by Kevin Sparrow

The history of military service is pervasive in American society, from the early Revolutionary and Civil Wars that fill our History textbooks to the image of Navy sailor passionately kissing a women on his return to shore to the activism sparked by misguided directives of the Vietnam War. As we approach the seventh anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq this month, a secondary issue that has influenced the military for the past 17 years is being hotly debated: the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. A misconceived corrective to keep LGBT service members from being discharged outright, this policy has recently been a focal point for politicians and the public at large as they muddle through a conflict of which many Americans are still critical.

Two polls conducted this past week show that the majority of civilians now support allowing gay, lesbian and bisexual soldiers to serve openly in the military. An ABC News-Washington Post poll shows that 75 percent of respondents would be in favor of homosexual servicemembers serving openly, with a 64 percent support rate from Republican respondents. A CBS News-New York Times poll released the day before shows seven in ten respondents supporting open service by gay and lesbian people. There is a caveat with this data; both polls used “gay and lesbian” and “homosexual” alternately to describe LGBT servicemembers and found respondents were less willing to support “homosexuals” serving openly than “gay and lesbian” people.

This data reveals a positive shift in the perception of openly gay and lesbian people and their commitment to current American values; however, a repeal could easily lead to an acceptance of some troubling fallout from this policy’s history. RaceWire recently pointed out that black women are disproportionately affected by DADT, contributing to 3.3 percent of all discharges based on this policy, but only making up less than one percent of servicemembers. Many of these discharges may not even be based on actual sexual identity or behavior but on perception or vindictiveness by other servicemembers. A repeal of this policy will not help black women in the military generally if they are running up against sexist and racist authorities, but because there is no policy in place keeping them from serving, these slights will be more easily overlooked with a widespread repeal of DADT. By conceding to one minority group’s needs with a very tangible, another’s plight may be diminished.

By repealing DADT and policies that keep openly gay LGBT from serving, we must not forget that there is more that needs to be done to reform the U.S. military. Beyond removing current obstacles, protections need to be put into place that allow all servicemembers to interact in respectful and egalitarian ways. A third recent poll Military Times conducted exclusively with those serving in all branches of the military found that 51 percent of respondents did not support a repeal of DADT policies, a much higher percentage of opposition than the general public. Ensuring that minority servicemembers are accepted by their units and treated with dignity is an important consideration that should influence any new policies going forward. History repeats itself if its lessons are not realized, but we have the opportunity help promote an honorable military that treats all members equally. Hopefully, this lesson is one that works to influence all American society.

by Kevin Sparrow

The increasing vocality from “traditional marriage” defenders the National Organization for Marriage, they of the gathering storm and awkwardly confused children ads, from Maine to Iowa has been monitored closely by same-sex marriage proponents, so it seems appropriate to take account of what this group is actually saying. They have even helped out by providing a list of talking points to their adherents, which you can read by following the link (up to your discretion).

The first statement they purport is that their view of marriage as a union between man and woman is “just common sense.” Common means something we all share, and when the country is split fairly evenly on the issue of gay marriage, there is no way that the current status of marriage is common sense.

The deplorable and contradictory rhetoric of these talking points continues directly from there with what they deem the “single  most effective message”: “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.” First, this pulls the argument back to homosexuality being a choice, and second, recognizing marriage as a right for all people is not redefining it. Amendments to the Constitution do not alter the fundamental beliefs on which it was founded; they just broaden its power. The same would be true of civil marriage if recognized as belonging to everyone and highlights that we in the LGBT community do not have the right to live as we choose when many rights are denied us, including federal marriage.

The most inconsistent part of these talking points come in the FAQ section. After urging their members to “shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage” and “n[o]t get sidetracked” by peripheral issues such as gay rights, discrimination or benefits (the primary concerns brought about by this argument and the reason it exists), NOM spends much of its time discussing the role of having both a mother and a father in parenting–a completely separate issue from marriage–and even discusses adoption when discussing couples who may not be able to conceive. “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this.” Adoption, in most states, can be achieved in or out of wedlock and even by single people. If their goal is to talk solely about their (limited) view of marriage, they are doing a very poor job of putting that message across.

They also try to make this argument from that framework: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.” We get that common sense thread again; as common sense as equating bigotry as solely against racial minorities. No, NOM, you are not like racists, but you are bigots.

