When Barack Obama was elected to the office of President, he provided the hope of a president that might finally be more concerned with equality over playing the game of politics in order to appease. At the same time Proposition 8 passed in California, legally invalidating the feelings, desires, and certain necessary legal protections of same-sex couples who want the right to marry and be recognized with equal citizenship, Barack Obama was celebrating his victory as the new leader of the United States. And I think possibly, in the minds of many of those disappointed by the passage of Prop. 8, we thought that maybe with this new, young, idealistic president who ran on a platform of hope, there may be some recourse after all.
It's now been a little more than a year since President Obama took office, and same-sex advocates are getting restless (actually, "angry" works here too). He was supposed to bring change, but change has been slow in coming. Of course, personally, I didn't expect that change overnight. The man has a lot on his plate, including a leftover war (s), his baby health care reform (which I am for), and the rest of anything else that impacts the U.S. Regardless, there does seem to be an awful lot of red tape when it comes to anything having to do with LGBTQ rights. President Obama proclaimed that he was a supporter of LGBTQ rights, including adoption rights, civil unions (but not marriage), protections from discrimination in the workplace and inclusion in hate laws that determine certain crimes when committed based on a persons orientation are in need of extra special punishment. And I think he has tried to make good on some of these issues, but he appears very concerned with keeping the scales in balance so he doesn't piss people off. He did however appoint Kevin Jennings, a man who is openly gay, as his director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools (who conservatives have been whining about, smearing, and morally condemning since day one because he didn't report a sexual relationship between a male student and an unnamed male adult; of course the kid was 16 and of legal consenting age. . . and of course because Jennings is gay he'll be wanting to push that "homosexual agenda" into kindergarten classrooms and start recruiting centers in every cafeteria).
Any change in legislation aimed at protecting LGBTQ rights has been challenged nearly every step of the way by conservatives who keep shouting the paranoid, bigoted phrase "homosexual agenda!" like they're shouting "foul!" during a baseball game against a team they particularly loathe. I find it fascinating that conservatives only really appear concerned with free speech when they are threatened with not being able to play "smear the queer" on the congressional floor or on the school playground. In a recent article put out by Fox News (yes, I know, everyone asks me why I read this crap, but I am a firm believer in knowing what certain people are up to), it was claimed that "A bill in Congress that would prohibit discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender identity could stifle free speech and even lead to "homosexual indoctrination" in the nation's classrooms, critics say". See for yourself here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/22/anti-lgbt-discrimination-stifle-free-speech-critics-say/. Really?! Not allowing bullies to torment other students based on sexual orientation or gender identity via slurs and harassment and generally making LGBTQ students lives living hells is stifling free speech!? Even better:
"The real danger is how this will be interpreted," said Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank. "The definition of harassment could be broadly interpreted that anybody who expressed a totally legitimate opinion about homosexual behavior could be made illegal.
That's a violation of those kids who want to express opposition to LGBT opinions or behavior. People have a legitimate reason to be concerned about this -- not because they're 'haters' but because you're now trying to balance different rights."
Wow. Well, my totally legitimate opinion is that Mr. McCluskey is an ASSHOLE. And to be quite honest, if I were a child expressing this TOTALLY LEGITIMATE OPINION about another child at school, as in "Teacher, Johhny's an ASSHOLE and Marcie is a WHORE", I'm pretty sure that not only would my name end up on the board with a couple of check marks after it (some of you have no idea what I'm talking about), but I would probably also be expelled for sexual harassment and possibly have to register as a sex offender for the rest of my life. But apparently, if I want to express the TOTALLY LEGITIMATE OPINION that Johnny is a FAGGOT, then I get a gold star, a balloon and possibly an invitation to join the GOP? WTF?!?!
Another long standing and major point of contention is the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy, and this is another issue that Obama has made known that he doesn't agree with and would like to get rid of. Essentially, for years we've been telling gay men and lesbian women it's ok for you to be proud of and die for your country, but personally, you have absolutely nothing to be proud of, and by the way, you're going to hell. And this is where it gets interesting; conservatives appear to not be totally against gays and lesbians serving in the military openly. Don't get me wrong, I have yet to see a conservative jump for joy at the notion, and I have heard opposition, but the tone of the opposition is not nearly the same tone as conservatives take when it comes to an issue like, say, marriage. It seems that considering military enrollment is down, conservatives aren't totally against sending openly gay men and lesbian women into combat. . . to die. So maybe this isn't all that interesting, just more of the expected. With marriage, conservatives take a over-my-dead-holier-than-thou-body attitude, with the military, it's more of a hopefully-over-your-dead-abomination-of-a-body-and-try-to-take-one-of-"them"-out-with-you attitude.
