OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Boy Scouts raise debate

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Boy Scouts raise debate

by Helen Harrell with Carol Fischer

August 9, 2009

This has been a most interesting week for us, what with all the boy scouts in town. In case you missed it, there were over 7,000 Order of the Arrow boy scouts and their leaders on campus and about town dressed in various quasi-military uniforms and sometimes Native American costumes. Seems like they would have been difficult to miss, but admittedly our offices are located in the heart of campus in an area that also served as base camp operations for the troops.

Maybe we are just suffering from testosterone overload, but it was our sense that their presence stimulated a variety of emotions that led to public discussion, community dissension in some instances, and yet there was a camaraderie that was visibly shared by boys and men of all ages and difficult to ignore. And, we are pleased to say, the community didn’t entirely ignore their presence. In fact, a panel discussion titled “Order of the Arrow: Racism, Homophobia, and Religious Appropriation in Scouting?” was held at Rachael’s Cafe.

Sponsored by the Bloomington Committee Against Racism and Homophobia in Youth, the Native American Community Center of Bloomington, Inc., OUT, Ohio Valley Two Spirit Society and bloomgOUT, the panel drew a sizeable crowd for summer in Bloomington and was a mixture of community members, IU faculty, students, high school students, native Americans, scouts and members of the LGBTQ community and friends who came together to discuss the various charges of homophobia and racism leveled at the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).

As an institution, BSA is not in and of itself a reprehensible organization. There is certainly nothing wrong with a structure designed to provide leadership skills, direction, goal orientation, respect for self and others and a sense of belonging for young boys and men. In fact, we whole heartedly support such organizations and include them along with the Girl Scouts and Camp Fire Girls on our list of those who are mostly doing a good job of providing structure and instilling values and a sense of belonging in youth programming.

However, in the case of the Girl Scouts and Camp Fire Girls, there is no overt discrimination against lesbians, gays or transgender folks. But the same cannot be said for the Boy Scouts. In fact their Web site actually associates gay with pedophilia, which to us is an abject disregard for truth and reality, and certainly reinforces the attitude of discrimination against gay youth that exists within the various BSA troops around the country.

We know that many of our readers are already aware of the gay controversy involving the BSA and possibly share our shock and dismay that such a powerful and longstanding organization that exerts major influence over our developing youth is still thriving and discriminating! How can that be? Our own Monroe County United Way no longer supports the BSA as a donor agency because of its discrimination, and other United Ways chapters have done likewise. Some churches have refused to let troops use their facilities for meetings and activities in attempts to end this obvious discrimination against a segment of our youth.

Maybe the BSA continues to succeed because it has supporters, as well as detractors. For instance the American Legion gives BSA around $100,000 a year in financial support.

Maybe it’s because an institution such as Indiana University allows the group to hold its conference on the main campus. Now we aren’t completely chastising IU because it rents out its facilities to many organizations and for any number of events and activities that the administration probably doesn’t always support 100 percent. We realize that this is partly about business, and in these rough financial times, especially, a huge conference is certainly a welcome source of income for both the university and the community.

But on the other hand, the BSA does discriminate against gays and also misappropriates Native American culture in a somewhat caricature form (while maintaining that the adoption of Indian customs is a tribute and not meant derisively), and those issues are enough for us to take offense.

According to Wikipedia, Order of the Arrow is the national honor society of the BSA that uses American Indian-style traditions and ceremonies to bestow recognition on scouts selected by their peers as best exemplifying the ideals of scouting.

The Order of the Arrow was created by E. Urner Goodman, with the assistance of Carroll A. Edison, in 1915 as a means of reinforcing the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. The goal was to establish these as lifelong guidelines and to encourage continued participation in scouting and camping. Influenced in part by camp traditions, college fraternities, and Indian folklore, the OA uses “safeguarded” symbols, handshakes and ceremonies, to impart a sense of community.

An innocent enough description, but upon closer examination, “safeguard” translates to “secretive.” College fraternity traditions are being compared with those of Native American culture (oh, excuse us, they said “folklore”) and the community to which they refer is certainly not inclusive. We are always leery of “secret” societies, don’t always consider fraternities to be the best example of good behavior and take umbrage at misappropriating and trivializing Native spiritual tradition and customs into what is basically a white male community practicing what it considers to be mere examples of folklore.

While there are some natives who are not offended by OA, it seems to us from our many discussions and interactions with native individuals and groups that most are. The controversy over scouting that occurred this past week in Bloomington has played itself out across the country for many years, and large numbers of tribes and individuals, both native and white, have complained.

It is true that some scout leaders and members have met with native representatives to learn about the cultural traditions they have appropriated into their ceremonies and to perhaps bring some truthful perspective to their rituals. However, the majority of native representatives with whom we have spoken (from local area as well as out of state) believe it is racist for OA to teach their children to “play Indian” while making a mockery (in the name of honor and tradition) of Native religious ceremonies and other cultural beliefs. They believe that it is harmful to native people and especially native children to see a farcical and stereotypical image of valued traditions played out in a non-spiritual, non-native activity.

Furthermore, such “acting” is harmful to non-native children who are kept from learning about the contemporary and diverse societies with over 500 semi-sovereign governments that are the reality of Native America today. They are certainly not being taught to take these populations seriously as valid human beings and cultural representatives. And native children are being indirectly encouraged to view themselves as cartoon-like and therefore worthless in the grander scheme of humanity.

We ask our readers to consider the outcry if a conference were held that openly excluded African Americans or any other specific ethnic, religious or racial group as the BSA openly excludes gays. And what if some conference group made a mockery of Muhammad, or Jesus or the Pope? Bet that would get folks up on their feet.

Our point is, should we support a group that openly discriminates and offends a large group of individuals by misappropriating their religious and spiritual traditions? While no easy solutions are on the horizon, and the BSA is a massive institution that represents our dominant leadership and culture, we do anticipate continued dialogue and can only hope that will lead to honest change in the near future. Usurping another’s red badge of courage does not a true warrior make, and adopting the spoils by the victor does not appease guilt nor mend old wounds.

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Measured hope for a new era

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2009/01/25/9875

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Measured hope for a new era

by Helen Harrell with Carol Fischer

January 25, 2009

A new president, a new administration and renewed energy stemming from a fresh view of America — it has indeed been a celebratory week across the nation. And it’s wonderful to see our cultural melting pot reflected in the many folks represented on TV, radio, and other media this past week.

Is it a fact that we are truly becoming an equally representative society? We hope so, and we say it’s about time! We watched much of the pre- and post-inauguration festivities, and while we certainly enjoyed the entertainment, some nostalgic and some uplifting, and want to believe that a new era has dawned, we can’t help but be a bit skeptical that all may be too good to be true.

It’s a start you say?! Yes indeed it is. And we’re not naysayers; we share in some of the excitement and anticipation of better things to come.

