The Homosexual Patriot

There was a consistent theme among the campaigns of Tea Party candidates, and within the propaganda of the continuing Tea Party movement, that they are on the side of 'truth' and 'liberty'. Most of us probably remember being taught at young ages that lying is bad, that we are supposed to tell the truth, meaning admit to something we've done. For some this is a religiously informed moral issue, for some it is a matter of developing a firm ethical mindset not dependent on a religious ideology. For most of us, though, we are taught that there is one truth, one reality, one concrete right and wrong.

As we grow up, however, and especially as we educate ourselves about the world around us, we recognize that 'good' and 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong' are often subjective. On an individual level it is easy to differentiate between the two in terms of one's own actions and behaviors. When we expand our scope of subject to a whole community or even a whole culture, things grow very murky. That is one thing that empirical data and facts are supposed to help clarify. One of the benefits of science, and specifically how it's been applied to social sciences, is that we have quantitative descriptions and results of surveys regarding the impact of our behaviors. These surveys and studies, however, are not entirely faultless, they can be skewed toward a specific answer or research goal, questions and problems designed to find certain outcomes.

This is one reason why we look toward independent groups, groups not tied to, associated with or who financially support political campaigns and ideological groups. We have many organizations like this in this country, some are directly involved in statistical analysis and we see their names most often during an election season as they tabulate polls. The other body we look to for empirical studies and information are to independent universities, either non-religious private schools or even religious private schools known for impartiality, or toward public universities. Even within these bodies are individual researchers and professors looking for specific answers or for answers that reflect their own beliefs. There are, however, standards imposed on them and critical analysis and discussion of their work, including refuting articles and surveys to disprove overtly skewed and partial findings.

Why am I mentioning all of this? Because it becomes very important when looking at political candidates, campaigns and specifically campaign ads. The idea of a campaign ad is to either stress all the good things about a specific candidate or to attack their opponent. The art of an attack ad, as I see it, is to make the opponent look bad and distance them from the electorate, all while making the candidate sponsoring the ad either look good by comparison or attacking in a way that doesn't cause a negative reaction against the sponsoring candidate. We saw this with several ads that had, with some, drastic, impacts on the campaigns and ultimate defeats of certain candidates this year. Jack Conway, for one, ran an attack ad against Rand Paul that included information about activities of Paul during college when he was 19. That ad allowed Paul to inch ahead and ultimately claim a strong victory. Sharon Angles with her ads tying Harry Reid to illegal immigration was another ad that had blow back, or in which there was a negative reaction back on Angles.

Ideally we'd like to think that even though ads stretch the truth or skew the truth, that they do present the truth. Often, and I'd like to say that it happens more often with Republican candidates but I know that's not true, the truth gets so obscured by the message the ad tries to convey or by the spin on the facts presented that the facts actually are misrepresented or are outright lies. Sharon Angles, for example, in her ad tying Harry Reid to illegal immigrants outright lied about portions of legislation he helped sponsor or move forward in the Senate, claiming they did exactly the opposite of what the language really was about. This was part of the way the Tea Party worked, they were responsive only to message and not to facts or reality.

Then enters the National Organization for Marriage and the Iowa elections. This organization along with Focus on the Family, and the seemingly credible in name only Family Research Council, spent millions on a bus tour around the state, including candidates for Iowa legislative positions, all aimed at removing three of that state's Supreme Court justices. The message they tried to promote was that Iowans should have been allowed to vote on same-sex marriage, that the judges were engaging in the worst kind of 'judicial legislating' or 'judicial activism'. That message resonated with voters in a state that has often been mainstream liberals, part of the upper Midwestern Democratic political base arising from the farmer and labor unions and incorporated into the state Democratic parties. In MN, for example, the state party is called the DFL, or the Democratic Farmer Labor party as there used to be, decades ago, a separate Farmer Labor party.

