4/22/11

At a San Francisco fundraiser on Wednesday of this week, Obama was talking about how his work was not finished, and that it would take more than one term to get done everything that he wanted to get done.  In the middle of the speech, someone shouted out, "gay marriage!" and Obama again replied, "Our work is not finished."  Some people are taking this to mean that Obama was dropping a hint that gay marriage is a part of his "unfinished business."  I have been following Obama's remarks about gay marriage throughout this social movement blog because obviously he plays a big role and holds a large stake in the issue, and because I think it's interesting to try to figure out where he really stands on this issue.  It's remarkable that during the duration of this assignment, I have gone from speculating that Obama secretly fully supports gay marriage, to learning that Obama made a statement about the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, to speculating that my first speculation was completely off.  And now this comment from him sparks further debate about where he stands.  Only time will tell where Obama's "evolution" on the matter will take him next.
(http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/04/another-obama-hint-on-gay-marriage.html)

Another interesting story: Gary Johnson, who supports legalizing marijuana, abortion rights, gay rights, opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and doesn't go to church, is running for president as a GOP candidate.  This is interesting because obviously his stances on these issues would lead you to believe that he was a liberal Democrat.  Could this be a starting point where more and more Republicans begin to extend their libertarian philosophies to social issues as well as economic ones?  I think it's time they do.  Again, only time will tell.
(http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/former_new_mexico_governor_gar.html)

And lastly, coming from a silly source (Perez Hilton--who I love, and love to hate), more people than ever before are supporting gay marriage.  Actually, the graph that Perez presents is pretty cool:

The blue line represents people that are for same-sex marriage, and the red line represents people that oppose same-sex marriage.  Now, I have no idea where Mr. Hilton got this graph from, but still, it's interesting to look at.  And of course, Perez says all of this much more eloquently and funnily than I ever could, so I would say read his blog post about it:
(http://perezhilton.com/2011-04-20-public-opinion-in-favor-of-same-sex-marriage)

4/15/11

In a small win for the gay rights movement, a New Jersey school board has stopped blocking pro-gay websites on middle school and high school campus computers.  Two NJ high school students complained about the blocking of the sites to the American Civil Liberties Union, which I'm assuming is kind of a big deal to make a complaint to them.  The students argued that gay-bashing sites were not being blocked.  I can't believe that this kind of thing is still happening ins schools.  It seems so not with the times.  I mean, I also am dumbfounded as to why gay marriage is not legal, but at least that's a little more legitimate and has lots of con arguments that people are making.  But banning websites is just unacceptable.  Sometimes it takes this kind of story for me to realize that social movements really do take time to reach the entire country and across the globe.
(http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/12/new-jersey-school-stops-blocking-pro-gay-websites/)

Columnist Richard Socarides from the Huffington Post is arguing that the Census should count the number of gay people.  They count race, gender, and ethnicity, so why not sexual orientation?  He tried this argument for the 2000 Census, and they said no, because of timing issues.  It was too late.  But Socarides thinks it was more than this, and I think so too.  In his words, counting sexual orientation in the Census would "be an implicit acknowledgement that we were an integral--and out--part of the American family, an idea that was probably too provocative for some."  I completely agree with him; I think that a big part of the reason that people do not support gay marriage, despite the myriad of different reasons, is that people are afraid and homophobic, and this applies in this Census case as well.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-socarides/gay-power-strength-in-num_b_848281.html)

Maryland's gender identity anti-discrimination bill has died in the Maryland State Senate.  "Among the tactics used to defeat the bill was the Not My Shower website, which claimed that heterosexual men in dresses would invade public locker rooms to molest little girls."  I don't think there's really anything more to say about that.
(http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/04/maryland-gender-identity-bill-dies.html)

4/8/11

Following Obama's announcement that DOMA is unconstitutional, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services decided to put deportation proceedings on hold concerning immigrant married same-sex couples.  But this week, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have decided to deport those couples.  This is because the Obama administration said it must still support DOMA until it is repealed, which prevents U.S.-born individuals from sponsoring a foreign-born same-sex spouse. Which really sucks. To me the fact that they still have to support it sounds like complete BS, but then again Obama does have to follow the law and "what the people want." Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, had this to say:

“USCIS had it right the first time. We should put a halt on the deportation cases of all married, LGBT binational couples who are currently being discriminated under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This unfortunate backtrack means more LGBT families will be ripped apart because our immigration laws only give protections to heterosexual couples.”