The degree to which television influences us has been studied in various ways–how does seeing violence affect human behavior? how much sexuality can be shown?–to varying opinions on how this plays out in the real world. One area that has been seen to be an effective role of television is to provide more acceptance of diverse people. GLAAD’s third annual Network Responsibility Index takes an in-depth look at how both network and cable channels are representing the LGBT population through their programming. HBO was lauded as the most inclusive cable channel, while ABC was the top network TV channel. The full report, which breaks down programming hours featuring LGBT characters, regular, recurring and guest stars, and even race and ethnicity of the LGBT characters depicted, can be read in PDF form here.

Discrimination affects transgender people in the military on a regular basis
by Kevin Sparrow

The military draft was ended in 1973 after the Vietnam War, beginning an era of an all-volunteer service. The dramatic increase in the number of female enlistees grew substantially, from 1.6 per cent in 1973 to 10.8 per cent by 1989. Gender has long played a role in the types of jobs women can receive in the military and has hindered their advancement, but as more women are allowed to serve in combat and continue to challenge the status quo, these problems are decreasing. However, gender still plays a discriminatory role in the military when it comes to transgender people. Most transgender men and women are barred from military service based on the medical condition of Gender Identity Disorder, seen as a psychological problem in the military. In addition, servicemembers who are non-gender conforming are disproportionately discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, although around 50 per cent of transgender people identify as heterosexual. This means they might not receive an honorable discharge, and they will lose many military benefits if they decide to transition after leaving the service.

Although the classification of Gender Identity Disorder as a mental condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by the American Psychological Association is currently a means the military uses to keep transgender people from service, its removal is not necessarily a desired outcome. Denny Meyer, the media spokesperson for the Transgender Americans Veterans Association explains, “In one sense, T people want the diagnosis because it does not imply there’s anything wrong with them, as most diagnoses do. In this case, it’s the realization you’re just in the wrong sex. The cure is not a mental one but a physical one,” as most doctors diagnose it now. Were the status to change, the medical treatment and surgery to transition from one gender to the other might be treated more cosmetically and Veteran’s Affairs hospitals would most likely refuse to help in any treatment of transgender veterans.

TAVA feels that the main task to accomplish is the repeal of DADT as it is an even grosser injustice for transgender people who do not identify as homosexual or bisexual; in these instances, identity is taken out of the hands of the individual. According to TAVA President Monica Helms, “We know that transgender people have been kicked out under DADT because the military can’t tell the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. They think a straight man who might like to cross dress on leave or at home, is gay. They can’t see anything beyond that.” Unfortunately, there have been no challenges to these unfair dismissals.

In order to put a stop to discharges that adversely affect both servicemembers and the military, we need to urge military action not only against DADT but in favor of transgender issues as well. “It’s not necessarily working from the top down or the bottom up, but it’s more like trying to find a weak opening in the middle somewhere and going in that way,” says Helms. “Remember, we were in the military. In order to form a plan to attack, you have to find your enemy’s weaknesses. The [Department of Defense] is not our enemy, but there are still weaknesses and ways to get around them. They still have to answer to Congress, and we have allies in Congress that would be willing to work with us on this.” TAVA recently worked with The Palm Center, a think tank located at UC-Santa Barbara that influences public policy on sexuality and gender issues relating to the military, to create a survey of transgender veterans and their experiences both in service and afterward. This allowed some momentum for changes to begin taking place.

Secondly, it takes advocacy by allied individuals. Helms states, “We do have people who have actually served a portion of their military time as they began transitioning. DADT is a command-based issue; if the commander doesn’t think being gay is a big deal, and they want to keep the person because they’re a good worker, they’re not going to make an issue of their sexual orientation. The same with transgender people. If the commander understands the issue, they’re going to find ways around it.” This helps keep active and competent people in jobs where they are needed, and actions such as these can be used as examples for future policy decisions.

by Kevin Sparrow

The current financial crisis facing California’s government is looking grim for its citizens. Many are being mailed IOUs to replace their expected stimulus checks as a final budget for the 2009-2010 fiscal year has yet to be decided. A number of banks have announced they are willing to award the money for the IOUs if they are presented by July 10, but with the IOUs mailing date only beginning on July 2, many people will not receive them in time. They will have to wait until October 2 to receive their checks, when the IOUs will increase by their 1.5% interest rates and cost California’s government more money to pay out.