I've written over and over again about the hypocrisy of the Tea Party movement, and of its outright ignorance of both the political process and politics in general. This, however, is less about the Tea Party voters across the country and more about the politics of it all. There is no 'liberty' or 'freedom' while one group of Americans is denied the same rights that are expected and taken for granted by another group of Americans. Also, and many of our founders recognized and remarked on this, the rights of the minority should never be put up to a popular vote. The majority would never choose to advance or protect the rights of the minority. This is what we've seen in a number of states where the issue of same-sex marriage has been put to a vote. This is also why we see political blow back from enough of the Iowan electorate to successfully remove three justices from the state Supreme Court, an act that has never happened in that state's history. The argument by the anti-marriage people is that the citizens have a right to vote on the measure. That somehow by upholding their constitutional responsibilities as interpreters of laws and their constitutionality, the Supreme Court had overstepped their authority and infringed on the rights of state voters.

Just to rehash the historical significance of the same-sex marriage judicial decisions versus the voter rights issue, inter-racial marriage laws existed throughout the country until one case on the matter succeeded through the federal court system and eventually to the Supreme Court, thereby striking down all laws barring inter-racial marriage in this country. If there was to be a popular vote on the matter during the 1950's and 60's when that case was being considered, would the voters have recognized the rights of those individuals? No. How can I tell, because the representatives of those voters in the legislative branch never repealed that law, and in fact had fought all through that period to keep Jim Crow laws and segregation. A similar case happened in the more recent case in which the Supreme Court struck down the anti-sodomy law in Texas after two gay men who had been in the privacy of their home had been arrested and charged with sodomy. That law had remained in place until the court struck it down, and then not long after voted to ban any and all forms of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples both within the state and unions from other states.

So now we get to the crux of this idea of 'truth' that I talked about earlier. We have decades of studies supporting the positive impact of gay civil rights on gay individuals, on their communities and on our society at large. We have multiple studies proving that children raised by gay couples are in no more danger of being molested, turning gay or doing poorly in school as those raised by heterosexuals. In states where gay marriage has already been the law for most of the decade, namely Massachusetts, there has been no significant impact on the marriages of heterosexual people, churches haven't been forced to recognize or perform gay marriages, and people of faith haven't been forced by the state to accept homosexuality in a way contrary to their beliefs. Gay people and the recognition of their human and civil rights are a reality in this country just as they are a reality all around the world. In nations around the globe there is greater tolerance and acceptance of LGBT people and even recognition of their relationships. Some of the nations that already have same-sex marriage are surprising as they are historically and predominantly Catholic. Others that are just as surprising have civil unions, civil partnerships or domestic partnership laws recognizing the rights of LGBT couples.

When groups like the National Organization for Marriage parade around and yell about 'truth' and about 'freedom', they are lying to people. From their perspective the rhetoric they are using is important, is necessary to save their vision of America, and is the truth. What is apparent to anyone not central to that organization or to groups like Focus on the Family is that what is also clear is that what is important to them is hatred. For all of their talk about freedom what they really want is the ability to discriminate and hate with impunity. They want a state that reflects their ideas and beliefs while rejecting anyone who disagrees with them. A state constructed around their ideology would only permit sanctioned behaviors and would punish anyone who didn't fit into their rigid models. What's probably most ironic about these people is that there is a total disregard for policing their own behaviors. While purporting to be Christians they act without charity or compassion, they denigrate and demonize whole groups of people and use dehumanizing language to depict two specific fictional narratives, one a reality in which gay marriage is legal and America descends into complete chaos because of its depravity, the other a fictional tale of America returning to some version of itself that never existed and was never possible in part by prohibiting immoral behaviors.

This is the same ideology that would outlaw abortion, and following the logic of outlawing any non-sanctioned behaviors, then pornography would be illegal, alcohol would be illegal, smoking would be illegal, literature and media, especially the internet and video games, would be censured for anything deemed illicit and for violence. They parade around their own moral behavior and cite examples of the 'truth' as dictated through the research of groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, as well as specifically anti-gay groups like Exodus International. These groups represent their 'facts' as empirical and their opinions as representative of the majority of people in this country, but here is the hard reality - these are political organizations. They fund ads campaigning for ballot initiatives and either for or against specific candidates. They participate in lobbying and campaigning through passing out literature, signing petitions and on-the-ground campaigns, meaning knocking on doors and making phone calls. These are not the activities of departments at a university that puts out studies and surveys. It is not the behavior of independent polling groups.