I don't get it. When the statement was made "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", I don't think Don't Ask, Don't Tell was what was in mind. In fact, when it comes to equal rights and equal protections under the law, everyone should be asking what exactly their country can do for them. One of the most patriotic things, we are told, that we could ever possibly do is serve in the United States military. Members of the military risk their lives to protect our freedoms, our equal rights, our human rights and our ideal of the pursuit of liberty, happiness and justice. Unless you're gay. Or lesbian. Or transgendered. Or Bisexual. Which leads me to ask this question: If one happens to identify under the umbrella term LGBTQ, why would one want to serve in the military? Why choose (joining military with possibility of dying for your country = choice; sexual orientation as LGBTQ with possibility of dying because of who you love = not a choice) to make yourself a part of an institution that obviously doesn't have your best interests in mind, in fact perpetuates stereotypes, promotes bigotry and personal oppression, and has made it quite clear that you are not wanted? I'm pretty sure the answer is something along the lines of because they love their country and even though LGBTQ people have continually gotten screwed over, their patriotism and allegiance ranks high in their personal qualities of importance list. And maybe also for the hope that one day, they won't simply be defending everyone else's freedoms and human rights, but their own as well.
In fact, I sometimes wonder what incentive ANYONE has in joining the military, especially considering that the people I know who have served, experienced trauma, and made it home alive are being screwed both by the VA and the school benefits they were promised. In my personal opinion, while I don't agree with war and bloodshed, if you have served in the military in a war or conflict, doing what you feel to be your patriotic duty to protect the pursuit of liberty, you should be given a parade, an all expense paid trip to somewhere peaceful and possibly tropical, good health and medical benefits for life, and an education at the very least. I would have no problem with my tax paying dollars going towards the "Veteran Vacation, Health and School Fund".
Currently, our government, with the backing of President Obama, is considering repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in favor of the more enlightened policy of "Please For The Love of God, Country, And We're Running Out Of Good Soldiers, Join The Military". But apparently change comes uber slow in this country, and in order to change the current military policies regarding gays and lesbians, officials want to conduct a year-long study to assure themselves that this is a good idea ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/23/gen-casey-expresses-concerns-overturning-dont-ask-dont-tell/ ). Not that other countries have been laughing at our policy and allowing gay men and lesbian women into their military with generally no issues for quite sometime, and not that conducting a study will do a whole lot more than remind us all that our military leaders are much more homophobic than other nations' militaries, but what the hell, we have a great economy and a year long study is just what we need to be spending money on (although I do bet the pen and paper used to sign an official statement reading "This policy is stupid and hereby repealed" is probably cheaper and faster). Regardless, I do believe Don't Ask, Don't Tell will eventually be repealed. And then I wonder, what comes next? After all, how is it right that the only time a gay man or lesbian woman gets to utter the phrase "Til death do us part" is upon signing their life over to the military?
Realistically, if our government finally deems gay men and lesbian women human enough and good enough for the military, then more must follow. After all, how can you expect men and women to fight for freedom and liberty but still deny them the right to marry, the right to have their love recognized and respected on the same level as hetero love and relationships, and the right to the same protections that hetero individuals and couples receive? How can you provide a married hetero couple protections so that even when a husband or wife is away at war, they don't have to worry about whether or not their spouse is sufficiently provided for should something happen to them and not provide the same to same-sex couples? Having a gun pointed at you is bad enough, not knowing what will happen to the people you care about does not make it better.
For heteros in the military service, a large part of support comes from a spouse or loved one back home. Pictures are hung as reminders in the barracks of the goal of making it home alive to something beyond bullets and blood. Letters are shared on nights with comrades to keep ones mind off of the constant sound of boom. Proud military mothers and fathers share pictures of children and families, and looking at these pictures reminds them of why they are fighting a war to begin with. Right now, as a gay man or lesbian woman, this type of support, be it bonding over family stories with comrades, keeping a picture posted, or simply even being able to receive a letter from a lover in support, is really not allowed. There isn't of course a "no letter" or "no picture" policy aimed at gay men and lesbian women, but if someone were to find a letter from a same-sex spouse or lover, or if a picture was kept handy of a same-sex spouse or lover and found, that would be grounds for immediate dismissal. I'm sure there are ways around this, secret codes same-sex couple can use, but why should same-sex couples have to keep one of the most important parts of their life a secret from people who, I have been told, bond so closely that they are like brothers and sisters, especially when no one else has to?
When "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed, more will have to come. This country's government cannot continue to deny equal rights to people who are fighting to protect everyone else's rights but their own. I've heard people often complain that it's stupid that you can join the military at 18, die for your country, but it remains illegal to have a drink until the age of 21. Well, if people feel that strongly about a nasty tasting beverage, maybe they should try thinking in broader terms, like, how stupid it is that men and women join the military who are more than willing to fight and die for your human rights, but are not given the same courtesy in return.
I hope that our President recognizes this. I in fact hope that he planned it this way. And while I prefer blunt tactics, if this is the only way to play the game of politics, then I hope we win. More important than a second term is a change in how people treat each other. It is sad that we as humans are so out of control and judgmental of each other that we even need laws and protections, but that is how it is. I just hope that our current President chooses to be a leader who goes into history as a man who stood for respect, equality and human rights, even if it costs him another term.
