Rick Warren, The Inauguration and Human Rights

Definitions:

Pedophilia: noun; sexual feelings directed towards children.

Bestiality: noun; sexual intercourse between a person and an animal.

Incest: noun; sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.

Polygamy: noun; the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. See also polyandry; polyamory.

Marriage: noun; matrimony, wedlock, union.

I’m going to guess that the above definitions may make you uncomfortable. If not, it has, I’m sure, piqued your interest. The necessity for those definitions will be made clear in the course of this essay.

The other day I heard snippets from an interview with Rick Warren, the conservative preacher Obama’s transition team invited to the inauguration. In it, he stated many of the same arguments that social conservatives use to discredit our fight for marriage equality; basically, that gay marriage would open the debate over things which are, if not flat out lies, highly misleading and doesn’t take the issue of marriage seriously.

The arguments tend to be along the lines of “protecting the institution of marriage” or “protecting the children.” In this very brief message Warren stated that he was also against pedophilia, bestiality and incest, implying that homosexuality is on par with the aforementioned situations. He holds this opinion despite the fact that the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association decided in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from their list of mental disorders (the American Sociological Association did the same in 1969).

Allow me to clarify our (the gay rights movement) position. We are not trying to redefine marriage. This struggle is not even about marriage per se, but rather a step towards equality. We want to enjoy the same rights as every other American, rights they have, in theory at least.

I suppose it goes without saying that I am offended to be lumped with the Mr. Warren’s list of abominations, each of which has a legal or biological justification for their prohibition, because they either manipulate one party or are a sign of social alienation.

A marriage is between two consenting adults who wish to have their relationship acknowledged by the State (which studies have shown actually helps to strengthen relationships), to enjoy the rights granted to married couples and to accept the responsibilities that marriage carries. The definition above clearly does not deal with sex or gender; it is simply a union, although I would bet that the Yes on 8 campaign could find a definition to augment their argument.

And now to look at some of the groups/ideas we have as a minority been lumped with. Bestiality is a psychological condition (which, as I pointed out, homosexuality has been removed from that list decades ago). Further, according to the above definition, the sex and/or gender is not apparently necessary for cognizance of the situation. It is not between consenting adults, or humans for that matter. I really doubt that if gay marriage were to be federally recognized that people would start clamoring for bestiality rights. Animals are pets and food, not spouses.

There are numerous, valid arguments against pedophilia. Probably the most misunderstood or unknown fact, though, is that a vast majority of pedophiles are white, heterosexual men, not homosexuals. That is not to say that other demographics are incapable of being pedophiles; I just felt that observation was necessary. Further, no matter how someone justifies such activity (and anyone can find justification for their behavior when it comes down to it), it is still not between consenting adults; it is manipulation and is usually more about power than sex, much like rape. People under the age of eighteen are not allowed to enter into contracts; in many states, eighteen year olds are given restricted driver’s licenses (the idea being that, despite their age, they still need supervision as they are not considered fully competent, though others may disagree with me), and, as long as they’re in college, they are not considered independent until they turn twenty-four for financial aid purposes. In fact, one could make the argument that even at eighteen, there should be restrictions on marriage. How many eighteen year olds really know what they want to do with their lives? The idea of “high school sweethearts” is simply that: an idea. In some ways, I’m glad that gay marriage wasn’t legal when I reached the age of majority; it probably saved me from making some really bad decisions. Perhaps normalizing gay marriage, though, would actually have a positive effect on our decision making process since we will be able to make better, more informed decisions regarding our relationships through having a better understanding of the rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage. I know I got off on a tangent with this one, but there really is no fear that people will start fighting for pedophiliac rights. A marriage, in fact, is a contract and must be between to consenting adults, because children are incapable of understanding the consequences of such actions.