So what is the 'truth'. As the Senate Majority Leader in Iowa said recently while quoting his daughter in speaking to a group of conservative men denigrating gay people and same-sex marriage, "You've already lost. My generation could care less." That is the problem with all the people who want to prohibit behavior and demonize whole groups of people. As we move forward even fiscal conservatives are socially progressive. That is one of the reasons why Megan McCain is worried about the radical elements of the Tea Party pushing the Republican party into irrelevancy. Our nation was founded on radically progressive ideas that we all should not only have rights, as other nations had those, but that we should be an entirely representative government in which we are governed not just 'by the people' but also 'for the people'. Any act, then, that exercises those 'inalienable' rights is a patriotic act. Anyone who would deny those rights to any one citizen or who would obstruct their pursuit of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is then unpatriotic, and un-American.

Thereby, all people of the LGBT community who live their lives in honesty, whether publicly open or not, and who pursue their own vision of who they are and what they want their lives to be is a patriot. It is a revolutionary act to challenge a norm dictated to us by an inflexible and violently fascist societal regime. When they gain political power or control over us we then must make our voices heard even louder and be that much stronger in our conviction not to be dictated to or to be intimidated into fear. Just as the Tea Party enjoys their right to free speech, so to do we, and while they use rhetoric of fear and divisiveness to demonize us and sway public support against us, so too do we have the power of truth and of reality and honesty. In a time when pundits and political fascists try to pervert our perceptions of reality with untruthful polls and un-factual studies, we have the face of honesty and moderation, we have families and individuals who look just like their neighbors and who work alongside everyone else without disrupting others' lives or their communities. We have family members and close friends who have swayed the opinions and hearts of others through love and inspiring those others to open their minds and hearts to the LGBT community and our civil rights.

For all the rhetoric and slogans and political speeches, it is not the Tea Party who are patriots with their fake activism and their historic costumes. It is the minorities of educated people, intellectuals, a group demonized in every other corrupt regime around the world, of LGBT people living their lives in honesty and with respect, of ethnic and racial minorities who refuse to be shut out of institutions of learning and traditional career fields. We are the patriots, we are what makes America a 'melting pot', a blending of cultures. Without us this would be a very different nation. If America is a place of acceptance of diversity, of freedom and of honesty and compassion, then anyone who would deny others rights they themselves enjoy are the poison that is helping to destroy our country.

The Progressive Left....And Right

The Democratic Party doesn't hold a monopoly on 'liberal' or 'progressive' ideals. The fact is that there are Dems who are in fact just as not-progressive as most Republicans. This is illustrated by the fact that there are plenty of men and women in Congress who either have direct ties to corporate and industrial interests like the oil companies and investment banks and hedge funds. It is also as problematic as the far right taking ownership of words like 'liberty', 'freedom', and 'patriot'.

At its heart 'progressive' thinking isn't the property of one party or the other, or any independent party masquerading as a legitimately independent group. We see this often when staunch and loyal Republicans who are not running for office speak out in support of civil rights, most noticeably now in the debate about LGBT rights. My favorite example of late is Meghan McCain. Here is the daughter of a Senator and former presidential candidate, an educated young woman who has experienced the best and worst parts of being on the campaign trail and participating in the most competitive national election in the election cycle. She often writes about how the GOP, by embracing candidates who aren't just Christian but extreme far-right Christians, and by using rhetoric of exclusion are setting themselves up for becoming obsolete and irrelevant.

That is part of the nature of our current political climate, though. Everyone has drawn their battle lines and claimed their labels and titles. And no it isn't fair for us to play the 'us' and 'them' game. But the truth is that there are people who are progressive thinkers, people who see that the only way forward is by leaving behind older technologies, older economic ideas, older political policies and adapt to the technologies and shifting geopolitical issues of our modern world. Progressive thinkers aren't necessarily behind green energy solutions because they are environmental activists, they're behind green energy because they recognize irrefutable proof that global climate change is already affecting our lives and will grow a bigger threat in the future. They support green energy because they recognize that as most industrialized countries either have already or will become prime markets for environmentally responsible technologies. They support it because they already see the nations who regularly rank higher than the US in quality of life and see the advanced public transportation, the clean energy solutions, the responsible consumerism and no lessening of the strength of the economy because of it.

