General: October 2006 Archives

Kent forwarded this article to me. I was struck by how much everything is the same from so long ago. I remember the purging of the communists from the country, in both society at large, and Hollywood. I also knew of all the spying on various groups that were trying to “destroy” the United States, and that members of these groups were called “subversives”.

Today, little has changed, except perhaps some creative use of terminology. Now, homosexuals are called “radical homosexuals” who “prey” on “innocent children”. Yeah, that will get people pissed off. Who cares if it’s true or not. Just like it was so true that the communists and homosexuals were trying to destroy the country in the 1950’s.

The resignation of Kirk Fordham, openly gay former chief of staff to Foley and current chief of staff to Rep. Reynolds, seemed only to whet conservatives’ appetites. Labeling them “operatives” who had managed to “infiltrate and manipulate the party apparatus,” right-wing author Cliff Kincaid demanded that “the secret Capitol Hill homosexual network must be exposed and dismantled.” Calling them “subversives” thwarting the will of the people, the American Family Association’s Rev. Don Wildmon told The Nation, “they oughta fire every one of ’em.” The Traditional Values Coalition issued an ultimatum to their party: “Republicans need to make a simple choice between the [sic] innocent children and radical homosexuals who prey on them.”

Charges of a powerful gay network, a subversive fifth column that has “infiltrated” the party, are nothing new. In 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy charged that Harry Truman’s State Department had been “infiltrated” by subversives, a category that initially included both communists and homosexuals. However, McCarthy quickly discovered that the charges of homosexual infiltration were more effective at stirring up indignation among voters. Though histories of the McCarthy era rarely mention it, three-quarters of McCarthy’s mail expressed outrage at his disclosures of “sex depravity.” Truman’s advisors warned that “the country is really much more disturbed over the picture which has been presented so far of the Government being loaded with homosexuals than it is over the clamor about Communists in the Government,” and the State Department’s admission that it had fired 91 homosexuals seemed to substantiate McCarthy’s charges. With a midterm election approaching, Republicans attacked the Democrats for “harboring” homosexuals. They followed the advice of New York Daily News editors, who wrote, “If we were writing Republican campaign speeches, we’d use the word ‘queer’ at every opportunity.” (source)

Well, let us hope that even the Republicans won’t stoop to the level of using “queer” at every opportunity. But nothing would surprise me with that party, the way they are today. I give my fellow Americans of today a bit more credit than that though. That tactic may have worked in the 1950’s, but today, “queer” just isn’t as queer as it used to be - nor as threatening. After all, every family has a queer or two... or three, and when you start smearing people with the word queer, it’s no longer a stretch for people to say, “Hey wait a minute! You are talking about my brother here!” That is what they will take to the voting booth with them.

If I were advising the Republicans, and actually had their best interests at heart, I’d advise them to proceed very carefully along these lines. And I’m not just saying that because I’m.... queer.

I received the following letter from my Congressman, Rob Simmons:

October 25, 2006

Dear Bill:

Knowing your opposition to efforts to ban gay marriage, I wanted to update you on my views on the subject.

Since coming to Congress, I have consistently opposed measures that would prohibit gay marriage. Most recently, I voted against H.J. Res. 88, the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment,” which would have amended the U.S. Constitution to specifically define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am proud that my opposition to this short-sighted measure helped prevent it from gaining the necessary two-thirds vote for passage, failing by a vote of 236 to 187.

I oppose bans on gay marriage because I believe state legislatures should be free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements for gay couples, without interference from the federal government. In fact, had such interference been in place, it could have prevented Connecticut from becoming only the second state to allow homosexual couples to enter into civil unions, allowing them to receive virtually all of the benefits of marriage. In short, banning gay marriages would weaken our families rather than strengthen them.

Rest assured, as your Congressman I will continue to oppose this and any other constitutional amendment that discriminates against American citizens.

Thanks for taking the time to read this update. Should you have any questions or concerns about this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Also please feel free to visit my website at Rob Simmons.

All the best,

Rob Simmons
Member of Congress
Second District, Connecticut

My reply...

Dear Congressman:

I just received an email from you. In that email, you stated,

“I oppose bans on gay marriage because I believe state legislatures should be free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements for gay couples, without interference from the federal government. In fact, had such interference been in place, it could have prevented Connecticut from becoming only the second state to allow homosexual couples to enter into civil unions, allowing them to receive virtually all of the benefits of marriage. In short, banning gay marriages would weaken our families rather than strengthen them.”