Contracts. That brings me to another tangent (hey, at least I acknowledge when I’m being discursive). Marriage has always been defined as a contract. Not that it never occurred, but the idea of marriage for love is relatively new phenomenon in historical terms, dating most prominently from the Victorian Age and the rise of women’s emancipation. Marriage was used to cement alliances, keep property in the family or to acquire more property. It was about maintaining and accumulating wealth, not love. There are many stories of people who were forbidden to marry someone or had their marriage annulled because one of the spouses was of the wrong social class. St. Augustine is a good example of this; his mother wouldn’t allow him to marry the mother of his child because of her social status, even though he did actually love her. Tiberius, the successor to Augustus’ throne, experienced a similar situation. So when people argue that they are trying to save the “sanctity of marriage,” they are in fact, if I may be so bold as to make a sweeping generalization, full of it.

Another of Mr. Warren’s objections is incest. Despite the fact that this could be between consenting adults, the biological ramifications are simply too great to legalize such unions. It is no coincidence that almost every society has, if not in their legal code, moral objections against incestuous relationships. One needs only to look at the aristocracy in most societies to see why. In order to keep their bloodlines pure (for instance, by refusing to marry someone below them socially), many monarchs and other blue-bloods, even through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, would only marry other royals, and, considering elites tend to be a much smaller portion of the population, this often meant they had to resort to incestuous relationships. One of the last Hapsburg royals was so deformed he could have been a stand-in for the Elephant Man because of this perceived need for purity.

Culture also plays a rather large role in how we as a society define marriage. Polygamy is a perfect example of that. For us in the West, the idea of having multiple spouses seems foreign. Yet, in many contemporary cultures, marriage as defined as a partnership between two people is certainly not a majority. In one of the “stans,” (unfortunately, I don't remember which one) a former Soviet state, the tradition is for the husband to actually kidnap his wife. If he succeeds, they get married; she does have the right to resist, and if she prevails she isn’t required to marry him. Many countries do prohibit polygamy, but by no means all of them. I only have a rudimentary knowledge of polygamy, but Islam originally allowed for polygamy, up to four wives; Mohammad, however had numerous wives, usually to fortify alliances (going back to the contractual nature of marriage), so long as the husband was capable of supporting them all equally.

So, what do we want and how does that relate to these alternative (to be polite) forms of relationships? A caveat, however: these are generalizations and I don’t claim to speak for the entire queer community; my intention is to highlight trends. Perhaps it would be easier to say what we don’t want. We don’t want to have more than one spouse. We are not trying to redefine that aspect of marriage. We do not want to legalize pedophilia as we, too, understand the negative effects on children that can last a lifetime. We are not asking for incestuous relationships. We simply want the right to marry the person that we love and have that relationship valued equally in our society. We are asking for nothing more than equal rights, our rights as citizens and as humans. We are tired of being second-class citizens and we won’t give up until we are all equal in the eyes of the State and the people. I don’t expect everyone to embrace us with open arms; I do want them, though, to realize that we are entitled to our rights. No Republican (hopefully) would suggest that the rights of Democrats be taken away, no matter how much they may disagree on fundamental issues we face as a society. Why should it be any different for our queer brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and friends?

We are not monsters. We are not trying to fundamentally change our society. We are simply trying to be fully active, first class citizens, just like the majority in this country. If people like Rick Warren are trying to take our rights away, then who will be next?

A Perspective From the Hill

So I got a text message the other day that Barak Obama said he was a “fierce supporter of gay rights.”

What does that mean for the gay movement? I recall an interview with him where he said that he couldn’t support gay marriage because of religious beliefs. Obama belongs to the same denomination that I do: the United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the Church of Christ). I know for a fact that my, our, denomination doesn’t tolerate ANY form of discrimination. In the documentary “ The Believers,” they show that the denomination, which is primarily white and heterosexual passed a resolution supporting transgender rights. Therefore, Obama has no leg to stand on (pardon my cliché) when it comes to religious observance. I honestly hoped that since he belonged to my denomination that he would support us, but I was sorely disappointed.

Admittedly, he has to tow the party line, but what if a person stood up to that? What if he stood up said that this was wrong and that it relegated the queer community to second-class citizenship? Many of his prospective appointments are from the queer community. Obama obviously has no qualms about gay rights. Why won’t he say it? Activism doesn’t follow party lines and I challenge and queer organizations to refute me. That is my challenge to the gay community: Prove me wrong. Prove to me that the Democrats will actually do something for us. Obama has created an amazing grassroots movement and his transition team actually listens to what these groups are saying. Right now they are talking about health care. We need to make them talk about civil rights.