Of course, Obama has only been in office three days as we write, but he’s already delayed the removal of gray wolves from the endangered species list and signed legislation to end a ban on funding for international organizations that provide family planning and abortion services.

And, of course, if Hillary couldn’t be our first woman president, we are at the very least pleased that Obama appointed her Secretary of State. She’s a mere four heartbeats from the presidency.

While it’s true that Obama is the most queer-friendly President we’ve had since Roosevelt (the one married to Eleanor), we hesitate to get too excited about things to come. When he ran for his Illinois Senate seat Obama was quite outspoken in support of same-sex marriage. However, while running for President he expressed disapproval of such but did support domestic partners and/or civil unions.

“In 2006 Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment that defined marriage as opposite-sex only.”

Okay, politics being what they are, candidates have to choose their issues and words carefully and can never please everyone. However, this apparent change in support indicates to us that Obama the President is still Obama the politician who, power of the office notwithstanding, will be subject to compromise the same as everyone else. We just hope that our lives are not sacrificed when it comes to personal protections, contractual agreements, work place fairness and health-care issues.

Certainly to his credit, in 2006 Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment that defined marriage as opposite-sex only and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples. He has also supported bias-crimes protection acts and the repeal of don’t-ask-don’t-tell, all of which indicates a good track record from our perspective.

We know that Obama has a community-wide vision, and his message of coming together in respect and service is indeed righteous, and we have no particular reason to believe that he is misrepresenting himself.

“While it’s true that Obama is the most queer-friendly President we’ve had since Roosevelt (the one married to Eleanor), we hesitate to get too excited about things to come.”

We were disappointed that he chose Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation and quite upset when the first gay Bishop, Rev. Gene Robinson, was chosen after the fact to deliver a blessing during pre-inaugural events. And, if being an afterthought wasn’t bad enough, Robinson’s delivery wasn’t even carried live by most of the media — a decision made by the Obama inaugural committee.

Now, some folks have said we shouldn’t be concerned about this because Obama’s reasons for choosing Warren were based on his philosophy of bringing everyone together in acceptance, even those with whom we most disagree. And besides, Warren has been active in the AIDS efforts in Africa.

That’s a good thing, sure. But what about the AIDS effort in this country? We don’t see a lot of AIDS-related missionaries (or shall we say involved evangelicals) working here. Perhaps that’s because AIDS is seen as a “gay” disease in America, whereas the pandemic in Africa is not presented as such.

Maybe our displeasure with Warren goes beyond such social issues because we wonder why have an invocation (translate that to prayer) at all? Not everyone is a Christian, and not everyone is a believer in any religious philosophy. To be totally representative, one must include all religions or none.

Either have a service that brings representatives from all of the religions together or pass on that particular ritual, which seems irrelevant to swearing in government officials anyway. There’s that separation of church and state thingy again!

As we said earlier, we know it’s early in Obama’s tenure, and we have to hope, along with everyone else, that he will live up to most of our expectations.

“We’re not naysayers; we share in some of the excitement and anticipation of better things to come.”

He has spent much of his career fighting for civil rights as an attorney, community organizer, Illinois State Senator and now as President.

His agenda includes combating employment discrimination, ending deceptive voting practices, ending racial profiling, reducing recidivist crime by providing ex-offender support, expanding hate crimes statutes, supporting full civil unions and federal rights for same-sex folks, repealing don’t-ask-don’t-tell, expanding adoption rights for everyone regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, continuing to empower women and, gee, last but not least, fixing our disastrously broken economy and bringing an end to the wars and strife around the world.

Not a bad job description. He has our empathy!!

We hope no one gets the wrong impression here, because we like and support Obama and are glad he was elected. But we women and lesbians have been disappointed too many times to believe that sometimes an apple is just an apple, and we can trust that it will remain so.

We will promise do our part to support Obama’s agenda for a better, more equitable nation and will trust that by living up to the founding notion that all citizens deserve to be treated with dignity and respect Obama will reward us with complete enfranchisement.

We know there is much work to be done, but we see in the newly fostered sense of pride and involvement brought about by Obama and manifest across the country that truly the time for change is now.

And maybe it will be the time for good change for the queer folks!

It’s what we all deserve.

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: A few steps forward, a couple back

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2008/11/16/9825

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: A few steps forward, a couple back

by Helen Harrell with Carol Fischer

November 16, 2008

Eighty-eight years ago, women won the fight and earned the right to vote in the United States. A few short weeks ago we recognized Women’s Equality Day with the knowledge that the United States is one of only eight countries that have yet to ratify the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

According to the CEDAW Web site, 185 countries — more than 90 percent of the United Nations members — are party to the Convention. “So what?” you say. We can still vote, attend university, play sports and work outside the home. Women are better off than ever right?

Well, maybe yes and maybe no. CEDAW is a universal definition of discrimination against women and negates any claim that no clear definition of sexual discrimination exists. By not recognizing this document, our nation joins the ranks of countries such as Iran that treat women with disdain, disrespect and, frequently, violence.

“The Army has awarded the rank of Four Star General to the first woman ever.”

Maybe it’s just us jumping to conclusions, again, but we sense an increase of violence toward women in this country. Maybe it’s not an increase but just more reporting by women who have had enough. After all, there are more agencies and safe house organizations available to women who need to escape dangerous situations. And there are some who feel safe enough to file police reports, as police agencies have increasingly offered sensitivity training to their officers.

Regardless of cause, the headlines are full of violent attacks on women by men, and women who have met atrocious deaths at the hands of husbands and boyfriends who we guess just never saw divorce as a better alternative to life in prison!!

Now coming off an election in which we see victory and reason to cheer on many levels with the election of a man who will no doubt be more inclusive of women than previous administrations — Yippeeee!! Obama won!!! (Okay, now that we have that out of our system) — we don’t want to sound all gloom and doom.

“We rank 69th in the world in percentage of women holding national political positions.”

Rumor has it, for instance, that Hillary Clinton may be the next secretary of state, and the Army has awarded the rank of Four Star General to the first woman ever. All progress we gladly recognize.

However, worldwide (yes, we must think globally as we are all sisters and brothers on this planet) there are 100 percent more men than women in political parties. And while there are increasing numbers of women in national assemblies — an average of 18.4 percent — that is still a meager increase of 8 percent over the past 35 years.

And it should come as no surprise that there is a direct ratio between the number of women in higher legislative positions and attention paid to women’s issues. Hence, the opposite is true — with more men in power seats, their issues take front and center.

How does the United States rank in comparison with other nations you ask? We rank 69th in the world in percentage of women holding national political positions. Women make up 16 percent of Congress, and there are nine women governors. At the current rate of electing women to higher office, it will take 100 years to achieve parity with men.

“There are implications for the LGBTQI community that won some and lost much across the country.”

