The Voice of Apathy

A few days ago, I wrote an article in which I asked whether or not gay people should up and leave the South. There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding that article, from facebook comments, tweets, as well as even a YouTube video, on how the LGBT community should deal with the persecution that we face daily within this particular region of the country. Though, as many commentators have pointed out, homophobia and transphobia exist in all areas of the country, there is something particular about the level of disgust for our community in the South, and it is because of this discrimination that we face on a day-to-day basis that many have called for an exodus of LGBT people from these states.

As I said in that article, the belief that we must leave our homes, families, and lives so that we can be accepted, is not only counterproductive to our very movement, but makes us cowards and not deserving of the rights that we are entitled to have. That article argued against the voices of 'reason', in favor of staying and fighting. It argued against willfully giving up, and knowingly backing down.

But my focus upon these voices of cowardice has seemed to muffle the other voice that cries out at our community, a voice that is just as, if not more dangerous than the former. The voice of apathy.

I wrote a piece in October that touched upon the voice of apathy, and how it impacts our fight for equality. When I observed the level of excitement and involvement by our community when it came to participating in Mid-South pride, I was struck with profound sadness. I wrote that,

In some estimates given, there were thousands of LGBT people and straight allies at this event; yet does this "pride" in our community spill over into the ballot box? We can have floats and marchers galore, but how many of these people who put time and energy into building a float, put the same time and energy in advocating for our legal and social equality? Why does our community come out in droves for events such as Pride, but yet when we have the option to elect pro-equality members of our city government, no one shows up? 

LGBT southerners might bristle at the notion that we must leave our homes so that we might be more equal, yet where are we when our religious institutions speak out against equality? Where are we when our state governments consider legislation that would have devastating effects upon our community? Why is it that  more gay men are at the bar on a Saturday night than at a rally trying to defeat amendments that enshrine discrimination in our constitutions?

To be blunt, our community is selfish; we expect others to do the hard work for us. I know this from personal experience, because there have been many times where I have unwittingly bought into this selfishness. I have told myself, "why should I write a letter to my representative or editor, I am sure that someone else will do it, it probably won't get published anyway".

We might not intentionally listen to the voice of apathy, but our lives show that we do. We spend hours insulated within our little communities, without venturing into the 'real world', where homophobia and discrimination exist. We try to hide ourselves, not wanting to recognize that we exist in a fundamentally unequal society. We tell ourselves, "I'm not planning on getting married anytime soon" or "My boss is OK with gay people, so I don't need any employment protections" as rationals for doing nothing. Because we do not see these inequalities as being pertinent to our lives, we don't feel the need to address them. Instead, we focus on the instant gratification of our Pride parades, our bars, and the cute guy who winked at us at the grocery store. Are these bad in an of themselves? Not at all!! But when our focus becomes these instant pleasures versus the long-term health of our community, we must ask ourselves whether our priorities are out of whack.

Many will find issue with my analysis of selfishness and its relationship to apathy. To some, there are legitimate reasons to not getting involved, such as ones emotional health and well-being. To these people, the negativity and the constant barrage of hatred that surrounds our fight is too painful. It may be too much for them to constantly hear from society that they are "inferior", "deviant", or "going to hell".  Though such feelings are understandable, I would challenge these individuals to consider how such pain is actually perpetuated by not doing anything. We do not exist in a vacuum, for cultural attitudes have both direct and indirect impact upon our emotional well being. If we exist in a society that 'hates' us and where it is ok to openly compare LGBT people with pedophiles and murderers, we will still feel and have to deal with such pain. Instead of working to end such pain, silence reinforces it, and lengthens its approval within society. Additionally, it could be said that when we engage in advocacy, we establish for ourselves a safety net of emotional support. No longer are we gong through this fight on our own, but instead can be encouraged by others who are working through similar problems.

Our community has some amazing people that put enormous time and energy into fighting for our rights. In Tennessee, I know many individuals who have made it their priority to make this state a welcoming haven for all Americans, no matter what sexual orientation or gender identity they have. Yet these individuals can only do so much. They need our help to make our society safe for our community. Instead of listening to the voice of apathy and wallowing in the selfishness of complacency and instant pleasure, we must stand and fight.

Should Gays Leave The South?

On their facebook page today, Out on the Town Magazine asked a question of their readers regarding the status of equality for LGBT people in the South. Their post said, “a lot of comments on these stories place blame on gay Southerners for choosing to live in such an intolerant place. How do you respond to people who believe its “your fault” for being discriminated against in a region we consider our home?”. 

