Marriage equality is not a distraction

I imagine that most people who have been on Facebook at some point over the past three days have seen this image popping up in profile pictures everywhere:

The Human Rights Campaign, or HRC, asked people to us this image in place of their usual profile pictures in support of marriage equality*. The reason for this is because on Tuesday, the United states Supreme Court began hearing arguments related to California's Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that marked the end of marriage equality in that state, though same-sex marriages preformed prior to its passing remained valid. Wednesday, the SCOTUS heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Defense** of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which limits the federal definition of marriage to one man and one woman, and denied federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples (even those whose marriage or civil union was preformed in a state where such marriages are legally recognized). While seeing both laws stuck down would represent a best-case scenario, and represent a major victory for those who support marriage equality, it would not automatically grant same-sex couples the right to legally marry nationwide. Still, it would pave the way for future court challenges of same-sex marriage bans, and any decision made by the SCOTUS on these cases may end up being precedent-setting. It would be a big step forward, at any rate (though of course marriage is hardly the final frontier when it comes to ensuring full equality for the LGBT community; Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville has an excellent post on the subject, found here).

Now, if you're like me and you're a lefty liberal with lots of lefty liberal friends, you may have also been hearing a lot about the so-called Monsanto Protection Act over the past few days. Now, as a general rule I'm pretty cool with GMOs, though the idea that a giant company that produces them might need-- and then be granted-- specific legal protection didn't seem quite right. I didn't know a whole lot about the situation at the time, however, and opted to wait until I knew more about it before forming an opinion.

Then I saw this image posted by a friend on Facebook (which, to date, has been shared more than 11,500 times):

I have a serious problem with this image, and not just because of the sloppy punctuation.

The framing that marriage equality is a distraction when the real issue is Monsanto and GMOs is extremely problematic, and those who agree are in serious need of a privilege check. A step towards equality for a marginalized population is quite rightly a big deal, and it's a very important issue. If people tried to take away, for example, freedom of speech, everyone would rightfully be very much up in arms about it, and court cases that seek to grant people that freedom would be watched closely. Of course, freedom of speech is a right enjoyed by all people, including those with privilege. No one would ever call such a debate a distraction; in that same vein, we should never think of equality for LGBT people a distraction. Caring about food, the environment, or whatever it is that people opposed to GMOs and Monsanto more than the struggle for equality faced by the LGBT community once again tries to push aside the concerns of marginalized people in favour of the concerns of the privileged.

As if this excessive display of privilege wasn't enough, it's not even accurate! Let's set the record straight: there is no Monsanto Protection Act. The bill signed by President Obama is one that allows the   American government to continue to pay its bills, and this act expires at the end of the fiscal year (which, for the government, is in October). The bit people are so up-in-arms about is a section that deals  with litigation as it pertains to agriculture, and allows the Secretary of Agriculture to permit farmers to continue growing crops, even if litigation has been filed concerning that crop. More information about the provision and what it means can be found here.

What's also  important to note is this bit of legislation isn't even new! It was already made law in June, 2012, as part of an Agricultural Appropriations bill. Furthermore, what passed in 2012 only sought to codify a  SCOTUS decision made in 2010. People who are concerned about the provision Obama passed just a few days ago are quite late to this particular party.

I think it's important to mention that while, yes, this provision will help giant corporations like Monsanto, that's not necessarily the intent behind it, nor are they the only ones who stand to benefit. If anything, it's individual farms that can be hurt the most if someone files a suit regarding a crop. Before, this would mean that the crop couldn't be planted until the litigation process ended, which could take years. A giant company like Monsanto can absorb those costs; they probably don't want to, because it'll cut into their bottom line, but they won't go bankrupt over it. Farmers themselves don't necessarily have that luxury, and being unable to plant a crop for years could ruin them, especially if planting had already started when the suit was filed.

So, not only does the outrage over Monsanto and GMOs and this bit of law favour the concerns of the privileged over the rights of the marginalized, it's based on a lot of bad information. Good job, kyriarchy.

Marriage equality is most definitely not a distraction. It is an important step towards equality for LGBTQ people. If anything, Monsanto and agriculture litigation laws are the distraction.



*Some, myself included, have opted not to use this image in light of some of the problematic things the HRC has done to alienate the trans* community. That's a topic for another post, though.

**On my own Facebook page, I initially referred to this act as the Defence of Marriage Act, spelled using proper Queen's English. However, as an American friend of mine pointed out, "It might be a shitty and hateful law, but it's OUR shitty and hateful law, and we get to pick the spelling." I suppose I can allow that.