Some of you may be groaning by now and reflecting upon the most recent presidential campaign in which there were two women in serious contention for the highest ranked, most politically powerful offices in our country. We bet you are thinking here again that’s progress, isn’t it?

Yup, it is. And we were most pleased with that fact, even if we weren’t happy with the persistent devaluation of both of the women. Clinton couldn’t win with the media regardless of what she did. She was either too emotional and sensitive or too coarse and not “feminine” enough.

Too many times we felt more attention was paid to her “thick ankles” than to her astute grasp of the political process and the issues. Historically, women have been judged unfit to govern because they are too emotional or their emotions roller coaster up and down, while men have traditionally been depicted as reasonable and rational regardless of their true temperaments.

Sarah Palin was tossed to the proverbial wolves as a vacuous soccer mom or depicted as “just one of the boys” with her enthusiasm for winter sports and hunting (She received more flak for her love of hunting than did Cheney for shooting a fellow hunter.).

Comparing these two women is of course unfair because they have little in common politically, educationally or socially. However, both came under scrutiny for their wardrobes, hair styles and domestic skills more often than for their policies and leadership abilities. We heard none of that about the male candidates.

It seemed to be enough to state that McCain was a good soldier and is a great family man and that Obama is also a great husband and father. We don’t doubt those facts, but those aren’t the issues that voters reflect upon significantly when voting for a man. Women face a Catch-22 situation of emotional vulnerability versus the cold and aloof perception of firm capability that is not in equal measure for male counterparts.

Well, anyway, the election is finally over, and most of our readers are probably just as relieved as we are.

“On the negative side, of course, were the queer-marriage bans passed in three states, most significantly California’s Proposition 8.”

However, there are some things to be learned from this longest and most historical, modern election campaign, and there are implications for the LGBTQI community that won some and lost much across the country.

On the plus side, there were more out lesbian/gay candidates running for office and more actually elected than ever before (167 elected and/or re-elected).

On the negative side, of course, were the queer-marriage bans passed in three states, most significantly California’s Proposition 8, which now threatens to overturn the California Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

With mega funding from Mormons, Catholics and evangelicals, the California queer community was unprepared for such a loss following so closely on the heels of 18,000 same-sex marriages. Many lawsuits and court actions are sure to follow, in conjunction with demonstrations and acts of political activism.

“Right on!!!” we say. It’s time to stand up, shout out and refuse to tolerate discrimination any longer.

Oh yeah, what does this have to do with discrimination against women? It’s simple.

“On the plus side, there were more out lesbian/gay candidates running for office and more actually elected than ever before (167 elected and/or re-elected).”

Our political process represents the hetero-normative pattern of the heterosexual family. The imperative of femininity is associated with the emotional and nurturing woman/mother who couldn’t possibly be stable enough to serve in the political arena (sort of similar to the mother/virgin conflict now isn’t it?!). And the men are the stalwart, steady leaders who make decisions and control our direction.

What will happen to that structure if same sex-folks can marry? Who will lead and who will follow? And what about the children? How will they ever learn to self identify if they grow up in a system that no longer mandates the binary gender pattern and permits the free flow of gender identity and gender roles sans stereotyping?

We think that would be a definite improvement for everyone and a defining moment for our culture, but we also know that social change comes slowly. We must continue to fight for women’s rights and demand respect based upon skill and accomplishment rather than sexuality.

We continue challenging the norm with full awareness of potential threats of violence. And yet we know that women and lesbians are powerful (the increase in women voters was a major factor in Obama’s win in Pennsylvania) and must not be deterred from sharing an equal place in the world arena.

We deserve nothing less.

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Progress not pervasive

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2008/10/19/9777

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Progress not pervasive

by Helen Harrell with Carol Fischer

October 19, 2008

Ellen DeGeneres is married and Clay Aiken is gay, and that’s the news for this month. Well, there is the national economic crisis, but hey, we can’t worry about everything!

The above sentence was our opening phrase for this article until wham! Right out of left field (well, from the liberal side at least) we received a news blurb saying that the Connecticut General Assembly had voted to legalize LGBTQI marriage, and we thought that news was far more important than the personal lives of show biz folks.

But then again, maybe not, because they are related topics. Just a few short years ago, Ellen wouldn’t have had the opportunity to marry, and Clay wouldn’t have been so openly upbeat about telling anyone he was gay, much less the entire world.

“It is certainly a good thing to have heroes, athletes, movie stars, religious leaders and other celebrities who are “brave” and “out” front and who serve as examples of how things can be okay.”

What seems significant is that Ellen received standing ovations from her TV audiences, and Clay’s fans seemed to care not one whit, or perhaps they had already guessed, and it wasn’t really news.

But either way, we observed support and acceptance rather than hoots of disapproval. Even the news that Clay was a new father, another choice not possible a few short years ago, seemed to be met with “Ooohs and aaahs,” rather than negativity.

We have to wonder if these events are a sign that attitudes are truly changing toward the LGBTQI community, or are they an exception based upon “star” worship?

Clearly, the decision by the Connecticut legislature is more than simple hero worship, and even though the score is a mere three down and 47 to go, it represents three states that recognize and validate same-sex relationships. We’ve also heard rumors to the effect that New Jersey may soon follow this coastal trend and change its domestic partnership policy to full legal recognition of marriage as well.

If we sound excited, we admit to being a bit pleased with the way things seem to be going — in our favor for a change. However, we aren’t naive, and we know that it will be some time before a majority of the states legalize our right to marry, and we have to wonder if we will live long enough to see such legislation pass in our home state of Indiana.

“The group’s National Climate survey asked 6,209 middle and high school LGBT students if they experienced harassment at school, and a surprising nine out of 10 reported in the affirmative.”

But more worrisome than the long drawn out legislative process that we anticipate will occur is the evidence we see of increased hostility and violence directed toward members of our LGBT community.

We know from historical accounts and our own personal observations during the civil rights era of the 1960s that when an oppressed group is verging on emancipation, its oppressors become more violent and menacing. And we have no reason to believe that things will be any different if the legal system continues to rule in favor of the queer population.

During this month of October our thoughts returned to that time 10 years ago when Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered. While his story became legend, in large part due to the activism of his mother Judy, who has became a staunch advocate for LGBT rights and safety, there have been many other lesbians, gays and transgender individuals beaten, tortured and murdered whose stories have not been heard.

This is especially true of LGBT individuals who are also persons of color or ethnicities other than white/Caucasian. Is the media still not color blind, or is it that some groups just do not demand the attention necessary to draw attention to their own victimization?

Folks do have to speak up to be heard, but they also need the audience to respond. Now we aren’t minimizing what happened to Matthew and the suffering of his mother and family — not at all. But we know there are others who suffer in silence, and we believe that we cannot truly bring about a change in attitude in our culture if we don’t speak up loud and clear and stand united against any and all acts of injustice.