Such comments regarding LGBT people in the South are not an anomaly, for I have also noticed, on both LGBT and non-LGBT blogs and news articles, comments that have the same tone.  To these commentators, many of whom live in more progressive states like New York and California, it is incomprehensible that LGBT people would willingly subject themselves to the overt discrimination that exists in the states of the South. They can’t understand why we won’t pick up and move to places where we won’t be fired because of our sexual orientation or gender identity; and they can’t understand why we stay in states where religious leaders and politicians are able to spew vitriol, lies, and hatred openly about our community.

Though I am not from the South originally (I hail from Illinois), I consider Tennessee more of my home state than where I grew up, and thus, it is quite discouraging for me to read many of these anti-Southern comments. Yes, it is known that the South has a long way to go when it comes to equality for its LGBT citizens, but is “retreat” the answer to the hatred that we face? Should we allow the people and the states of the South to continue in their persecution of LGBT children and adults, yet offer no rebuttal or fight? Does that not make us cowards and undeserving of equality, when we won’t even fight against our oppressors and instead capitulate to their hatred by leaving for greener pastures?

The attitude that LGBT people should just leave states that are not welcoming, whether they are in the South or not, also fails to recognize that LGBT adults are not the only ones who live in these states.  Many times, LGBT children are not given the option, or even have the resources, to pick up and leave these oppressive environments. Are we to sacrifice their well-being so that we adults might feel more equal? If all the LGBT adults are gone, who will be there to fight for anti-bullying legislation? Who will be there to offer support and guidance to these children when they experience discrimination and persecution in their lives? Yes, there will be straight allies, and God knows I love them, but these children need role models who have experienced the same persecution, yet have overcome it.

Those who say to us, “come to the welcoming states, why would you want to live in the South” want us to take the easy way out. Though they might not realize it, by asking why any LGBT person would want to live in a bigoted society, what they are truly saying is that such societies are too far gone to be of any use to our community. I reject this notion, for I see the South as having the potential to be a haven for LGBT people, and I am thankful that are people in my life who have stuck it out, fought the good fight against the constant barrage of hatred and discrimination, and who strive to make an impact for our community each and every day.

Gay Kids Choose To Be Bullied

The bullying of LGBT children has become a common theme of late, with state governments around the nation addressing this controversial topic. Just this past Friday, a 14-year old boy from Tennessee took his own life because of the constant harassment and degradation that allegedly went unaddressed by school officials. Countless others have taken their lives over the past few years, because of the torment that their fellow students inflict upon them because of their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.

In response too many of these tragic deaths, religious individuals across the nation have decided that instead of addressing the topic of LGBT bullying directly (aka. punishing the bully), it is the fault of those students who are LGBT that they are being bullied. These people assert that if those students would be “normal” (aka. straight), they would not be bullied. But because these children have ‘chosen’ to be gay, it comes along with the territory that they would be bullied for that ‘choice’.  To these individuals, the increased rates of suicide, depression, and substance abuse of LGBT teens is a direct consequence of their choice in sexual orientation. Because they believe that there is something inherently disordered about a homosexual sexual orientation or a differing gender identity, they ‘logically conclude’ that such a disorder has other consequences. A gay kid commits suicide, not because he is bullied because of his sexual orientation, but because he knows that there is something intrinsically wrong with him. That the tormenting words of the bullies are true, that he is a “fag” and that he somehow made the choice to be one.

The psychological torment associated with such a belief drives many LGBT children to depression and even suicide. When you are told that you have chosen something inherently disordered, yet do not even recall making that choice, you start to believe that there is something wrong with you; that you are “damaged goods”. To these children, there seems to be no hope, because no matter how hard they try, they cannot change the feelings and attractions that they have.

I know what the kids feel, because I have been there. From my first recollection of having a “crush” (I was six, so I don’t know if crush is the best word) on the tour guide at Disney world, I knew that I was different. Though I was homeschooled, and thus escaped much of the daily harassment that LGBT children go through, I was exposed to some through sports leagues. I was told I was a sissy, a girl, and made fun of for sitting with my legs crossed (and this was in a religious league). I have known the hopelessness of being told that something was ‘wrong’ with me, and that I was living in rebellion. I have tried to change my sexual orientation (8 months’ worth of trying), and could not make myself ‘normal’.  I barely escaped with my life, some days just wanting to end it all because I could not live with myself, knowing that I was gay, yet trying to come to grips with the messages that were being flung at me by my religious community, my family, and my friends.