Progressive thinkers recognize that some issues are apolitical and shouldn't have to impede our debate about economic and foreign policies. They have read the Bill of Rights and Constitution, were raised with the understanding that 'all men are created equal' and 'inalienable rights' should actually apply to all people, and with a spirit of empowerment. Perhaps it is just liberal idealism, but progressives, no matter their religious or cultural beliefs, recognize that every person deserves the same rights afforded to their peers. They recognize that just because a topic makes them personally uncomfortable does not give them the right to infringe on the rights of another. These principles then don't conflict with their personal religious beliefs nor their fiscal policies.

Younger generations seem to have more progressive thinkers, although we know from the cultural shifts of the 1960's and 70's that progressiveness was tied to youth then too, but also see that those progressive thinkers don't always remain progressive thinkers. This is an important part of the discussion, too. Should politicians not be thinking toward the future? Should they be acting as the parent who think they are right and want to impose the correct decisions and values onto younger generations on into the future? Or should they recognize that ideas and values evolve and that they should be making policy that is either adaptable as well or that reflects the direction our culture is going? Perhaps if more politicians were progressive thinkers they would have already have made some progress in recognizing and fighting cyber-bullying among young people, or cyber-terrorism on the national security front.

In a time of economic struggle like we have today it is difficult to recognize the commonalities between culturally progressive people. We are too busy drawing our battle lines in a two-party system and primarily because of the stark economic policy differences. It is just a shame, though, that regressive thinkers, all those people who clearly have forgotten the disastrous consequences of Reganomics and the recession of the 1980's, or even worse, those people who somehow romanticize pre-WWII America, have become the most visible and vociferous members of the GOP.

In a time when more and more young people have friends or loved ones who are gay people, when they've had more interaction with people of other cultures and races, the GOP isn't just in danger of becoming obsolete. If the Tea Party is any indication, the GOP of the pre-1990's with its social moderates has already become obsolete. They've abdicated their political authority first to the Christian Coalition during the 90's in an attempt further solidify political power, and now as the Christian conservatives have taken control of the Tea Party and the separatist/militia movement/libertarian/angry white people brand of politics, the true Republicans no longer hold the reigns of their own party.

President Obama and the Gay Left

Something pretty incredible happened recently. After two important rulings regarding the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the US military first declared that the policy violates constitutional rights of service members and people considering entering military service but that in at least the instance of a specific flight nurse the policy actually hindered readiness and morale. The primary reason given by those opposed to repeal is that allowing gay and lesbians hurts readiness, morale and group cohesion. Recently, the judge who declared the constitutional issue via a ruling in a lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans issued a worldwide injunction basically saying that anyone and everyone involved with the military administration and chain of command must immediately halt any and all procedures involving implementing DADT.

Now, those on the progressive side of politics, progressive Republicans as well as Democrats, have seen the faces of service members who were discharged, some of whom have honorable and highly lauded careers as well as specialized skills such as being Arab linguists. As most US citizens support the repeal, and as the military struggles in many areas of recruiting and retaining qualified and talented service members, it becomes apolitical to support the cause of repeal.

And then there's the position of the President. From the beginning of his campaigning for the support of the LGBT political left Obama has made repeal of DADT his clinch issue. Many other issues important to progress of gay rights do not really have national platforms or attention right now, nothing like the attention on DADT. Because of that, it was an extremely important to securing the kind of financial support and political action from groups like the HRC.

From what I understand, as Commander in Chief, the president had the power to immediately halt the investigative process in the discharging of gay service members. While it wouldn't outright repeal the policy, it would have kept hundreds of qualified and awarded members of the military from being removed from service. As of now, Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, has given instructions to the military to halt enforcement of a key part of DADT, which is the involuntary outing, so basically the witch hunts and the investigations prompted by rumors from other service members of a service member's sexuality. One of the reasons he did this was to prompt a more 'humane' approach to enforcing the policy and was done around the time that they commissioned the study on the most effective way to implement repealing the policy. The president could have done that more than a year earlier.