“During this month of October our thoughts returned to that time 10 years ago when Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered.”

We must accept nothing less than a policy of intolerance toward discrimination based upon sexual orientation, gender identity, racism, religion and any other reason folks think of to dislike someone else. Are we being negative here? We don’t think so. Progress is being made, yes, but is it pervasive throughout our culture, or are we just celebrating mere instances of personal freedom exhibited by those isolated from the mainstream due to circumstance of wealth and/or fame?

Our attention has been further drawn to issues of violence because of an article juxtaposed with the Connecticut marriage news that reported on a recent study conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The group’s National Climate survey asked 6,209 middle and high school LGBT students if they experienced harassment at school, and a surprising nine out of 10 reported in the affirmative.

Eighty-six percent said they experienced harassment; 73 percent reported hearing derogatory remarks such as “faggot” or “dyke” frequently; 61 percent felt unsafe because of their sexual orientation; and 33 percent admitted to skipping a day of school because of unsafe feelings.

These alarming statistics indicate that the school situation is still critical for a large proportion of LGBT students and that they currently experience being bullied and victimized in large numbers. One consequence of such abuse by their peers is evidenced by grade point averages of 2.4 for those who do experience harassment versus the 2.8 for those who don’t.

“Just a few short years ago, Ellen wouldn’t have had the opportunity to marry, and Clay wouldn’t have been so openly upbeat about telling anyone he was gay, much less the entire world.”

Some schools offer positive intervention and support systems with the presence of positive staff and gay-straight alliance organizations. Typically the instances of harassment or feelings of fear were decreased by about 18 percent in those more positive environments.

However, statistics revealed that less than one-third of the schools surveyed allowed gay-straight alliances. And, even worse, there are only 11 states and the District of Columbia that have safe school laws to protect students from bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation, and just seven states protect students based upon gender identity/expression.

The first National School Climate Survey was conducted in 1999, and this most recent one in 2007. The results demonstrate very little improvement (a margin of 13 percent improvement) over the past eight years.

Given this report, how do we justify saying that our social climate is improving? Can we even compare what works in Hollywood with everyday folks in their ordinary lives? We think things are better in the more liberal pockets of our culture but perhaps not so much in the average American city or town.

It is certainly a good thing to have heroes, athletes, movie stars, religious leaders and other celebrities who are “brave” and “out” front and who serve as examples of how things can be “okay.” But we must remind ourselves that everything is not okay for everyone, everywhere.

It would help immensely if we had legislative leaders at both the federal and state levels who were willing to be just as out and brave. We need leaders who will set a tone of tolerance and acceptance, not one of divisiveness and discrimination.

The message must come from the top, and maybe someday the score will be 50 down 0 to go and a victory for all!

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: The choice is clear

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2008/09/21/9693

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: The choice is clear

by Helen Harrell with Carol Fischer

September 21, 2008

Remember when the buzz word was “diversity?” Everybody and everything was diversified, meaning that the power elite admitted to the inequities in our system and a bunch of conscientious workshops and events were organized to address them?

Glad that all worked well and we are just one big happy national family now.

But, moving on, we have a new buzz word, and it’s called “change.” Seems that everyone — all the politicians, media and general populace — is talking about change. And while we certainly recognize the need for a change in governmental direction, we have to ask what kind of change is all the chatter about? There is good change and bad change, and those concepts are constantly being redefined by both sides.

“Palin offers inexperience, cronyism, a small world view, religious fanaticism and major disrespect for our natural resources.”

From our perspective, good change would mean having governmental leadership that has a real sense of and empathy for all members of our society, with a perspective that is inclusive in coverage and application. Are we asking for a visionary? Yes, indeed. But this individual must also be someone who can combine vision with a rational, intellectual and logical approach to national and international issues and have some clear ideas about those issues with viable plans for action.

We avidly watched both the Democratic and Republican conventions. Well, the descriptor “avidly” probably applies more to the Dems than it does to the Repubs (or is that Repugs?) because regardless of how much fun the Repubs try to be, their humor is stilted with a tinge of sarcastic cruelty and moral superiority.

It seemed to us that once again the Republican party is turning back the political and cultural clock: clearly their focus on women’s issues is stuck somewhere back in time and not relevant to today’s young women; and no mention of any protections for our four-legged friends, the earth, improving the economy or health care and education or establishing a safer world with reasonable arms regulation.

And oh, did we mention women’s rights? Well, it can’t hurt to mention that issue a few times. Because after all, if one can discriminate against a major segment of the population such as women, then surely other more specific groups such as those of color or the LGBTQI population will fair far worse.

And we just loved the display of those “proper” women who smacked of 1950s housewife ads (you remember — vacuuming in a nice sun dress and high heels while loving every minute of it!?) in the attempt to balance the Dems’ presentation of real women who are strong, intelligent professionals by their own merit and have an earnest, inclusive regard for equity and fairness.

“We heard inclusive reference made to the queer community in nearly every speech presented at the Democratic convention.”

We are well aware that there are women of financial privilege in both parties, but there seems to be a vast difference between those Dems who are authentically caring and sensitive individuals and the Repubs who are largely an extension of their male counterparts set out on stage, front and center, sort of like Dresden dolls.

Listen carefully and you will hear the swoosh, swoosh of the modern day crinoline dresses as they enter the spotlight — or maybe that’s the sound of a vacuum in place of social awareness — we aren’t always sure.

Let’s face it, is there really any comparison between a brilliant, well-spoken, Harvard-educated former First Lady who is a hard-working public servant like Hillary Clinton and a woman such as Sarah Palin, who is pretty much just one of the good ole boys?

To be fair, Palin is a very attractive woman, smart enough, with a strong personality and no doubt a leader. But is she the leader, or co-leader, we really want to make decisions about our lives, our planet and our families? We think not.

Does that surprise you? After all, lesbians should like a woman who is the outdoorsy type, right? To us there is a big difference between enjoying (no, change that to loving and respecting) nature and the ability to field dress a moose!

“If one can discriminate against a major segment of the population such as women, then surely other more specific groups such as those of color or the LGBTQI population will fair far worse.”

Even if we ignore her evangelical roots with a church that believes in LGBTQI reparation therapy, her anti-choice history and her apparent belief in her own divine right to rule (how scary is that?!), we can’t support someone who advocates the aerial murder of wolves and bears, bashing of baby seals and the disruption of pristine forests to drill for more oil instead of focusing on alternative energies that have actually been available for development for years.

And we notice that her lack of support for sex education and family planning in schools seems to have smacked her right in the face with the pregnancy of her teenage daughter.

The irony here is that for all the moralistic preaching we hear from the religious right about abstinence, they jump right on board in support of an “out-of-wedlock child” and the family, like this is somehow a good thing since she isn’t going to have an abortion. Ah, teenage mothers — family planning at its best.