In my last post, I discussed the notion of power when it comes to rights, responsibilities, and protections of vulnerable minorities. The new tactic by religious leaders, state legislators, and religious individuals of blaming the victim for anti-gay bullying ties well into this power framework. If these individuals recognize that such bullying exists and that it must be addressed, their very conception of homosexuality and gender identity as ‘disordered’ and ‘sinful’ must also be addressed. No longer will it be appropriate to tell these children that they made the choice to be gay and that they must live with the consequences of such a disordered choice, for instead such children will need to be protected and validated. Such validation goes against the entire pyramid of Judeo-Christian superiority, where ‘traditional morals’ must be enforced even if such morals destroy the lives of countless children, families, and churches.

Thankfully, the American public is waking up to the fact that bullying, no matter if it is because of ones’ sexual orientation, weight, race, or creed, is wrong. They know that the fault for bullying lies not with the victim, but instead with the oppressor. And it is because of this that I know that the virulent rhetoric of fundamentalism, which blames the oppressed instead of the oppressor, is increasingly falling on deaf ears. But till such voices are finally regulated to the fringe, I must ask - how many children must we lose before the American people fully recognize that being bullied because of one’s sexual orientation is wrong? 

The Loss Of Christian Social Power: The Threat Of LGBT Rights

At the start of the American experiment, when the delegates from the individual states met in Philadelphia to rework the Articles of Confederation, there was a debate over power. It is not a debate that we often hear in our history classes, or read about in our textbooks, but this debate pitted the Northern States against the slave owning States of the South. From the beginning, the South held the North hostage in the proceedings, refusing to budge unless the southern slaves were fully counted as part of a states population. This became an issue, because the South felt as though the populous North (which had dispensed of slavery by this time), would use their vast population (and the representation that such population would bring) to eliminate one of the key institutions of the Southern economy. In the end, the delegates decided upon the 3/5ths compromise, which counted every slave as 3/5ths of a person.

Throughout the debate over the 3/5ths clause, we saw a debate over power. The South did not want its power diluted, and its society made equal. Instead, it wanted the status quo to reinforce its power pyramid of racial superiority. Such a historical example plays quite well into our discussion of rights for LGBT people; for in American today, we see a similar struggle over who controls society. It it Christian conservatives, who wish to project their religious beliefs onto an unbelieving populous, or is it the LGBT community, who wishes to be equal to those Christians in rights and privileges.

Before I go any further, I would like to make a disclaimer. I am in no way painting all of Christianity with this brush of oppression. I know many great Christian people who agree that ones religious beliefs should remain private and not be imposed upon a religiously different populous. Instead, this post is describing those Christians who take the scriptural commands of "dominion" far too literally, and who, instead of promoting a more perfect society, regress that society into a pseudo-theocracy.

Power is what makes the world go round. Who has it, who utilizes it, who we have power over - all of these dictate the inherent class structure of society. Throughout American history, it can be noted that those at the top have been those who hold to a Judeo-Christian religious worldview. But, beginning in the 1960's, with the emergence of the sexual revolution and the throwing off of traditional morality, those who were at the top of the power pyramid realized that their influence was shrinking. Thus, in the 1970's we saw the push-back of the Moral Majority, and the birth of the Religious Right. To these religious fundamentalists, it was important that the old systems of morality and legal legitimacy (aka. the law is from God), be upheld in the popular culture and government. During this time, we saw Phyllis Schlafly advocate against the Equal Rights Amendment, and other influential figures like Anita Bryant advocate against the evils of homosexuality and legalized abortion (or infanticide as they deem it).  Such religious based advocacy has continued even to this day, from the establishment of marriage amendments around the United States, invasive abortion regulations, as well as the back to back Iowa wins of noted social conservatives - Mike Huckabee in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012.

Now what does this power struggle that has emerged in American society have to do with LGBT rights? I feel that in order to understand why the culture war is a "war", we must understand what those who fight against us feel that they are losing. To them, it is about Power. With LGBT people placed upon an equal playing field as them, they have lost their status as the movers of society. Instead of society being viewed as a pyramid when it comes to LGBT rights, where heterosexuals are "better" than homosexuals, every victory for LGBT people (whether that be marriage equality, workplace protections, anti-bullying policies) alters the playing field and makes it slowly more equal. Instead of being able to arrogantly look down upon us as "sexual deviants", they are required to look upon us as social and legal equals.