Rob Anders opens his mouth, more shit comes out.

Last week, Conservative MP Rob Anders was in trouble for an especially nasty comment he made concerning late Opposition leader Jack Layton and current leader Thomas Mulcair. To quote:

Anders told iPolitics that one of the great stories journalists were missing was "that Mr. Mulcair, with his arm twisted behind the scenes, helped to hasten Jack Layton’s death."

"It was very clear to me watching the two of those gentlemen in the front benches, that Jack Layton was ill and that Mr. Mulcair was making it quite obvious that if Jack wasn't well enough to fight the campaign and fight the election that he should step aside, and that because of that, Mr. Layton put his life at risk to go into the national election, and fight it, and did obviously an amazing job considering his state of health, and that he did that partly because of the arm-twisting behind the scenes by Mulcair and then subsequently died," iPolitics reported Anders as saying.

Anders has since apologized for these comments, but not before Peter Stoffer, a well-like NDP MP,  called him a dickhead, which is probably about the politest thing one could call Anders considering how vile the man is. Layton's widow, Olivia Chow, has accepted the apology, and suggested that Anders sponsor her in her 5km charity run for Prostate Cancer Canada.

Anders is still a dickhead, however, and lest he lose his title, opened his mouth again and let more hateful comments spew forth from it. He has come under fire for circulating a petition on his website and at a local (presumably Calgary) church that asks MPs to vote against bill C279, which aims to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the hate crime section of the criminal code to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and gender expression. According to Anders, however, "Its goal is to give transgendered men access to women’s public washroom facilities, [and] it is the duty of the House of Commons to protect and safeguard our children from any exposure and harm that will come from giving a man access to women’s public washroom facilities."

There is so much wrong with that statement, it's hard to know where to start. My first reaction was to facepalm over yet another transphobic asshole going on about bathrooms. I'm not the only one to react this way, either; Susan Gapka, chair of the Trans Lobby Group, pointed out to Anders that, "Trans people have been going to the washroom since the beginning of time." She also stated that Anders' "fear-mongering, storytelling and myth-making" is the reason why this bill is needed in the first place. Once again, trans people are accused of being pedophiles, as opposed to honest folk who just wanna take a piss in peace like everybody else.

NDP MP Randall Garrison is the bill's sponsor, and was quite polite in voicing his opposition to Anders' petition:

He said the comments made by Anders were either made out of ignorance or he is trying to spread fear about transgender people by equating them to sexual predators.

"He clearly doesn't understand the basic concepts to do with transgender Canadians," said Garrison.

He said the bill fills a gap because there are legal questions about whether transgender people are included in protections that are available to all other Canadians.

[...]

"I guess it's what I've come to expect from Mr. Anders ... time for his weekly apology," he said.

To date, Anders does not appear to have issued an apology.

Sadly, it doesn't appear that anyone has approached Peter Stoffer for his thoughts on the subject, either. Somebody should get on that.

Dan Cathy has the right to remain silent, or not

The more people talk about freedom of speech, the more I am forced to conclude that the average person does not know what freedom of speech really mean, or what rights it grants. It has been coming up a lot in response to Chick-fil-A COO Dan Cathy being a homophobe and saying homophobic things and donating money to homophobic organizations, and people deciding to boycott Chick-fil-A as a result (easy for me to do, as they don't have any locations in Canada), and other people countering that by making a point to visit Chick-fil-A to support Cathy and his free speech and blah blah blah.

Why do Cathy's supporters keep talking about freedom of speech in this context? His freedom of speech is not being threatened, and yet Cathy's allies keep citing that as a reason to support him. Some of his fiercest advocates are politicians, and they really should know better than to frame this as a free speech issue, seeing as the First Amendment (or Section 2 of the Charter, if you're Canadian) states that the government cannot prohibit people from expressing their opinions and beliefs. The government is not going to be passing laws anytime soon that will put Dan Cathy's right to spew homophobic vitriol at risk*, nor will the government stop him from donating money to homophobic organizations. Furthermore, because of his aforementioned support from various politicians, and the fact that he is free to donate obscene amounts of money to political campaigns and lobbyists who either agree with Cathy's statements, or at the very least wish to protect his right to say those things, I imagine that his First Amendment rights are safer than those of many of the people speaking out against him.

Nobody, least of all the government, is trying to take away Cathy's freedom of speech. Furthermore, if that was the intention, a boycott of Chick-fil-A isn't a very effective method of doing so. This isn't about free speech, and it never was.