Living in Connecticut, me and my partner of 31 years can now legally enter into a “civil union”, but we have chosen not to. Why? Because they are second class. You can argue that we have made the choice not to enter into a civil union when it was offered to us, but the fact of the matter is, “civil unions” are not the same as marriage, and we refuse to label ourselves as second class by entering into the inherently second class arrangement of civil unions. If they were equal to marriage, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD HONOR THEM!

Yet, I hear NOTHING at the federal level, from you or anyone else, that will give gay couples the ability to have access to their partners’ social security survivor benefits, tax benefits, retirement savings, home protection (laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing-home bills), nursing homes (married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes), pensions (after the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant - so surviving same-sex partners get no pension support for their surviving partners. Any pension dies with the worker), family leave to care for a sick partner, inheritance rights (when a married person’s spouse dies, the survivor can automatically inherit a substantial share from the deceased spouse’s estate regardless of whether a will exists)....

The list goes on and on. In fact, there are 1049 rights and privileges at the federal level afforded to marriage that a state civil union or a state marriage (Massachusetts only) will not allow us to have because of the national Defense of Marriage Act.

So, your email really fell on deaf ears because I would really like to know what action YOU are taking to get the disgusting Defense of Marriage Act off the books so that my partner and I, along with millions of other gay people, can finally have a chance at true equality?

That is what you SHOULD BE ABOUT.

From you...

“In fact, had such interference been in place, it could have prevented Connecticut from becoming only the second state to allow homosexual couples to enter into civil unions, allowing them to receive virtually all of the benefits of marriage.”

That’s a lie. Civil unions do nothing of the sort. They are not portable from state to state as marriage is, and, because of the Defense of Marriage Act, even real marriages afforded to gay couples by the State of Massachusetts are not honored at the federal level because of that act. You should know this. When former Congressman Gerry Studds died weeks ago, his spouse was completely shut out from receiving the Congressman’s pension (as a married couple would have access too), even though they were legally married in the State of Massachusetts.

Get your facts straight, and write to me again when you are really serious about leveling the playing field for gay couples against discrimination.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon

Just when it seems things couldn’t get worse for the Republican Party, along comes more bad news: Gay couples in the United States have skyrocketed.

A new study based on Census data finds a 30 percent jump in self-identified same-sex couples between 2000 and 2005, from nearly 600,000 to almost 777,000. But the increase is even more dramatic in Iowa, where couples shot up by 58 percent, to 5,833. [...]

But both the policies being advanced by Republicans in office and the party platforms themselves have gone to great lengths to deny gay rights. Now it may be payback time.

I suppose I can buy into the notion of “payback”. I would love to see the Republicans get their right-wing-fascist collective asses kicked in this election. That is what I emotionally feel. But in politics, it’s often wise not to give into your more carnal instincts. Instead, it’s a time to stop the name calling and raise the bar to a new level. This new level that I talk about isn’t difficult to achieve. The Republicans collectively, with their President behind them, tried to pass a constitutional amendment to make any bonds that our families could achieve illegal. That is the level of where they are at, but it gets better. They weren’t even honest about trashing our families or our rights, because after the President achieved his election by scaring the crap out of the Christian conservatives, what do you think he did with his promise to pursue a constitutional amendment to “protect the sanctity of marriage” from gay couples? He did nothing. He never mentioned it again. It went away. And now there are rumblings of blowing the dust off of it and trying it again in this election, and possibly in the 2008 presidential election. This is the level of the bar they raised, and let me tell you, it’s down in the gutter.

So, for us to be a bit above that won’t be a daunting task. All we have to do is show ourselves honestly and openly. The new study points to a big increase in the number of gay couples since these anti-gay amendments started springing up around the country. I don’t believe that to be true. We’ve always been around. The difference is, anytime you start demonizing people and talk of putting them into second-class status for the foreseeable future, and putting that in people’s faces, many people will come out fighting. What is our weapon? It’s honesty, openness, and to show people what we really are.

We are your brothers, sisters, parents, fire fighters, soldiers, next door neighbor, friend, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts, uncles, policemen, doctors, lawyers... and on and on. We are everywhere and in every single aspect of American life. This study simply shows that many of us realize what is at stake.

Iowa’s Republican platform spares almost no aspect of gay life. It calls for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and for abstinence outside of marriage - meaning gay people shouldn’t have sex, period. It opposes adoption by same-sex couples and “protected class” status based on sexual orientation - i.e. legal protection against discrimination. It’s against “the teaching of homosexual behavior as a normal, acceptable or alternative lifestyle.” [...]

But it’s significant that the number of self-identified same-sex couples grew so much while all that was going on. The authors suggest, quite plausibly, that it was a motivating factor. They note that the 10 states with the largest increases in same-sex couples, such as Washington state and New Hampshire, saw some of the nastiest political battles and anti-gay ballot measures since 2000. [...]