Such equality is why our opponents fight so much against us. That is why you have a bill being introduced in Tennessee that would allow exemptions for Christians to bully gay kids. That is why you have a bill being passed in Michigan that strips same-sex domestic partners of benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. And that is why you have the people of countless states voting to enshrine discrimination into their Constitutions with marriage amendments. Such manifestations of blatant hatred are the dying breaths of a movement that is afraid of losing its grip upon American culture,society, and government.

Now, as much as our community likes to say that extending our rights will not impact others, that is only half true. Yes, my marriage to my husband does not affect the married couple next door, but at the same time, it does affect our society. Instead of the blatant homophobia that we hear from Presidential Candidates like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney, with the elevation of our rights to equal status, such homophobia no longer becomes acceptable. In that day, the supposed "morality" of claims like "gay people are deviants" or "gay people can change, thus deserve no protections" will no longer be the norm, and instead be viewed as eerily similar to the moral justifications for treating women and African-Americans as property. And it is that day, the day that we are social and legal equals to our heterosexual brethren, that I hope I will live to see.

If LGBT People Did Not Choose To Be Gay, They Would Not Be Killed

In a rather bizarre piece published in the Tuscaloosa News, University of Alabama History professor Larry Clayton, attempts to assert that because gay rights are not human rights, there is no "right" to same-sex marriage. Normally, such an article would not be interesting, as such thinking has come to be expected by the anti-gay crowd. But this article goes further, for within it we see the undertones of an approval of the slaughtering of LGBT people by international governments. 


In this article, Dr. Clayton starts to discuss the recent statements by the Obama administration that are pro-LGBT, such as Clinton's statement that "gay rights are human rights" and the State Departments vigerous enforcement to protecting LGBT people from persecution. But then Dr. Clayton morphs his discussion into one about 'value' judgments, saying,

Legal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are already guaranteed to all, including the LGBT community. But moral judgments and values which clearly distinguish historically between sexual preferences are not legal rights.

What this has to do with the State Departments directives regarding gay and lesbian people I have no idea, but with a simple reading of his argument, it seems as though Dr. Clayton believes that based upon the fact that one is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender one does not deserve human rights protections, because one already has "protections". for being human. According to Dr. Clayton, because homosexuality is a "sin", that automatically eliminates it from being a "right".


Then, instead of Dr. Clayton standing upon the side of human dignity and human life, he brushes aside the imprisonment and death that LGBT people around the globe are subjected to, saying, 

If you prefer to be a LGBT, that is your choice and you will continue to enjoy all the civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. You may be stoned to death in Africa or parts of Asia whose level of tolerance for homosexuality is very low, but we live in a country where we defend our human rights....That Obama and Clinton want to world to follow this country's insistence that same sex marriages, and the LGBT community, enjoy the same protection under human rights legislation, such as liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc., is a rather odd mixing of rights and preferences. (emphasis mine)

Within this statement, Dr. Clayton does the unthinkable. Instead of condemning the persecution and death sentences given to LGBT people by governments, he puts the blame upon those people who are being killed, because it is their fault that they have chosen to "prefer" to be gay. Because such a "preference" is considered "sinful" in the Judeo-Christian tradition (which is a claim that I would dispute heavily), there is no right to be LGBT. 


Though the entire article is worth reading - if you can stomach the lack of intellectual rigor and blatant disregard of logic and science - one sentance speaks volumes about Dr. Clayton's feelings about our community, for he says,  

There are few moral ambiguities for Christians, and certainly none with respect to homosexuality, which is, by definition, is a sexual preference, not a human right.

Thus, because ones immutable sexual orientation is a "sexual preference", one is not deemed to be protected because of it. And if you "choose" to be sexually attracted to other men or women, it is acceptable for a government to openly harass, imprison, and kill you. That is the ultimate end of Dr. Clayton's logic, and it is an end that I am thankful this nation does not embrace. 

Fat Kids To Be Legally Bullied: The Danger of Excessive "Free" Speech

Over the past week,  the 'license to bully' bill that may be considered by the Tennessee Legislature, has been blowing up in the media. From CNN (where the awesome Michelle Bliss from the Tennessee Equality Project defended the rights of students) to bloggers, newspapers, and magazines, countless people have weighed in with their thoughts about the proposed legislation. Today, in an article in The Atlantic, Wendy Kaminer, a noted libertarian, weighed in on the matter, giving the typical libertarian response regarding protected speech. To her, anti-bullying laws are a potentially dangerous affront to First Amendment rights, because it would criminalize the religious and moral beliefs of American citizens. 