What I think people are doing- perhaps intentionally so- is telling the public that because Cathy has the right to freedom of speech, he also has the right to be free from criticism of that speech. Here is a lesson for those many people who don't understand the First Amendment: if  you talk like an asshole, other people are equally free to tell you to shut the fuck up. Both Cathy and his opponents are protected by the same rights that many idiots seem to think people are trying to take away from Cathy. I feel like this should be blindingly obvious, but I guess not; I suspect some people are deliberately misinforming others about these rights, which is contributing to the confusion. Either way, the result is that people are hiding their homophobia behind this veil of free speech. People say they're standing behind Cathy and/or Chick-fil-A because they want to protect his rights; really, they just don't like gay people. They're supporting Cathy because they agree. in whole or in part, with the things he is saying, and pretend that they're sticking up for the First Amendement when really what they're doing is trying to silence those who would boycott Chick-fil-A. (What about their free speech, hmm?)

A boycott of Chick-fil-A doesn't threaten anybody's free speech, but it will cost Dan Cathy money. A successful boycott would mean that Cathy no longer has huge profits from this company that he can turn around and donate to homophobic organizations. If the result is just one less person being subjected to harmful "pray away the gay" techniques, that's a success.

Obviously I understand that some people may not support Cathy, but might still visit Chick-fil-A for reasons that may be outside of their control; personally, I hate that so many clothes and shoes are made in sweat shops, and I absolutely do not want to support companies that exploit their workforce, but I'm also low income and because of my back problems, there are very specific things I need when buying shoes. Sometimes, I have to give my hard-earned money to companies with practices I do not support because there's no affordable alternative. Many people, however, are in a position where eating at Chick-fil-A is a choice, and those people should be aware that their money is going to homophobic organizations. If you do not support those organizations, you should not spend your money there.

Finally, to the people who try and claim that this is a free speech issue, please shut up-- and I say that not because I'm trying to take away your precious rights, but because you need to stop talking and learn more about what the First Amendment actually means.


* I realize that hate speech laws may limit the vitriol a person can spew, but I'm not familiar with how they work in the United States, nor do I know whether or not LGBTQI people are protected by hate speech laws. From what I know of Canadian hate speech laws though, I'm pretty sure Cathy's statements, however repugnant, are not in violation of those laws.

Bill 13 Passes

Light on the posting since I need to pick up extra hours at work (and Civ, I'll be honest), but I wanted to write a quick note to say that Bill 13, the Accepting Schools act (of which I have previously written) has passed its final reading, and will become law in time for school to start in September. The Liberals and NDP voted in favour of the bill, and the Tories opposed; no surprises there. The provision that students be allowed to form Gay-Straight Alliance clubs (and call them by that name) was left intact, and both public and Catholic schools must abide by it.

My younger brother starts grade 9 this fall, and he has opted to attend the local Catholic high school instead of a public one. (My parents gave us all a choice in picking our high school; my sister, just a grade below me, went to the local public school.) I started grade 9 twelve years ago, and while it's quite likely that the textbook used in religion classes has changed since then, I'd still love to get my hands on my brother's copy.

I want to see if any pages have been ripped out.

Go ahead and call it gay, and tell the Catholics to give the money back

The province of Ontario-- where I was born and raised, and where I lived for the first 20 or so years of my life-- has been spending a lot of time lately talking about bullying in schools, for which I'm grateful. I was bullied as a kid. It's a horrible experience I wouldn't wish on anyone, and it has shaped who I am as an adult. Schools have gradually been getting tougher when it comes to bullying, and now the provincial government is stepping in and means to pass anti-bullying legislation, called the Accepting Schools act, or Bill 13.

As always, the devil is in the details. Included in this bill is a requirement that students be allowed to form Gay-Straight Alliance (or GSA) clubs, or a similar anti-homophobia club that may include the word "gay" in the name. You can't say "gay" without getting religious and "pro-family" groups getting pissed off, and they've latched on to this particular provision of the bill, calling it some gross violation of their religious beliefs. The Catholics are kicking up the most fuss, and because of way the education system in Ontario is set up, the government has something of an obligation to actually listen to and consider their opinions on the matter. Unfortunately.

Is Barack Obama the first gay President?

No! Why are we even asking this question?!

It's the fault of Newsweek, and an article written by Andrew Sullivan. Obama recently came out in support of marriage equality for same-sex couples. This is a good-- though not entirely unexpected-- thing. The US president has been slowly working to repeal legislation that discriminates against gay and lesbian Americans: the Obama administration no longer defends the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), for example, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell is no more. Marriage equality is a natural progression-- or evolution, if you prefer-- of these actions. It doesn't make Obama "the first gay President", however.

