expressed: “nonexclusivity in attractions” (i.e., the capacity to find all genders sexually attractive), “changes in attractions” (i.e., suddenly becoming romantically involved with a woman after a lifetime dating men) and the capacity to become attracted to ‘the person and not the gender’” (i.e., a partner’s sex is irrelevant).
[...]
Copious research has revealed striking differences in male and female sexual orientation and arousal. In immensely awkward studies measuring men’s hard-ons while viewing various sexual stimuli, most guys have a strong response to either males or females; and their sexual orientation generally predicts their physical reaction. On the other hand, Bailey explains, “Women’s genital sexual arousal pattern is much less predictive of their sexual identity and their stated preferences,” he says. “Lesbians have a relatively weaker arousal preference for female sexual stimuli, on average, and straight women have no preference at all, on average.”
Okay. so, if you’re an honest person and you pay attention to this stuff, you already knew all of this. If you’re a decent person, it doesn’t change your support for things like marriage equality and nondiscrimination acts. Because it doesn’t matter! On that point, Cynthia Nixon and I agree. However, where it gets difficult, in this sound bite world, is in explaining that, even acknowledging the fact that men’s sexuality tends to be pretty much what it is, from the first time we get boners associated with sexual thoughts, whereas women often experience sexuality in a much more complex way, that still doesn’t do a damn thing for the Religious Right’s argument that people should want to change from gay to straight. And because we’re dealing with the Religious Right, we are in a situation where we are not arguing with people who are willing or even capable of rational, detailed discourse. For them, it’s all about their ideology and about preserving white male conservative Christian heterosexuality as the only truly “okay” state of being. Also, it’s about control.
But they will, as I said above, use sound bites like that against us, which is why I think it’s irresponsible. Cynthia has lent her voice to our cause in very powerful ways over the years, so this is in no way an attack on her. I feel that, perhaps, maybe she could have said a bit more on the subject, perhaps not casually throwing the word “choice” around and instead talking about how her sexuality evolved in the way it did. Readers on this side of the spectrum pretty much get what she’s saying, I think, but the Religious Right hears “choice,” and they think “well that proves it. Cynthia Nixon woke up one morning and decided to embrace the homosexual lifestyle.” Cynthia is free to correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt that her story is that simple, or that the story for any other women who have experienced a more fluid sexuality is that simple.
Moreover, what of bisexuals? One of the silliest Religious Right lies out there, one that truly makes me shake my head in the direction of whatever rock they live under, is that bisexuals naturally will want/need to marry one person of each gender. Indeed, when bisexuals decide to settle down into relationships, they tend to choose a partner they’re compatible with, regardless of gender. Sometimes they end up with same-sex partners, sometimes they end up with opposite-sex partners. Because they’re bisexual! I don’t think Cynthia is necessarily bisexual — she surely disavowed the concept in her statement — but there are many bisexuals out there who, when settling down with partners, make a choice to settle down with either a man or a woman. This, of course, still shouldn’t give the Religious Right any reason to feel stronger in their argument that, due to unreasoned bigotry hiding behind a third-grade reading of an ancient holy book, those people should opt for opposite-sex partners.
Here’s what we know. Men, due to our biology, tend to have a fixed, lifelong sexual orientation that we experience regardless of any “choices” we make. Alan Chambers “chooses” to live in what I would assume is a fairly sexless marriage with a woman, while admitting that he still is very much into guys. Many women experience a sexual orientation that is fixed in just the same way, but others experience it in a more fluid way that can change over the course of their lives.
Here’s what else we know. All major, grown-up mental health and medical associations have stated that reparative therapy, religious attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation through outside force, are somewhere between ineffective and harmful. Moreover, all major, grown-up mental health and medical associations have very politely stated that there is nothing inherently unhealthy or disordered about being gay, bisexual or straight.
Here’s another what else we know. Religious wingnut arguments against homosexuality have absolutely no place in rational discourse, as they do not involve rational thought, but rather stupid bigotry dressed up in religious language. We also know that the Religious Right has a pattern of using the same “biblical” arguments against whatever the hell it is that they hate these days. For them, it is all about control and their petty unwillingness to play well with others in a secular society that doesn’t automatically give them blow jobs, ponies and first prize ribbons simply for existing.
We on the side of fairness, equality and reality should be comfortable with dealing with science and reality, as they are. Reality doesn’t threaten us. But we do, until this battle for equality is fully won, have to be careful with our rhetoric and our casual comments, because our enemy is not upstanding and is not honest. As I said above, perhaps with this issue, it’s better to explain more of the reality, not less. We are only beginning to truly understand human sexuality from a scientific perspective, and what we’re learning is fascinating. But it’s nothing as simple as “a choice,” and certainly not in the way the Religious Right uses that word.
Of course, I also agree with Cynthia that, however sexual orientation works, it shouldn’t matter when it comes to things like equal rights. I mean hell, we’ve given the Religious Right carte blanche for decades for their beliefs, and those beliefs are clearly chosen. No, this is about dignity, fairness and equal opportunity.