Or is it just breeding gone wild in the name of God? For those believers, please think back to when Jesus was purported to have said, “Go forth and multiply.” There were probably nine or 10 people on the entire planet (Yup, we exaggerate, but you get our point), and now we are facing dire environmental issues, mass starvation and all sorts of economic problems that could be resolved in part with a smaller population.

We say it’s time to stop with the glorification of the family and elevation of baby production to a level of mystical dimension and consider the realities of community and rational family planning.

We recognize that politics is a game, and players are chosen based upon what fan base they can draw in for votes and eventual election. We are also aware that Palin is a good fit for Bible-totin’, arms-bearin’ family values folks (a generalized stereotype — we are aware of that). But what we can’t understand is why those people don’t recognize when they are being pandered to and that politicians for the most part could care less about their real-life circumstances.

“It seemed to us that once again the Republican party is turning back the political and cultural clock.”

Palin’s style of speech is mesmerizing and based in emotionalism designed to lead listeners right into a miasmic fervor that is neither rational nor real and replaces thought about ideologies with mob reaction based upon fear conditioning. She has been effective in taking the spotlight off of McCain and his shortcomings, but neither of them leave us with a positive plan (or any plan for that matter) for a better future.

We know that Dems are politicians too and can play the “anything to get your vote” game as well as anybody. But we are more impressed by the sense of real passion for justice that pervaded their convention crowd, as well as the candidates.

We heard inclusive reference made to the queer community in nearly every speech presented at the Democratic convention. In contrast we heard no mention of our existence by anyone speaking at the Republican convention. In fact, we observed cynical smirks and laughs at reference to equality issues.

We think that if our all-time favorite Sen. Ted Kennedy gets the big picture while fighting off a life threatening brain tumor, then the Republicans must omit us intentionally.

A strong belief in social and cultural equality is no less than what we should expect from our elected officials, along with a cessation of the splintering of our population based upon personal issues of religion, race, ethnicity, and sexual/gender identity or orientation.

“We have a new buzz word, and it’s called “change.”

We need leaders who will represent everyone and move our country forward in a comprehensive way that is inclusive as well as culturally sensitive, with a global awareness of the new world economy and instant communication. A formidable task indeed, but we must have leaders who do not put their own personal agendas above their constituency’s but rather consider the world stage when enacting policies and establishing laws.

We must maintain a separation of church and state and choose leaders who can do just that. Each of us has the right to worship as we prefer but not the right to browbeat others with our own belief system. Such examples of democracy must be reflected by the members of our governmental administration.

To us, McCain’s offerings are old fashioned and irrelevant. He will carry on the Bush administration policies, and if that doesn’t scare you, just take a look at our current economic situation. Palin offers inexperience, cronyism, a small world view, religious fanaticism and major disrespect for our natural resources.

We would never think of telling you how to vote, but the choice seems clear to us. Even though we were disappointed that Hillary was not selected as Obama’s running mate, we know that Biden is a strong advocate for women and children as well as members of the queer community.

Together Obama and Biden offer hope and promise for the future, a better understanding of individual needs, a road toward peace through an improved world image and have become our new buzz words for change.

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Genetically testing the Olympics

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2008/09/07/9646

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Genetically testing the Olympics

by Helen Harrell with Carol Fischer

September 7, 2008

Because of a range of genetic conditions, people who look like women may have a Y chromosome, while people who look like men may not. And many times these individuals do not learn about such defects until they reach adulthood, when things can become very complicated quite quickly.

The aforementioned is a loosely paraphrased quote from a plastic surgeon who specializes in transgender medicine and was interviewed about genetic testing at the Beijing Olympics. What caught our attention was the term “defects.”

It seemed odd to us that a doctor would refer to her patients as being defective just because their chromosomes, or perhaps their genitalia, don’t meet the prescribed binary definitions of female and male. However, that may be irrelevant, given that the greater context of the discussion focused upon the validity and legalities of genetic testing of athletes in the Olympic games.

Genetic testing at the Olympics is a relic of the 1960s when some Communist countries, such as the Soviet Union and East Germany, were suspected of entering male athletes in women’s events to gain advantage over noncommunist countries. And interestingly enough, only women were tested. They actually had to parade naked in front of a panel of (dare we say voyeuristic?) doctors to verify that they were indeed female and not men in ewes’ clothing!

“Does it really matter if that co-worker in the office or cubicle next to you is a male presenting as a woman, or vice versa?”

How humiliating and insulting to spend one’s life training for Olympic-level competition only to be debased by suspicions of sexual trickery. All made worse by the fact that no “pseudo” women were ever uncovered during these examinations.

We wonder if some men are so threatened by the possibility of being challenged and even defeated by strong, fit women that they must challenge their credibility and accomplishments. Well, we know the answer to that now, don’t we?!

But don’t misunderstand, we always enjoy the Olympics, and, as former competitive sports participants ourselves, we appreciate the training, dedication and plain hard work that is involved in achieving Olympic status. We were especially in awe of the magnificent opening ceremonies, as well as the closing, and liked watching snippets about China from the inside.

Whether censored or not, the glimpses of Chinese culture were intriguing and promising. And since we are also long-time patrons of Chinese art, music and theater, the overall presentation only served to enhance the competitive experience for us.

Anyway, it’s our appreciation of athletic prowess that contributes to our consternation with the entire gender issue. And it’s our opinion that individual gender identity or orientation is pretty much irrelevant unless limited to a strict discussion of procreation.

In that case, at least in the human species, a male and female is necessary. But beyond breeding, does it really matter whether or not an individual fits neatly into one category or the other? We don’t think so.

“Gender-variant folks are not defects. … They are parents, brothers and sisters, friends, neighbors and school children.”

We think folks should be measured by their accomplishments and, in the case of athletes, maybe their skill level, weight class and/or size, but not their actual gender. Perhaps some sports lend themselves to gender division, but many of the events would have remained quite competitive with no concern for gender distinction.

Did anyone question the gender of some of the young boys competing in the pairs diving for instance? Some of them seemed to be quite feminine to us. And what about the track events or volleyball? Lots of strong women as well as men. It might be fun to see some mixed-gender competitions.

Now we aren’t saying that all sports should become gender-blind, with the elimination of all women’s/girl’s and men’s/boy’s teams. We just think it is time to consider more possibilities, maybe broaden categories of accomplishment and not penalize those who don’t fit in neat little boxes of identity.

Sometimes it seems as though most of the world cultures are obsessed with sex, sexuality and gender identity. It certainly seems true of our American culture, almost to the point where we view ourselves as the first folks to have discovered sexuality with all its nuances and, hence, responsible for defining appropriate standards, moral codes and behaviors, with all the inherent contradictions explained away by religiosity, whether real or imagined.