To my knowledge, Barack Obama has not come out as a gay or bisexual man. While I don't want to assume heterosexuality, I do think it's a safe conclusion to make, here. He seems to be very much in love with his wife, at any rate. Why, then, is Sullivan portraying Obama as the first gay President, when as far as anyone can tell, he doesn't fit the bill?

It's an allusion to a 1998 quote by Toni Morrison, referring to the possible impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton:

Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.

 Fortunately, Morrison was wrong about Clinton being "blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime", seeing as it was only 10 years later that Barack Obama was elected President. Morrison later went on to clarify what she meant by that phrase:

People misunderstood that phrase. I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race.

How, exactly, is Obama's statement supporting marriage equality anything like Clinton's treatment in 1998? There's no comparison that can be made, here.

Sullivan tries to draw a comparison, though, by looking at Obama's childhood, as a black man being raised by a white mother and grandparents.  From the article:

The core gay experience throughout history has been displacement, a sense of belonging and yet not belonging. Gays are born mostly into heterosexual families and discover as they grow up that, for some reason, they will never be able to have a marriage like their parents’ or their siblings’. They know this before they can tell anyone else, even their parents. This sense of subtle alienation—of loving your own family while feeling excluded from it—is something all gay children learn.

[...]

Barack Obama had to come out of a different closet. He had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family. 

There is something about this comparison that rubs me the wrong way. To me, it looks like Sullivan is grasping at straws in order to make the claim that Obama's experience as a black youth is similar to that of gay youth, when the reality is that they are two different things. Frankly, by calling Obama the "first gay President" and using his childhood upbringing to demonstrate how it's just like a gay child's upbringing (except in all the ways it's different) strikes me as trying to erase Obama's identity as a black President.

(Which is not to say that one can't be both a black and gay President; it's just that Obama is only one of those things, and it's not the thing Sullivan or Newsweek claims he is.)

 I like the way Renee Martin of Womanist Musings put it:

What Barack Obama did does not make him the gay president, anymore than Bill Clinton was the first Black president.  You don't take on the identity of a marginalized person simply be [sic] attempting to be an ally. Now, to be clear, I'm not pulling a no homo here, I am talking about the appropriation of a marginalized identity in order to give the appearance of being liberal, inclusive and tolerant. A straight man, cannot by definition be the gay president.  He can advocate for GLBT rights and in fact should do so, but I reject this appropriation. 

To be fair, it's not Obama appropriating a gay identity, here; it's others bestowing it on him. I suppose Obama could grab hold of this identity and use it to garner support form queer Americans (not unlike how Clinton supporters used Morrison's"first black president" comment), but I doubt that he will. While the President has been frustratingly slow in going public with his support for same-sex marriage, I think he has too much respect for the gay community to take on an appropriated identity.

In the news

Just a couple of news items I've been reading, which I may or may not write more about in a future post.

First off, US President Barack Obama finally comes out in favour of marriage equality. As expected, presumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney confirms that he is still a homophobe. Today, an article from the Washington Post reveals just how much of a homophobe Romney is, recalling incidents from Romney's high school days where he bullied-- violently so, in at least one instance-- classmates who weren't masculine enough. Romney claims he doesn't remember, but it definitely wasn't because he thought those students were gay!

Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard remains firm in her opposition to same-sex marriage, and plans to vote accordingly on the three private-members bills that hope to change Australia's marriage laws.

Some good news out of Argentina: the Senate unanimously passed a gender identity bill that not only allows people to change their name and gender on official documents without requiring surgery or psychiatric permission. Furthermore, people who wish to transition will be able to do so, and have it covered by both the public and private health care systems.

Today is my day off work. I am now going to go celebrate that with a nap, and possibly more posts will come later.

Well, this sucks.

Amendment One passes in North Carolina, banning same-sex marriages in the state.

Obviously this outcome is full of suck, but there is one particular thing I want to highlight (emphasis mine):

The vote came after weeks of heated debate in church pews and over the airwaves. More than $3 million was spent on the rival campaigns. Ministers formed coalitions pushing for and against the measure, and cities passed resolutions condemning it. Former President Bill Clinton and the Rev. Billy Graham weighed in on opposite sides, and law professors skirmished over the consequences. 

So, I'll be over here waiting for the tax-exempt status of all the NC churches who participated in the campaign to be revoked.

I imagine I'll be waiting a while. Separation of church and state, my ass.