However, California had an opportunity to minimize this hardship. Funding that would have gone directly to the state from same-sex marriages could have been given a chance to grow from the initial start date of court sanctioned marriages in June 2008. Only Proposition 8 was passed in November, and the money spent on the Yes on 8 campaign to overturn the court ruling went solely to private organizations, offering no return to the citizens of California. Had Proposition 8 not passed, same-sex marriages would have continued, and the money received from these additional unions and tourism to the state from outside may have reconstituted itself in the stimulus money by providing the state legislature enough excess cash to finalize their budget on time. The state denied a beneficial opportunity to expand their income and improve their economy

The best example of how same-sex marriage has positively affected a state’s economy is from the first state to allow equal marriage. According to a recent UCLA Law School study by the Williams Institute, Massachusetts has earned over $111 million directly from gay marriages—from license registration to tourism—over the five years since they have been instituted in the state. Because they have a civil standing, a large percentage of that money goes directly to the government, creating a healthier economic climate in the state. In fact, Massachusetts is the ninth most prosperous state in the U.S., falling closely behind other progressive states like Connecticut and New Jersey. And since 2002, Massachusetts has been the number one state most adaptable to the current economy, showing that when progressive ideas are embraced, the money follows.

This is not to say that gay marriage alone would provide enough money to bail out a failing economy, but as much as subjective morality has been promulgated as the need for traditional marriage, economic impact should be a stronger incentive to provide practical approaches to how we decide on cultural issues. The degradation of society comes from the quality of life its citizens receive, not from changing morality (which is nearly redundant), and an unhealthy economy is a major factor contributing to a low quality of life. By supporting gay marriage, states have a better chance of supporting themselves and their citizens. It has yet to be seen if this is a lesson California will learn.

As this is Cul de sac’s 100th post, we want to draw attention to a very necessary and wonderful organization. With the growing recognition of the need for rights for people regardless of their sexual orientation or gender expression, we find more examples of resources to help the youngest members of our community who identify as LGBTQ. TransKids Purple Rainbow Foundation have met the challenge this poses by providing a resource for transgendered children and their parents to understand what living as the wrong gender is like and how early that understanding develops.

You can view a video of Jazz, a 7-year-old transgirl, describing positively her experience of being a girl in a boy’s body here.

A PDF version of a story written by a mother who helped her transgender child transition from boy to girl and the positive influence it has had on her and the society around her can be read here.

Although this year has seen a lot of hatred and disappointment for LGBT individuals, the strides we have taken can be witnessed in the simplest of places. Let’s continue to support the resources that reach out to provide a better future.

by Kevin Sparrow

In the breeze of an unexpectedly chilly May 1, flags from nations around the world waved alongside rainbow flags, red workers’ flags and homemade banners in support of immigrant and workers’ rights. The annual May Day March highlights a profound dissociation in American society: that between the “others” who seek rights and the mainstream who are comfortable in the rights they hold. Those others joined in solidarity—whether Latino, Black, queer or simply mistreated—to make the statement that rights are meaningless unless granted to everyone.

For the queer members in the crowd, this sentiment rings doubly true. Following recent examples of LGBT immigrants who were either deported or threatened with deportation, even when in a legal domestic partnership, queer folks are understanding a new dimension to the civil rights fight. “Under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, domestic partnerships and even legal same-sex marriages, such as those last year in California and which still occur in Massachusetts, aren’t recognized as valid in immigration cases,” writes John Wildermuth of the San Francisco Chronicle. Wildermuth reported on the story of Shirley Tan, an immigrant mother of two who had been living in a registered domestic partnership with her lesbian partner, Jay Mercado, for 18 years before action was taken to deport her. Fortunately, Tan was able to stay her deportation, but most LGBT immigrants are forced to leave the country when they’re status as illegal is discovered. “So many disproportionate LGBT people are caught in the system,” says Manju Rajendran, an activist with Southerners on New Ground and Women and Girls Collective Action Network. “[There is] a potential for connection in discussion… and a lot of commonality to be built with [immigrant rights groups] for access to travel, health care, right to return and ways that immigration law breaks apart families that are similar to how anti-LGBT laws split up queer families.”

Paul Avery of LGBT Liberation Network seconds this: “We need immigration reform that keeps families together.” Reform in the practices of identifying illegal immigrants and how they are treated are a major focus for supporters in general, but for the queer contingent there seems to be no recourse without legal partnership standing. No bill has been passed by Congress to address how LGBT couples might receive similar benefits to married couples if one member has immigrated, but according to the San Francisco Chronicle, “93 members of the House and 17 senators have signed on as co-sponsors of either HR1024, the Uniting American Families Act of 2009, or its companion measure in the Senate, S424 by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.” These acts are meant to allow for an easier citizenship process similar to marriage, but they have yet to be voted on in either house and are far from being realized. Additionally, there is no indication how either bill would retroactively apply to those already deported.