It is important to note, and this is something that conservative Republicans, and those who repeatedly used anti-gay rhetorical reasoning in their committees, so not necessarily outright derogatory remarks but rather lines of reasoning based on base stereotypes and horrible prejudices, is that it is only a matter of time before it is repealed. Nearly all the military leadership recognizes and wants this to be repealed. The President and the Secretary of Defense are committed to repealing it, one way or another. The majority of citizens think it makes no sense and support repealing it and allowing open service. Thus, it's only a matter of time, so while they argue against repealing it, that's not the issue cause it's going to be repealed. The issue, in terms of their filibusters and nay votes, has been when they would implement the procedural activities involving repeal, not whether it would happen at all.

So the problem now for the President is that he's got not only two court cases, landmark cases, that justify repeal and rule against the policy's constitutionality, but that there is now a legal injunction in place preventing any implementation. Does he have the Department of Justice, which was the group acting as the plaintifs in both cases and basically arguing for the constitutionality of the policy, appeal the ruling on the Log Cabin Republican's case and the subsequent injunction? They have already started the appeal process for a recent ruling in Massachusetts that overturned DOMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act put into place after gay marriage was allowed in Hawaii, a situation that has since been changed through voter memorandum. The argument about DOMA was made around the distribution of federal benefits by the state to married same-sex partners and the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause to the Bill of Rights, which guarantees that any legal contracts recognized in one state, be they private or business contracts or whatever, must be recognized by all other states. DOMA specifically defines marriage on the federal level as between a man and a woman, and rejects any same-sex marital status from a given state in terms of federal pension and social security benefits and everything else on the federal level. It also said that any state can decide for themselves what the definition of marriage is and choose to not recognize marriages from other states. They will appeal that ruling.

In light of the Justice Departments decision to appeal the DOMA ruling, and in light of the fact that the White House has taken a soft position on the repeal of DADT as wanting it to be done by Congress, it is not certain whether they will then appeal this ruling as well. These are important cases and would be hugely influential on all civil rights laws, just as those regarding African Americans were in past decades, if they reach the Supreme Court. As there is, right now, a balance that slightly favors the liberal end of the Court, it would be a good time for these cases to go before them. The problem for Obama and for the gay community is, if Obama has them appeal the DADT ruling as they are doing with DOMA, they will be not only acting against their position on repeal but in fact will be standing against the progress of LGBT civil rights.

There are arguably three cardinal issues in struggle for LGBT civil rights. The first is same-sex marriage, which is probably the most divisive issue nationwide. Eventually, no matter how much the religious conservatives in this country speak out against it, gay marriage will be a reality. All conclusive evidence in terms of polling and studies done about election turnouts indicate that the country is growing more and more supportive with younger generations, and sorry to say this but eventually those who think they are on the correct side of the issue by opposing it are going to die off. Most likely they'll die off soon as most of those who oppose it are older. The second cardinal issue is Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This is the one that has been most pressing in the past two or three years and the one that Obama took the most decisive progressive position on. The third and possibly fourth issues are same-sex adoption and then policies in schools dealing with the harassment of LGBT youth.

Obama has now made a serious misstep in terms of a progressive, pro-civil rights position, on one of these cardinal issues in having the Justice Department appeal the DOMA ruling. That particular ruling is pretty solid and has legal precedence behind it in the overturning of laws prohibiting interracial marriages. If that goes to the Supreme Court, however, no matter what the outcome the repercussions across the country will be significant. Ruling in favor of striking down DOMA would be a move towards considering the issue of the legislation and amendments to state constitutions, which cannot violate the federal constitution. The DADT ruling, however, and particularly the injunction are on much shakier ground as they are unique, they do not have the backing of precedent and while the constitutional issue may be upheld by the Court, the injunction could be challenged on multiple fronts, including the separation of powers clause.