I completely agree.  This story popped out to me among the throngs of gay rights blogs, news stories, and websites I get sent to my email every week because just this past weekend, me and Jill attended the Trans-forming Gender Symposium for our project right here on CU's campus, and one of the events we attended at the symposium was a film entitled "Esmeralda del Desierto."  After the film, which is about an immigrant transgendered person trying to get to America to have her procedure done, we listened to a talk by a man who advocated that the immigrant rights social movement and the gay rights social movement need to work together.  They currently rarely do, and he argued that it would benefit both groups in the long run if they shared ideas, successes, and failures.  Maybe the USCIS should take a page out of his playbook.
(http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/house-lawmakers-chastiae-immigration-officials-on-gay-immigration-stance/)

Speaking of President Obama, Bill Maher has made a bold statement that I have also been thinking for a long time now: "Now that a Cheney, a McCain, and a Bush have come out to support gay marriage, it's your turn, Obama."  Obama has said that his views are still "evolving" around gay marriage.  I have always thought that Obama secretly completely backs and supports gay marriage but knew it wouldn't get him the presidency, so he hid it.  But now I'm not so sure.  More and more, it really seems like Obama is sort of struggling with this issue.  Maher left these parting words: "Who are you waiting for?  The state of Alabama?  The Reverend Fred Phelps?"  Ha.
(http://www.gayapolis.com/news/artdisplay.php?artid=7796)

This story also caught my attention this week.  The NAACP is electing a new generation of leaders, who, in many cases, are not African American.  These leaders say that broadening the NAACP's message to include civil rights for people of all races, including Latino issues and gay rights, is really what the organization is about.  But others are saying that doing this would dilute the mission of the organization that was founded to represent African American people.  I think it's great that NAACP wants to broaden their horizons, because it would include many more people within their mission.  However, this might also be a problem because it would affect the strong identification that some black people feel for the NAACP.  Black issues may get put on the back burner in some cases while the organization focuses on different issues.  So I can see both sides of this.
(http://www.npr.org/2011/04/04/135121163/new-naacp-leaders-broaden-groups-mission)

4/1/11

Happy April 1st and April Fool's Day!  This week marks the 25th anniversary of the passing of the gay and lesbian rights bill in New York City.  Even though the idea of including sexual orientation in non-discrimination laws was thought of in New York by a group called the Gay Activists Alliance in 1971, New York was actually one of the last states to pass this law.  I thought this article was interesting because the title is "25 Years of Gay Rights in New York," and that just shows how long this battle has been played out publicly and privately for even longer.  Also, we can't really say there's been 25 years of gay rights in New York, there's been 25 years of a law; the 'rights' part has been taking a little longer.  The fact that New York was one of the last states to pass these laws strikes me as well because now, New York is thought of to be one of the more "gay-friendly" states where most people support gay marriage.
(http://www.gayapolis.com/news/artdisplay.php?artid=7732)

It's being advertised that on April 15th, a gay civil rights group from Hungary will hold a protest in Budapest.  They are protesting a draft of Hungary's new constitution.  In the constitution, marriage is defined in a way that is segregating.  The group says the constitution goes against its fundamental purpose of "promoting social cohesion." I think it's interesting to talk about something like this happening in another country, Europe specifically, because, because the chairman of one of the groups protesting says himself that "this is unlike anywhere in Western Europe."  Everywhere else bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, and by my understanding many Western European countries have passed pro-gay marriage laws.
(http://www.politics.hu/20110331/gay-rights-groups-to-hold-protest-against-new-constitution-on-april-15)

A new study by the Public Religion Research Institute shows that support for gay rights is growing among Catholics.  The study shows that Roman Catholics are more supportive than the general public and other Christians.  FOr example, 63% of Catholics support gay and lesbian people serving openly in the military, and 60% favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt kids.
(http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=1320132)

In Indiana, a 40-10 vote decided that a new amendment to the Indiana constitution would be passed banning gay marriage AND civil unions.  Amendment sponsor Senator Dennis Kruse said that the amendment would "provide maximum protection for the basic family unit of society."  This represents a perfect example of a retentive argument.  This senator wants nothing to change, and is scared of what the "family unit" might become, even though it has already changed and this senator makes himself seem scared and naive when he talks about the "basic family unit."  Gay and lesbian couples aside, the basic family unit is no longer so basic.  It's already changed.  In that way, the senator is also using a reversive argument, because he wants things to go back to the way they were.  He wants to persuade people that this direction we're going in is dangerous, and it will threaten the families of the future.
(http://news.collegemedianetwork.com/news/ind-senate-oks-amendment-banning-gay-marriage)