So maybe this is a teachable moment, for those willing to learn. Sexuality is far, far, far more complex than people often understand, and is fascinating to study. People deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. Those two ideas shouldn’t have a hard time coexisting, as they haven’t a damn thing to do with one another.
So sad. News has been circulating the past couple days of the suicide of eighth grader Phillip Parker from Gordonsville, Tennessee:
A Gordonsville boy’s parents say bullying caused their son to take his own life. Phillip Parker, 14, died this week. His parents said he was constantly bullied for being gay.
More than 100 people gathered in Gordonsville on Saturday night, grieving the loss of Phillip.
“He was fun, he was energetic, he was happy,” said Gena Parker, Phillip’s mother.
To his many friends, Phillip was known as the boy who told everyone they’re beautiful.
“He kept telling me he had a rock on his chest,” said Ruby Harris, Phillip’s grandmother. “He just wanted to take the rock off where he could breathe.”
Phillip’s family said they reported their concerns over their son’s bullying to Gordonsville High School on multiple occasions, but the bullying by a group of students just got worse.
Like many kids who are bullied, it seems that Phillip did his best to shoulder the burden alone, so his family didn’t really know the extent of what he was going through. This past weekend, representatives from the Tennessee Equality Project met some current and former teachers at Phillip’s school, and what they found was sadly unexpected. The bullying in school was systemic, and on top of that, Phillip heard religious bullying from pastors, and presumably from fellow churchgoers:
While attending Saturday’s conference, H.G. Stovall and I met a former teacher who knew Phillip while he attended Gordonsville Elementary School. Tears flowed as she told us that Philip had endured years of anti-gay bullying at the school and that bullying in general at Gordonsville Elementary School often goes unaddressed by faculty and staff. She knew of several students who had to transfer to other schools to escape the harassment. This educator also knew Phillip had endured anti-gay preaching from the pulpit of his church.
[...]
We were able to speak to one of Phillip’s teachers. Sadly, she confirmed the same stories we had heard the day before about Philip’s experience at school and at church. She recalled learning that his pastor had recently told him to “pray the devil out him, so he could be straight.” His teacher also remembered that beneath his inner turmoil Philip was always smiling and would often tell his peers how beautiful they were.
For a while now, I’ve been making the point, probably at least once a week, that the message of the Religious Right to LGBT people IS bullying, and it’s not just the icing on the cake. Without the messages coming from the pulpit and from other adults who unfortunately command respect, kids in the schoolyard wouldn’t automatically equate “gay” with “bad,” and wouldn’t feel such a license to make another child’s life a living hell over their sexuality. Sure, kids will always be kids, and no anti-bullying program will eliminate all schoolyard taunts. But the sooner we make the solid connection, as a society, that the kind of bullying that causes gay and questioning kids to feel such despair that they end their young lives, comes directly from adult bullies like the pastor who urged Phillip to “pray away the gay” [to think that people think we're being hyperbolic when we use that phrase...], the sooner we’ll reach a time when I won’t have to write articles about kids killing themselves every damned week.
“Increasingly LGBT people are empowered, not ashamed,” he said. “They’re attacking us, and we’re confronting them. We’re holding them accountable and calling them on their lies and their ‘pious baloney,’ to borrow Newt Gingrich’s phrase. America is waking up to the fact that we’re not bogeymen, and we’re not coming to do any harm, and that we’re your daughters and sons and neighbors, sometimes your parents, your co-workers, friends, colleagues. The Republican party, in this desperate [nod] to its dying evangelical base, is just ramping up the homophobia, and they’re doing themselves real long-term damage.
“What’s interesting is that, you look at who’s been doing the most hate speech: Bachmann? She’s out. Herman Cain? He’s out. Perry? He’s all but out. Santorum? He’s running fourth, he’s trailing even in conservative South Carolina,” Savage continued.
“It’s not winning them the election anymore. It’s not 1992; Pat Buchanan can’t get up and give a ‘gay rights never, family values forever’ speech at the Republican National Convention anymore. Times have changed.”
This is why, though, if we step back from the GOP primaries and look at the state of the whole movement, the Religious Right is becoming more extreme in their rhetoric against LGBT people. They are desperately trying to hold on to the last few clingers, as they’re well aware that the younger generations just aren’t replacing the older generations when it comes to anti-gay bigotry. They won’t admit it, but they know they’ve lost the overall war. In the piece above, we find Dan wondering whether the GOP will ever look the same again, once they truly realize that the bigot thing doesn’t play with the general population anymore. I wonder the same thing, because it’s really not like the current Republican party believes IN anything.
The other day a video from a young kid named Jonah Mowry, where he told the story of the relentless bullying he experiences on a daily basis, went viral. Here’s that video again if you haven’t seen it:
When I posted it, I described Jonah as a specific example of a kid that Linda Harvey and the rest of the Religious Right refuses to protect, and asked what was more valuable: that child, or their dogma?