After all, does it really matter if that co-worker in the office or cubicle next to you is a male presenting as a woman or vice versa? Isn’t it more important that s/he be an efficient, reliable co-worker and colleague?

Or how much will it affect your life if your next-door neighbors are transgender individuals who mow their lawn, take out their trash, maybe rescue your cat from a tree or send their child off to school?

We dare say that unless you are obsessed with differences or scorn that which you don’t understand and refuse to accept individuals for who they are, that colleague or neighbor just might become a friend and someone you are pleased to know.

Discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity is just plain wrong. It is hurtful and isolates a group of individuals who have a right to fully participate in society.

“It’s our appreciation of athletic prowess that contributes to our consternation with the entire gender issue.”

Gender-variant folks are not defects. To be defective is to be broken in some way, or unworkable and unproductive. They are parents, brothers and sisters, friends, neighbors and school children. They walk among us, and we must expand our thinking to include everyone, and that extends into the sports arena as well.

Certainly we can do better than humiliate finely tuned athletes with strip searches and genetic blood tests that are irrelevant to their accomplishments.

The era of searching for a “commie” under every rock came to an end some time ago, and it is now time to put to rest paranoid reactions to a nonexistent threat such as those of various gender identities and presentations.

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Undermining our own unity

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Undermining our own unity

by Helen Harrell with Carol Fischer

July 27, 2008

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2008/07/27/9572

Lesbianism is not contagious. Seriously, you can share a friendship, work space, recreational activities, even a church pew with a lesbian or gay, bisexual or transgender person, and it will in no way effect your own personal gender identity or sexual orientation.

You don’t need a vaccine to prevent contamination, and you might even build up a natural immunity to homophobia by freely associating outside your own comfort zone and accepting the fact that love and its attractions are more than a political statement.

We recognize your possible fear that folks might define you by your association and think you are a lesbian too (gasp!), but we don’t buy that “birds of a feather” argument. If one so easily became who they associate with then we would all become one another and there would be no distinction.

Besides, we humans are supposed to be defined by so much more than our procreative genitalia. Not to mention that we could learn from one another.

“Women are still treated as second-class citizens, and lesbians are in third place.”

Now if you are wondering what has us on such a rant, it’s simple — we grow weary of discrimination in all its forms and rationalizations. And if you are someone who doesn’t personally experience unfair and unwarranted treatment it may not be so obvious to you that others of us do on a daily basis in one form or another.

Much discussion surrounds racism, sexism, homophobia, gender phobia and religious beliefs. But unless you really are a victim, much of the abuse may go unnoticed, even if you happen to be one of those individuals who cares and is sensitive to the mistreatment of others.

And many are convinced that some communities are enlightened to such a degree that no discrimination exists. These incidentally may prove to be the worst of environments because complaints are seen as the result of disgruntled personalities.

We hear comments such as, “There’s no pleasing some people,” or, “She’s just so uppity, always complaining even though women (fill in with black, gay, Jewish, Muslim, Latino or any that apply) have every opportunity now,” or, one of our favorites, “They are always unhappy regardless of what we do for them.”

“It’s important to note here that most workplace discrimination seems to be women against women.”

Take for example a workplace in a Midwestern community. If you remain silent about your sexual orientation or gender identity, then folks are content and will treat you as “one of them” (unless, especially in the case of women, you have an assertive, outgoing personality, or “look different” — meaning not quite straight or white — or don’t always agree with everyone, which translates into having an independent streak — nothing more dangerous than an independent thinker!).

In fact, we’ve known folks who have worked side-by-side for years with friendly colleagues until it becomes known that they are lesbians. Suddenly, colleagues begin distancing themselves and using avoidance tactics manifested as lame excuses for no longer getting together for lunch, or moving over slightly when passing in the hallway.

They may no longer be available for coffee breaks, and on-the-job cooperation begins to suffer. Suddenly, they seem to have lost the ability to converse, as if you now speak some rare foreign language. Familiarity becomes a threat, as if their new awareness of your orientation makes them somehow vulnerable to your attention.

Trust us here folks, we always knew we were lesbians. The new awareness is yours, not ours.

This new knowledge on your part, ladies, doesn’t mean that we are suddenly going to find you overwhelmingly attractive and behave in some inappropriate manner. And, aw, gee guys, just because you are now aware that we aren’t interested in you on a physical level can’t we still be friends and colleagues?

It’s important to note here that most workplace discrimination seems to be women against women. Is this an example of the victim attacking the victim? Women locked into lower-paid positions with little hope for improvement feeding upon one another? We wonder.

Of course, if you began the job as an out lesbian, or gay, or trans person (the assumption here being that you actually were hired in spite of this “difference”), it’s possible that you were never fully incorporated into the heart of the work arena but are treated more as a “special” employee.

Bosses and colleagues can smugly pride themselves on how open-minded they are, while being totally unaware of what separate-but-equal really feels like. Sometimes an individual may benefit from such special treatment (at the expense of other employees, which creates another reason for hostility on the part of colleagues), but more often they are overlooked for promotions, receive fewer or lower wage increases and are slighted in workplace interactions and socialization.

Such discrimination is especially difficult for lesbians, who receive a double whammy as women already suffering inequity in salary and less opportunity for advancement or promotion.

“It’s no coincidence that historically many of the feminist leaders have been lesbians.”

Enough about work. Let’s move on to another aspect of daily life — health care. Much research has shown that lesbians receive less and/or poorer health care than do straight women.

Once again we find the answer in the roots of discrimination. The health care field has been slow in incorporating diversity issues as a part of its training mission, and given that doctors, nurses, aides and office staff are human, they are just as vulnerable to personal bias and prejudice as anyone else.

The significant difference here is that they are responsible for, and make decisions relevant to, our very existence. It only makes sense that if a doctor or nurse doesn’t like lesbians or trans folks, or Asians for that matter, they might be less interested in their health and welfare.

This might also make them less aware in the hiring of office staff who handle patient records and serve as the central communication point between doctors and patients.

We personally know of instances where lesbians’ test results have not been relayed, X-rays “lost” or “misplaced,” follow-up exams delayed or not scheduled at all, and sometimes just simply rude or dismissive behavior on the part of caregivers.

We see this situation as critical, certainly a life-or-death issue and one that lesbians deal with all too frequently.

We are told that those lesbians who are seen as a bit more “masculine” suffer the most in this environment, and while we know that women who are viewed as more “feminine” may receive better treatment, they also might be viewed as less credible. You know, a woman can’t be attractive and smart too!

But our point is that if you don’t feel safe or comfortable being honest with your health care provider, then the choice is either to lie about one’s life or not seek care. Either way the lesbian loses.

“We’ve known folks who have worked side-by-side for years with friendly colleagues until it becomes known that they are lesbians.”

Women are still treated as second-class citizens, and lesbians are in third place. And of course lesbians of color come in at fourth or fifth place.