The Gay Rights Movement is the civil rights movement of the twenty first century. We need to stand up and tell our institutions that we won’t stand for anything less and our civil and human rights. There has been a lot of talk about whom he has chosen to be the person to perform the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. I know we don’t agree with him, but we cannot battle individuals. We need to win individuals to our cause, not make enemies of them. We are fighting institutional discrimination. I know that this begins with the individual, but it has become ingrained in the institutions of our country. That is whom we are fighting; we are not fighting Mormons, we are fighting the Mormon Church. We are not fighting the Christian Right, we are fighting the institutions they have created. My best friend for a decade was Mormon. I’m sure his family believed I was going to hell, but you never would have guessed it from their behavior. I called his parents mom and dad. They loved me. My lifestyle they may not have agreed with, but they never judged me for it.

So now we have it. We are at a crossroads of change. What are we going to do? There are so many directions that we can go, but we are fractured. We need to unite; we need to have one voice. WE HAVE NO CHOICE. If they can take away a person’s civil rights by a vote, then when do they stop? Our so-called leaders aren’t doing it for us. We must take matters into our own hands. We have experienced setbacks, but we will prevail. It’s not if, but when. What are you going to do to further our cause? Are you going to sit on your ass or are you going to do something about it? I went to a march/rally the last week. It was very powerful. I was in the streets shouting that no one will take my rights from me (I lost my voice). Have you ever felt the pain of your rights being taken away? I’m not a full member of our democracy; I am a second-class citizen. But as a citizen of this country I will accept nothing less than full equality.

What are you going to do to change that? Will you accept your position or will you fight for your rights? CIVIL RIGHTS ARE NEVER GIVEN, THEY MUST BE TAKEN. Will you take them?

My Critique of the State of the Gay Rights Movement

There are many of aspects of the gay movement today that have gained my displeasure, to put it mildly.

First, the No on 8 campaign. I feel we got off to a slow start. The polls were on our side. We thought that Californians wouldn't really take away someone's civil rights. Also, we didn't seriously start doing any fund raising until the end, by which point, the Yes on 8 people had been gobbling up copious amounts of money from many special interest groups, often from out of state.

I also feel their strategy was ineffective. Why were people telling me at Castro and Market to vote no on 8? Sorry, but that one is a no-brainer. We should have been going into other communities. We should have been going into communities of color; we should have been engaging in dialog with religious communities (which, I would like to point out, were not all against us. .we could have used that). Our ad campaign was lackluster, at best. We were so timid, conservative even. I'm not saying we should have reverted to the lies the Yes on 8 people promoted, but we could have been aggressive with the truth. We didn't take the religious Right seriously. Urvashi Vaid said that one of the biggest mistakes that the gay community has made is that we have underestimated the power of the religious Right by writing them off as extremists. They may be extremists, but they know how to organize and they know how to raise money. And, ironically, the Yes on 8 people were using the exact same argument they used in 1978 with the Briggs Initiative: Save the Children. Have we learned nothing in the thirty years since Anita Bryant and John Briggs? I have an analysis of that, too. More on that later.

As for the gay movement, or gay community as a whole, where were we? Where are we? The spontaneous outbursts of anger after the election were inspiring. My husband and I have been to the candle light vigils; we've been to the rallies. They have been amazing. But why weren't we in the streets before the election? Where were we then? So many people I know felt that putting a No on 8 sticker next to an Obama sticker on their hybrids counted as activism. Activism is more than stickers. Activism is not being afraid to say no. No more.

Which leads me to my next criticism of the gay movement. I feel we have abdicated our power, our authority, to groups that have basically become political action committees. I feel the Human Rights Campaign and Equality California, among others, have their place. We need legislation; we need judicial review. These are the groups, though, that told people not to marry in California and go back to their home states and sue because the time isn't right. Who are they to tell us what is right for us? Do they really know what is best for the average gay person that has to deal with real life, not with the suits in Washington? We have also put too much faith in the Democratic Party. We assume they are on our side. Name one straight, national Democrat with any power that has come out and said they support gay marriage. There are none. Why should we align ourselves with a group that doesn't have the b*lls to come out and say this isn't right? (pardon my language). There is, I believe, no substitute for the power of the people in the streets.