President Obama has not taken decisive action in repealing DADT. Instead he has issued strong positions while implementing soft actions, failed to put the necessary pressure on Congress to proceed in a way that was conducive to passing repeal, and now may or may not appeal the most conclusive and decisive action taken on the policy, this time by the federal courts, thereby either directly compromising his position on repeal or, if choosing not to appeal, taking no action at all as another branch of the government altogether takes the hard action. Either way there has been a profound failure of decisive leadership. If promises and policy positions are to mean anything, a leader needs to take strong, clear action on them. If he pledges his support to a policy position and promises to do whatever it takes to accomplish the goals of that position, it means nothing if he doesn't take action to achieve those goals. By stating publicly, both in meetings with LGBT lobby groups like the HRC and in the State of the Union Address that he was going to make sure it was repealed, he must make good on his promise. He hasn't done so, though. Instead he has abdicated that function to the courts while providing just enough political action to give himself cover if the issue is brought up by progressives in his own reelection campaign.

Mr. Obama promised to be a fierce ally and advocate for the civil rights of LGBT people. He has said multiple times that he is committed to the repeal of DADT and not done nearly as much as he can in order to ensure repeal. Can the LGBT community then really claim that Obama is our ally? John McCain, during his election campaign, also took a pro-repeal position. He might have been the principle senator in filibustering the repeal legislation but if he had won the presidency, who's to say he wouldn't have worked toward repeal. When it comes time to start drawing battle-lines for the 2012 presidential campaign, when Obama begins soliciting campaign contributions and looking to excite the progressive base who were instrumental in his initial election, will the LGBT community show up in similar numbers? Will we give in similar amounts or act with similar force as we did in 2008? If the major policy issues the President can affect are decided through the courts and there isn't much left for him to do, then the question will be should we support him as we did. In a year when there may possibly be a Sarah Palin nomination for the Republican candidate, we may have no choice. However, when we have such immediate issues as the recent gay teen suicides to deal with and organizations that can benefit those youth directly with our contributions, wouldn't our money be better spent there rather than on a candidate who proved himself to be at best a useless ally?

Should GLBT people abandon Dems?

It seems like Obama, despite the continual promises of support for GLBT rights, especially the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it seems like the administration and the Democrats in general aren't able to live up to campaign promises and take decisive leadership roles on GLBT issues. In fact, between the Dems who supported McCain's filibuster and the lack of leadership by Obama administration, perhaps it's time that the HRC and major GLBT supporters of the Democratic party should be changing the focus of our fund-raising efforts to put more effort into supporting GLSEN, Lambda Legal, and organizations that support members of the military. I think it might be time for us to give up on the idea of these politicians to support us and for us to make more of an effort for us to take care of our own.

This isn't to say we should totally abandon Democratic and Independent candidates, and any others who pledge to support GLBT rights, that would be a mistake, but we should make our disappointment and displeasure heard by withdrawing financial support. If our political are more interested in keeping their jobs than in actually leading, maybe it's right for them to be voted out now while we have a Democratic president to veto Republican legislation and find candidates for the 2012 elections that are going to take strong stands.

One reason I am bringing this up is because of two recent cases of young teens, both 13 year old boys who were known to be gay, who because of extreme bullying in school, attempted suicide. One of the two shot himself and is dead, the other is on life support after hanging himself at home. This second victim had left school to be home schooled because of the peer torment and was still being bullied. It is unacceptable that just as these students are coming to an awareness of their sexual orientation at earlier ages that we aren't drastically increasing our efforts to protect them.

It has always been difficult for adult GLBT people to mentor young people. It is all too easy for supportive adults to become targets of accusations of sexual misconduct. This doesn't, however, make it any less important for us to put our efforts into supporting organizations that provide support groups, social opportunities, and safe spaces for our youths. If support from the government is being opposed by people on the conservative Right, or even the anti-gay center, than we should put our money power into supporting our young people.

Whatever steps we take in the future, we cannot allow our community to abdicate responsibility for our most vulnerable, thereby giving conservatives the ability to successfully limit our outreach programs and community support. If Obama and the Democrats can't take firm action on DADT, something the president could end with a single Executive Order, than we need to find leaders who will.