I take issue with Ms. Kaminer's position in several ways. In her analysis she states that, 

You shouldn't have to study this language (of the Tennessee bill) to recognize that opposing it means supporting infringements on First Amendment rights and punishing students who express religious, philosophical, or political ideas that others find discomforting or unpleasant.

First off, Ms. Kaminer is confusing" religious, philosophical, or political ideas that some may find unpleasant" with harassment. There is a fundamental and clear difference between the two.  An example of this could be found using the African-American community. A pro-life individual could have a political position regarding abortion and its impact upon the African-American community, and that would be protected speech. Yes, labeling a woman's right to choose as "racial genocide" might be construed as discomforting and unpleasant, but it is just that, political speech that one finds unpleasant. It is not denigrating or harassing a people group because of a characteristic that that group shares. On the other hand, if that same person started yelling racial slurs at an African-American person, that would cross the line from 'discomfort' or 'unpleasantness' to actual harassment, because it is now the individual who is being attacked. 


Harassment occurs when the bully moves from attacking an "idea" to attacking an individual or a characteristic of that individual. It occurs within our school system when a child is called out, not because of a political position that they hold, but instead because of whom they are, whatever race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or weight they may have. 


An another example: Michele Obama has proposed legislation that deals with childhood obesity, by promoting healthy food choices and alternatives to fast food. That is a political position, and a policy that can be debated upon its merits. Yet, under the proposed legislation in Tennessee, not only would a discussion of the political ramifications of the First Ladies program be allowed, but an overweight schoolkid could be bullied for his weight, because the bully could say that the overweight kid is a "glutton" and violating the biblical standards of self-control.   


Ms. Kaminer then goes on to assert that the proposed legislation is actually a good thing for LGBT activists and students in Tennessee because it, 

 "would also protect the rights of gay students to advocate for same-sex marriage, equal employment laws, health care equality, or gay adoptions, among other issues -- even if their advocacy is unpopular and considered by some "unpleasant."  

Though Ms. Kaminer may mean well, and her defense of freedom of speech (an essential American right) is admirable; it is unfortunately quite misguided. As shown within the above paragraph, Ms. Kaminer does not understand the difference between advocating for a political position (which, by the way, I do not see as having an relevance in a school system), to harassment. The former is of course protected by the First Amendment; but for the second, one is hard pressed to find justification for such protections.  Instead of having any legitimacy, the allowance of bullying based upon ones "religious, political, or philosophical" belief, has only one purpose. Give students the right to demean, denigrate, and cause direct pain to countless children within our school system. 


And that my readers is why Tennessee's 'license to bully' bill MUST fail. 

Christians And Jews To Be Persecuted In Tennessee?

In this coming legislative session, the Tennessee Legislature may consider a bill which would allow bullying if such bullying is based upon a bully's "expression of religious, philosophical, or political views as long as such expression does not include a threat of physical harm to a student or of damage to a student's property". 

The legislation, as proposed, is supposed to correct the "harm" that anti-bullying policies may place upon students who believe that being gay is "against God". The bill, heavily lobbied by the Family Action Council of Tennessee, is supposed to "make sure [the law] protects the religious liberty and free speech rights of students who want to express their views on homosexuality." 

Not only does this bill establish a special right for religious individuals to persecute, harass, and demean LGBT people, but it also can be turned on its head, and harm the people that is is supposedly crafted to protect. As the legislation says, bullying is acceptable as long as it is based upon a students "religious, philosophical, or political beliefs". Thus, if a Christian was bullying a Jewish person, calling them a "Christ killer" and a "worthless heathen who is going to hell", that is completely acceptable, because it is based in religion. Conversely, Christians can also be bullied by their peers for believing in the "fairy tails" of Christianity, such as the virgin birth and the resurrection. Even African-Americans can be bullied, for the bully could claim that their distaste for African-Americans is based upon the curse of Ham contained in the book of Genesis. 

This is why this bill failed in Michigan, because instead of giving the bully special protection for their bullying, the bully was open to persecution himself. The failure of this bill in Michigan give an inkling for the real reason for such legislation (give Christians special rights to make others feel worthless), yet when the unintended consequences of the legislation are made apparent, lawmakers want to distance themselves from the "religious persecution" bill. 

After a lot of media criticism, the Senate sponsor of the bill, Republican Senator Jim Tracy of Shelbyville, has decided to "narrow" the bills scope. I wonder what such "narrowing" entails, and if that narrowing will give specific license to bully LGBT Tennesseans.