Instead of demonizing the Republican Party for what they have tried to do to us, perhaps it’s time to just continue to be ourselves. They have done more to themselves than we, as a minority, could ever do to them. They have lied to their electorate about us on so many levels; the threat we pose, how we are going to ruin their very way of life, but most importantly, they lied about their motivation in getting those conservative voters to the polls. Now, people see that, not only with the gay marriage issue, but the whole issue of their rhetoric on terror is really wearing quite thin. They use language that suggests that if the Democrats gain one house of Congress, the President will be unable to complete the things that need to be done to combat terror. Two years ago, people bought that. Today, that’s a tough sell.

Polls already show that a majority of young people don’t see same-sex marriage as the big deal the right wing is trying to make it.

The real lesson here is that trampling on the rights of any group may win some elections, but it won’t win people over in the long run. I suspect we’ll see evidence of that Nov. 7. (source)

The real problem with America is that it is uneducated (or doesn’t care) about the basic issues of freedom that is the cornerstone of our democracy. One of the concepts that we have at least strived to achieve in the past is that we will not drop to the level of those who torture and treat others with a total disregard of human rights. We’ve been through all of this before many times, but our memory is short. It wasn’t all that long ago that African Americans strived for equality. And even they, while never letting anyone forget what the white man did to them (and they shouldn’t forget), are all too willing to say that our struggle if very different from them.

Is it really? They had to drink at different water fountains from whites, go to different schools, suffer unspeakable crimes of violence against them, could not marry, and later, when they could marry, could only marry someone of their race. And later than that, had to fight for the right to marry someone of a different race.

We have our own water fountain to drink from as well. We can go to any school, if we can suffer through the intolerance that some schools offer. We have no benefits for our partners in most states, and in 34 states in this country, it is still legal to fire us for being gay. We suffer unspeakable crimes of violence against us as well. We are unable to marry, except in Massachusetts, and even there, the spouses from those marriages are given no federal recognition because of the national Defense of Marriage Act. Indeed, not even a former gay congressman.

Former Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, died Saturday at 69 after developing two blood clots, doctors said. Studds’ husband, Dean Hara, has since been informed that -- unlike heterosexual spouses of former members -- he can’t collect on his deceased husband’s pension.

The couple married in 2004 after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, but the federal government does not consider Hara a legitimate “spouse."

When a former member of Congress dies, his or her spouse is eligible to collect the member’s pension. But the Defense of Marriage Act forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions, and pension administrators say they cannot release the funds to any relative other than a federally recognized spouse.

The Defense of Marriage Act -- passed in 1996 and opposed by only 67 members -- defines a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." (source)

Maybe it is payback time. If it is, and the Republicans lose big time in November, a part of me will take a lot of satisfaction from that. But we should remember that the Democrats haven’t always been our friends either. They have merely been a party of less disgust around our issues. They are lukewarm on national protections for us in the workplace, health care for our partners, and have stated that they do not endorse full marriage equality.

We can’t look to either party for anything. They are both made up of self serving politicians who care nothing about anything, other than holding on to their power. If we are to achieve equality, it will have to come from us, to show people truth, and who we are. This takes time, but the younger generation are getting it.

In the meantime, aside from a possible ass kicking of the Republican Party, more of this crap will continue:

States with gay marriage bans on November ballot

ARIZONA
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman and foreclose the possibility of civil unions.

COLORADO
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman. Also, a separate referendum would extend many rights to domestic partners.

IDAHO - ("Peds queers fags" article)
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman and foreclose the possibility of civil unions.

SOUTH CAROLINA
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman and foreclose the possibility of civil unions.

SOUTH DAKOTA
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman and foreclose the possibility of civil unions.

TENNESSEE
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman.

VIRGINIA
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman, foreclose the possibility of civil unions and endanger existing legal protections for unmarried couples.

WISCONSIN
Amendment would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman, foreclose the possibility of civil unions and endanger existing legal protections for unmarried couples.

Source

BOSTON — When same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, among those who tied the knot were former Rep. Gerry Studds and Dean Hara.

But getting married didn’t protect them under federal law: Hara has learned he is not eligible for any portion of Studds’ estimated annual $114,337 pension following his partner’s death last week.

The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act blocks the federal government from recognizing the 2004 marriage between Studds and Hara or other same-sex couples. [...]

Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the death of Studds may illuminate an inequity Congress enacted in “an era of fear and trepidation of gay marriage” when it appeared Hawaii might allow same-sex marriage.

“This is maybe a moment of education for Congress,” he said. “Now they have a death in the congressional family of one of their distinguished members whose spouse is being treated differently than any of their spouses.” (source)

Education can only happen by those willing to learn.