A bigger issue is that women are still almost totally defined by their sexuality or gender representation rather than their experience, ability, education, talent and contributions to society.

Women are surely more than the sum of their parts. We had great hopes for women’s advancement 20 or so years ago when Title IX guaranteed equal access in sports participation and Roe v. Wade enabled us to make our own motherhood decisions.

Opportunities have risen in both the educational and business arenas. But we’ve noticed a massive re-emergence of men, in particular white men, in all areas of our society.

As they increasingly reassume the power positions in government, business, education, even in entertainment, there is less room for everyone else. Not to mention that they also control the money, pay scales and other financial opportunities.

What better way to stay in power than to control everything? We’ve read many reports of late that women are leaving the world of work and resuming the domestic roles that trapped them for decades. Is it because women can’t compete or because they are outnumbered and being forced out or, with decreasing choices, are giving up?

“Bosses and colleagues can smugly pride themselves on how open-minded they are, while being totally unaware of what separate-but-equal really feels like.”

Well, our point here is that while women continue to discriminate against one another and especially target those who are lesbians, they are undermining their own unity. If straight women think that the men in power will help them out because they flirt with them and support them, well, think again.

And, please, don’t think that we are men haters and have failed at relationships with male family members and friends. Not the case, just not so. There are lots of wonderful guys out there. But it’s obvious that our society is one of patriarchy and out of balance.

All groups and individuals deserve equal opportunity and representation, and women, lesbians or not, have waited long enough. It’s no coincidence that historically many of the feminist leaders have been lesbians, and while they may not have been mothers or wives themselves, they were speaking up and fighting for the rights, health and welfare of wives, mothers and their children.

And we still are.

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Campaigns, Pride and change

OUT IN BLOOMINGTON: Campaigns, Pride and change

by Helen Harrell with Carol Fischer

June 19, 2008

With perennial optimism we always anticipate that monsoon season will end and spring will arrive. This year spring was long and chilly but typical of Indiana weather that fluctuates like the wind. We are now, WHAM, smack dab into summer.

We are always impressed with the determination and bravery of the little spring flowers who weather late season ice and snow to bloom in glorious colors. They are awesome to behold but perhaps paled a bit this year in comparison to the determination of the two Democratic presidential candidates. The change to warmer weather was indeed abrupt and not unlike the end of the campaign between Obama and Clinton.

After months of being drenched in rain and the competitive dialogue, debates, not-so-subtle slandering and then pandering to various groups as well as one another, it’s over, and Clinton has literally disappeared from the scene. WHAM again! Makes us wonder what it was really all about anyway. Seems way too coincidental that for the first time ever we had two candidates from the most disenfranchised groups in our culture taking center stage in a run for the highest office.

Perhaps it was a strategy to address issues such as racism, evangelical radicalism and sexism in a forum less threatening and publicly offensive. Taking pot shots at one another was perhaps seen as more palatable and tactful than waiting for the critics and public to take up those issues.

Whatever the reason, it seemed to work because we heard less talk about the issues and more about the candidates. Oh, maybe that was part of the strategy too — focusing on the individuals and their personal stand on the state of things in the good ole USA.

Maybe its just us, but it seems like the election should already be over and Obama elected. What more is there to talk about? We think Clinton won the popular vote and Obama won the delegates, or maybe it was the other way around. Such details become foggy sometimes since we don’t seem to elect folks based upon real, popular vote but rather all sorts of manipulation with paper ballots, electronic ballots, super delegates, regular delegates, absentee ballots and all those disqualified ballots based upon some fuzzy reasoning.

And then there is the issue of all those who aren’t qualified to vote because they can’t prove personal identity — hmmmm. But clearly the public has been exposed to the issues and possible solutions, so what more is there to say leading up to the November election? We don’t have to listen to McCain because we have heard his words for the past eight years. No change to be had with him.

Now we’ve said before that we would be happy with either Clinton or Obama and only slightly preferred Clinton because she is a woman. Was (see how quickly she has slipped into the past tense?) she the right woman? We think so because she is experienced and brilliant. But unfortunately she carries some baggage from her husband’s presidency, none of which was her fault!!! Not fair we say.

Obama is equally brilliant, perhaps not so experienced, but that could prove to be an advantage in making promised changes. Well, anyway…

In our typical lesbian fashion, we’re making an abrupt climactic change in focus and moving on because it’s June, and that means celebrating LGBT Pride. Some folks seem to think that we shouldn’t spend time prancing about and celebrating ourselves, that somehow it is selfish and boastful to enjoy a couple of months or weeks out of each year to recognize who we are, what we do and how we contribute to our culture.

Well, we disagree with such curmudgeons who are depressing downers and probably feel guilty for being homophobes, even if they are straight or lesbian/gay themselves. We deserve recognition, and no one parties better than an LGBTQI crowd!

Can you even imagine what a music scene, or theater, movies, costuming, decorating, etc., would be without us? Eeeeks! Nearly nonexistent and not so brilliant we dare say. Even those of us who aren’t perhaps artistically inclined still seem to have a sensitivity for the aesthetic in our surroundings and incorporate such aspects into daily life.

As we are wont to do each year, we attended IndyPride on June 14 and even marched in the parade. If you aren’t one who is discriminated against on a daily basis, then you can’t appreciate the feelings of comfort and safety that come with being surrounded by 40 or 50,000 others who do understand.

And while there is always the presence of those few protesters who try to make us feel remorse for being who we were born to be, we see police officers, corporate sponsors, local businesses, politicians (Indiana Congressman Andre Carson actually gave a short welcoming speech, and just last week Barack Obama made a broad national statement about accepting and incorporating the LGBT community into our society. Didn’t we say the election should already be over? So there!!), and most importantly families who do love us and share in our angst.

Actually, when we think about it, family seemed to be the key to this year’s event. We’ve attended many Pride celebrations over the past decade or so, and each year the crowd is a bit different. Years ago the tone was one of activism and rebellion and attendees were more defiant about who they were and why. And while there is still that element, we noticed more individuals who just seem to be comfortable with themselves and are simply having a good time.

Today’s youth are more accepting, and lets face it, the majority of the crowd was a whole lot younger then we are. We very much enjoy the newfound confidence of the younger generations, and instead of lamenting that things weren’t so great when we were their age, we rejoice in still being around to experience these positive changes.

We mentioned family a few thoughts ago, and maybe that is the real key to the new uplifting spirits. Family support creates an element of legitimacy, and everywhere we looked at this year’s Pride we saw entire families together. Men, women, children, lesbian, gay, straight allies and trans families too. All eating, drinking, dancing, talking and, most importantly, sharing a bit of themselves with one another.