Christian writer John Shore took that idea a lot further than I did, and he took the gloves off. Quoting it almost in its entirety, because John likes me and won’t get mad:
Tell me that your belief system didn’t help put the hot tears on this kid’s cheeks. Tell me that the bullies who torment this kid aren’t in any way encouraged or empowered by your tacit approval of their actions. Tell me that the shame this kid feels about himself has nothing to do with the shame that you believe all gay people should feel for themselves.
Tell me that you can’t comprehend the connection between your conviction that God finds homosexuals repulsive, and the fact that this kid finds himself so repulsive that he habitually cuts his own flesh.
Tell me, please, how you love this kid. Tell me how you understand his pain. Tell me how when he cries, you cry.
Tell me how you want to do everything in your power to make sure that no one, ever again, feels free to in any way victimize a young gay person.
A Christian myself, I am pleading with you to be honest with me about this.
Tell me, please, how none of this kid’s anguish has anything to do with you.
I’m listening. I really am.
We all are.
All ears. You first, Linda Harvey. Then Tony Perkins. And then we can go alphabetically through America’s bigot leaders after that. Explain how your bigotry is worth more than this or any other child’s suffering.
As Jeremy points out, this is at best, pathetic, and at worst, an illustration of just how much contempt people like Tony Perkins have for their own followers. Basically here is what had happened was: yesterday, Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi added a non-controversial amendment to a defense authorization bill which clarified that military chaplains are free to refuse to marry same-sex couples. Though gay rights advocates have never fought to force any clergy to perform weddings they don’t want to, for whatever reason, the following video features Roger Wicker speaking to hate group leaders Tim Wildmon [AFA] and Tony Perkins [FRC], declaring this very non-controversial amendment a “victory.”
I am aware that the Religious Right is winning basically nothing when it comes to gay rights these days — and thank heavens for that — but that they are declaring this a victory is hilarious. Jeremy also points out that there was basically no opposition to this, because it’s already Pentagon policy, and no one cares.
Think about it: why on God’s green earth would any gay couple want to go to Reverend Bubba the Bigot to perform their ceremony?! Weddings are happy occasions, people. No need to have a gross old homophobe on the guest list, much less at the pulpit.
Here’s the video:
When I said above that people like Tony Perkins and Tim Wildmon have absolute contempt for their own followers, those are my words, not Jeremy’s. But let me expand on that a bit. The Religious Right [and indeed, the Republican Party] would not have the donors and followers they have if they weren’t exceptionally crafty when it comes to lying to and scaring the shit out of their sheep. There is no liberal or gay-friendly parallel to this. On this side of the fence, journalists, bloggers and non-profit organizations are well aware that our average readers/listeners/supporters are pretty smart people, and moreover people who are willing and able to research issues for themselves. Therefore, aside from the fact that we have absolutely no reason to mislead people, we wouldn’t make it very far with the people who support us if we played cute with the facts like the Religious Right does.
Sadly, and I know this is a broad over-generalization, but Tony Perkins knows it too, the Religious Right is simply not that kind of crowd. So beholden to fear and authority are they that the “daddy figures” they choose to trust are viewed as impenetrable and beyond reproach, even when the words coming out of their leaders’ mouths defy all logic, reason and civics knowledge. Tim Wildmon, being sort of a fringe, regional figure, might be so dumb/uninformed that he believes what he’s saying, but Tony Perkins is inside the Beltway. He knows full well when he’s lying to his people in order to keep their fear-based ca$h a-rollin’ into the FRC’s coffers. Aside from the fact that the man leads a well-known and detested hate group, it’s grotesque to realize that a large part of his influence comes from the fact that he lies to his own people.
That’s how you end up with a situation where these men are able to go on to AFA radio and boldly claim “victory” on an issue that literally, nobody cares about. If their followers acted like liberals and decided to check for themselves whether or not gay couples wanted to force awful wingnuts to perform gay marriage ceremonies, they’d discover that Tony and Tim and Roger are lying to them. But they won’t, and those men know it, so the lies will continue.
Yet again, the Religious Right has wasted American time, money and oxygen lying and complaining about our society becoming more open and accepting, in this case with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, only to have absolutely nothing they warned of come true:
MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) — Since the lifting two months ago of a longstanding U.S. ban on gays serving openly in the military, U.S. Marines across the globe have adapted smoothly and embraced the change, says their top officer, Gen. James F. Amos, who previously had argued against repealing the ban during wartime.
“I’m very pleased with how it has gone,” Amos said in an Associated Press interview during a week-long trip that included four days in Afghanistan, where he held more than a dozen town hall-style meetings with Marines of virtually every rank. He was asked about a wide range of issues, from his view of the Marine Corps’ future to more mundane matters such as why he recently decided to stop allowing Marines to wear their uniform with the sleeves rolled up.
Not once was he asked in Afghanistan about the repeal of the gay ban.
Because it’s fine, and because our military is composed of finer, stronger people than our Religious Right. Moving on…