I've been studying Harvey Milk a lot lately. I saw the movie which was very inspiring; my husband and I cried the whole time. I've been reading Milk biographies. I've been reading his speeches and his political that he recorded 9 days before he was assassinated. Let me make it clear that he is a hero of mine, but I don't idolize him. He was human; he did things that I don't approve of, for example, he told people he had been dishonorably discharged from the Navy for being gay, which he later told Anne Kronenberg he only said to get votes. But no one is perfect, especially in the realm of politics. It's what he stood for that inspires me. Milk always said that he wasn't the candidate; the movement was the candidate. He also bucked the middle-of-the-road gays that wanted to align with the Democratic Party. Milk also believed in the inherent goodness and capability of people to do what is right. Milk said one novice off the street was worth more than ten seasoned cronies.
I find it very sad what happened to the movement after Milk was assassinated. It fractured. Many of the people became the people Milk railed against. They followed the same tactics he abhorred.

Then, before the gay community even had a chance to regroup, AIDS hit. I think that, the beginning of the AIDS crisis, after Milk's assassination, was the single most disastrous thing to happen to the gay community. AIDS wiped out almost an entire generation of gay activists. I believe that AIDS broke the continuity of the movement. The activists that were still alive were too busy trying to fight AIDS, which the country was ignoring. President Reagan didn't even say the word "AIDS" in public until 1986, well after the epidemic started.

Now we have a generation of young gay people who don't know who Harvey Milk is (hopefully, the movie will change that). They don't know Cleve Jones, Anne Kronenberg or Harry Britt, while others, are not recognized for the work that they did, like Tom Ammiano. Ammiano was part of the movement in the 70s, but now he is primarily known for being a city/county supervisor and now assemblyman. They don't know what these people did for us; we have people coming out to their families at much younger ages; we even have gay public schools in some places. The reason that the dynamic changed is because of the work these people did. And most don't know who they are. We need to reestablish that continuity.

But we are living in a different historical moment. We no longer need to carry whistles in case we get jumped just for being gay, though maybe we should, there have been at least 30 gay murders so far this year. We don't think twice about walking down the street hand in hand. We also have all of this new, and wonderful, technology at our fingertips. Like Bruce Hartford, a veteran civil rights activist said, we should use the new technology, but don't get seduced by it. It can be a very powerful tool; we need to learn how to use it effectively.

In sum, we need to get back to basics. We need to get off of our asses and out into the streets. We need to stop relying on the "kindness of strangers," or the political clout of groups like HRC and EQCA. We need to stop believing that the Democratic Party will eventually give us what we want. Like Mr. Hartford said, no one is given their rights; they have to take them. We are angry. We need to express that anger. We need to take our rights. Get on your computer and shoot out a few mass emails, post a few blogs, donate a few dollars, but please, please, get out into the streets. Start talking to people. Don't just talk to your friends. Talk to strangers. Talk to people you wouldn't normally talk to. Harvey Milk said that if everyone knew just one gay person, we would win. And they did in 1978. If you're gay, come out. If you're straight, come out and say you support your gay friends, your brothers, your sisters, your coworkers, everyone you know.

I'll end with a quote from Harvey Milk that always makes me cry, partially because we haven't listened.

"If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door."

A New Campaign

I am asking everyone to come out to at least one person per week. Ideally, I'd like it if everyone came out to one person per day, but that might be a bit ambitious. The point is, though, Come Out! It's much harder to say no to someone when they are looking you in the face.

Spread the word! I want every straight person in our wonderful Golden State to know at least one gay person. Part of the problem is that many straight people don't know that they know someone gay. I know, that for any number of reasons, it is hard or may seem impossible or dangerous to come out, but we have to take that step. They have to know that we are here, that we are part of their community and that we're not going away.