And, given that Pride celebrations and the LGBT movement in general have a reputation of being largely white (and male), we were encouraged, excited even, to see increased numbers of Hispanic and black families. We saw no fighting or hostility (except for those few very morose and unhappy looking folks on the corner protesting our existence — makes us wonder why anyone would want to convince others to be as unhappy as they are!) even in the crowded beer tent.

LGBTQI Pride events have been around since the first march was held in New York City in 1970. The first national Pride march took place in Washington DC in 1979 when more than 100,000 protested singer Anita Bryant’s anti-lesbian/gay crusade.

As one might anticipate, early parades and marches were mainly confined to the larger urban areas like San Francisco and NYC but have now expanded to smaller towns and rural areas around the country. The growth, expansion, popularity and success of Pride parades and celebrations is tantamount to major cultural change and is paradigmatic of the development of the queer movement into a mass movement for equality.

However, while fun and frivolity abound, we must note that the LGBT community still has not achieved full civil rights or equity in most countries, including our own. And while we celebrate we must continue to work toward the vision that someday soon our community will be accepted into society as equal to all others.

While our Prides are entertaining, educational and even amusing, they are once again no substitute for representative democracy.

Gay marriage advances, still under siege

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2008/05/26/9287

Gay marriage advances, still under siege

by Helen Harrell with Carol Fischer

May 26, 2008

The folks in California are celebrating, and for good reason. Last week the California Supreme Court ruled to overturn the lesbian/gay marriage ban which could soon lead to legalized queer weddings in the nation’s largest state. If so, California would be the second state after Massachusetts to allow same-gender marriage.

In a 4-to-3 decision, the state’s high court determined that domestic partnerships are not a good substitute for marriage. And while the justices did not say that same gender couples must be allowed to marry, they did determine that same-gender couples must be treated equal to opposite-gender couples. For example, the state could decide that marriage is for churches and offer civil unions to opposite gender-couples.

But then same-gender couples must also be offered civil unions. If the state recognizes opposite-gender marriages, then the state needs to recognize same-gender marriages. Since California already offers domestic partner benefits that include legal rights and responsibilities similar to marriage, it seems only logical that the next step is to extend full marriage rights to all couples.

This court decision is a result of a lawsuit filed in 2004 by the city of San Francisco, a few dozen same gender couples, Equity California and several other LGBT rights groups. The lawsuit was in reaction to the court’s halting of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to perform same gender marriage and a proposed constitutional amendment banning same gender marriage that won the popular vote by 61 percent in 2000.

The California legislature has twice passed full-marriage legislation, neither of which were signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. While the governor has said he would support the decision of the Supreme Court, he does not support the marriage amendment, and he believes that voters should decide the issue.

Such inconsistency does concern us because once again a high-ranking official is playing politics with our lives.

It is interesting to note that six of the seven judges were appointed by Republicans, and all of them were reconfirmed by popular vote of over 70 percent. This just proves to us that party representation varies across the country and not every Republican or Democrat fits neatly into conservative or liberal categories.

We realize that California is one of the more liberal states, and yet there is movement afoot by a coalition of religious and social conservatives who are attempting to put a measure on the November ballot banning same gender marriage within their state constitution.

We doubt they will be successful given the court’s recent decision, but then that’s California, and our confidence in such fairness does not come to mind when we think of our own state of Indiana. It has already been conjectured by many that what happens in California will set the tone for other states.

We wonder if what happens in California has more impact on the Midwest than actions taken in Massachusetts? We believe that the resistance to same gender marriage is greater in the Midwest, and while decisions in coastal states may be somewhat influential in helping to desensitize those fearful of change, we sense an evangelical zeal (a resurgence at the very least), over passage of SJR7 (the constitutional amendment banning same gender marriage in Indiana).

We predict (and we don’t need a crystal ball to do so) a marriage protection amendment to the Indiana Constitution in the next Indiana General Assembly, perhaps affecting all unmarried couples. Of course this move will be as misguided now as it has been in the past.

***

We know that Eric Miller and the American Family Association (AFA) have never stopped making noise about same gender marriage and how it is supposedly a threat to traditional marriage. We’ve never understood their argument because we see no rational reason why our relationships and contracts would have any impact on their lives, relationships or contracts.

In fact, their narrow-minded perspectives and desire to control the lives of others is much more detrimental to us than we are to them. However, as much as we disapprove of their message, their tactics and their often misleading and twisted logic, we recognize that they are a large, tightly organized and well-funded group who must be taken seriously.

They are strong advocates of Sen. John McCain for President (eeeks!), and we wouldn’t be a bit surprised if some of them slipped over to the Democratic side temporarily and voted for Hillary Clinton in the Indiana primary because they think she is more likely to lose to McCain than Barack Obama. Of course, they might not want to vote for a black person either, but we aren’t talking about racism at the moment (we’ll leave that for another column).

The AFA is the leading proponent of the same-gender marriage ban in Indiana, and the organization is not going away any time soon. Several politicians, who are perhaps weary of the issue and probably really do believe in justice and equity, have tried to point out that Indiana law already confirms marriage as legal only for opposite gender couples, thereby making an amendment unnecessary.

Undaunted by such rational fact, the AFA folks continue to browbeat us with their own religious and political fervor to institute hostile discrimination into our state’s constitution. Ignoring the separation of church and state issue completely, they use biblical references to validate their own homophobia and draw on arguments of fear, hell fire and damnation to control their ranks. Never defining their own agenda (which is really to make everyone just like them–conform or suffer and die) they attack what they refer to as the homosexual agenda as a destructive social force.

Now we’ve never actually heard any lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgender folks talk about an agenda. So we think the AFA is probably just confusing the pursuit of life, liberty, happiness and equity with fascist thought control driven by contempt for those who actually do enjoy life and love one another. Ever been to a Pride celebration? Well, they are fun and everyone enjoys themselves with laughter, music, dancing and –uh, oh, we see why they don’t like us. We just enjoy life too much.

Well, excuse us — get out the cat ‘o nine tails and horse hair shirts and let’s suffer!!

Seriously, folks, with all of the Pride events coming up in June, where you’ll be having a good time celebrating, keep in mind that we have a long way to go before we can enjoy democracy and equality with everyone else.

There is strength in numbers, so stand up, stand together and be strong. And while we do salute the victories of our comrades in California and Massachusetts, we know that the battles are not yet won for everyone. We must continue to speak out and stand tall and proud.

We look forward to the day (and we believe it will come eventually) when the civil unions and marriage issues are behind us. Why? Because we need to focus our attention on broader social issues, such as racism, sexism, poverty, overpopulation, unemployment, spousal abuse and violence, ecological matters, health care and improving our world image.

We also must make changes to a government that basically serves the wealthy and cuts support for programs that help those most in need. State and federal government must stop recognizing, and using, those who distract the populace with harmless social issues such as marriage that really are insignificant in the larger picture and instead focus its energies on uniting folks in an effort to improve life on this planet for everyone.