One aspect that is motivating through all these trials is that minority groups are joining with each other to fight rather than splintering into factions. “I’m Latino, I’m gay. I think you can be both,” Avery states. “[Because of the] injustice that goes on with people of color, we’re showing solidarity with other oppressed groups.” The hope is that an overwhelming display of oppressed individuals will show our government how important these reforms are not only to one group but to all people.

To see photos of the May Day March event, check out our Flickr here.

The problem of minority invisibility in LGBT media

by Kevin Sparrow

For many minorities, living in a predominantly white and heteronormative society can cause a great deal of image distortion. Gay people still hide their sexuality to fit in; black people are lauded with backhanded compliments for qualities, such as being “articulate,” that are generally assumed to be the demesne of white people; and immigrants are forced to assimilate to a foreign culture that was conceived as a melting pot but is curiously homogenous. Many consumers are well aware how media has historically under- or poorly portrayed minority figures, but there does not seem to be much action to correct this trend beyond the signature token character, a figure that has been around for decades. Unfortunately, this unrealistic view now permeates mainstream minority media, especially those designed for the LGBT market.

A survey conducted by Cul de sac Magazine from August through October 2008 of mainstream LGBT publications nationally (The Advocate) and locally (Chicago Free Press and Windy City Times) found some objectionable statistics regarding minority representation. After counting 1,488 separate images of people in 13 publications, an astonishing majority—93%—contained white males. All other racial and gender groups were included in 33% or fewer of the images. Compared to national census statistics, those living in the pages of our newspapers and magazines are not representative of those living next door to us. In some cases, such as black and Asian men, the numbers are just shy of the national average. For others, such as Latino men, the disparity is a little greater. But the most troubling statistic that travels through all groups is the disparity between men and women. In every case, females are represented approximately 25% or less of the time, making them a quarter shy of the natural average. Women are made a minority in representation while they remain a majority of the U.S. population at 50.7%.

Additionally, although numbers for the transgender population are largely unknown, at 6.7% representation, it seems our transgender peers still remain largely invisible. Their faces only appear as victims of hate, such as the horrific murder of Angie Zapata this past summer, or as commodities to be gawked at. Trans writers and media makers are marginalized, making it easier to put trans rights at the end of the LGBT list.

The murder of trans woman Angie Zapata was one of the few major representations of a trans person in major media last year.

These numbers reflect the intended audience, and if the images attached stories were not example enough, the ads chosen are even more precise. Only 25% of advertisements that have people in them include images of minorities. The advertising dollar still wins the day, and it is clear whose dollar is going to these media. Of course, any minority media that has a chance to reach a wider audience should be applauded, but the noble motive of promoting gay rights is constantly subverted by the fact that there is so much unequal representation.

A more dubious problem lies in scapegoating ethnic minority communities as being homophobic while refusing to show more diverse representations of those communities with our media. This was most clearly seen in the passage of Proposition 8, when the African-American community was essentially blamed for pushing the amendment through by having a 70% “Yes” vote. A lengthy article on Daily KOS reveals the fallacies in exit poll data that led to an emphasis on the black vote and a backlash stemming from it. The reason for this emphasis has less to do with homophobia and more to do with unchecked racism in the LGBT community. Even No on 8 organizers have admitted their presence in communities of color was limited, while Yes on 8 was very involved in those same communities. Positive messages of minority queer life rarely reach beyond a white gay male bubble because they can afford subscriptions to LOGO, The Advocate and other major media that cater almost exclusively to them.

The only way to remain integral in a battle for civil rights is to maintain as many allies as possible. However, the way queer media represents itself currently leaves women and ethnic minorities in the dust. If divide and conquer is a successful method to defeating one’s opponents, then it is probably not a viable system to use on one’s own side. It will only lead to harder struggles facing gay rights proponents. By allowing every single group to be represented, we can move past the whitewashed and homogenized society we settled into years ago.

After months of marching and taking our frustration and hope to the streets, we are now greeted with an online movement to end marriage segregation. Equality Matters is the first “online” march to target marriage equality, and its main goal is to educate people on the fundamental rights that are denied those who cannot wed. All 1,138 rights identified by the GAO as granted to spouses are available for perusal at the website, and a Facebook group to rally supporters is developing. Please join in speaking out for equality this week (January 17th through January 24th).