Breaking the Spell: Rethinking queer community

[Toughy]

Aj.........I need to digest what you said. It is never my intention to discourage anyone. When I asked my grandmother how she and my grandfather stayed married for 60+ years.........her reply was....'you have to be decent with each other always'. I think those are words to live by.

My world of acceptance is truly but a pipe dream, where the world is not a melting pot but a salad bowl. Differences are as celebrated as commonalities.

Lately I have been failing at articulating what my intellect tells me....as someone said in another thread........'I used to be so smart'. Maybe it's because more and more I operate from an open loving heart which does not always translate to words.

[little man]

i've long been interested in the concept of social contracts. i've done some reading here and there and i can't say that my retention is much, but i have to wonder if this can't be used to advantage by not just queers in the larger community of the world, but all marginalized/oppressed groups.

seems to me there should be some lawyer clever enough to work this angle.

as i understand it, a simplified version of social contract is that in order to be a part of a community/civilization, the "citizens" agree to abide by rules, pay taxes, do what generally is best for the group as a whole. in return, the "state" agrees to treat the citizens equally and fairly, to protect all and to generally work to the benefit of all citizens. anyone...please correct me if i've got this wrong.

it seems to me the "state" is not holding up its end of the bargain here. i know they tax me on my wages, write me tickets for speeding or no seat belts, generally hold me to the laws of the land. in what seems like the same breath, i have been denied the right to marry whomever i choose, my taxes go to pay the salaries of those who would turn a blind eye to crimes committed against me and generally don't think i should exist in the universe, let alone in this particular society. is there not some point where the "state" can be called on not ensuring the safety of any portion of its population against the rest of the population?

when i was younger, i had a notion that all the queers should just take over a single state, secede from the union and take all the grand gloriousness with us. let the rest of the country live in leisure suits and poorly decorated homes, with bad haircuts. but, that's me.

tangent aside, i wonder if a class action suit was brought against not only state, but federal government for not holding up their end of the bargain...sue for return of taxes, punitive damages, whatever...if that would not serve as a way to bring the issues of second class citizenship to the forefront. it would be *just* about sexual deviants wanting to wreck marriage then...it would be about the dignity that all humans have a right to. it would be about all the groups who don't have a place at the table, not just the ones who didn't get silverware or a clean plate.

ok, i'm rambling off into hyperbole. that's what i've been wondering.

bueller? bueller? anyone???

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by little man

tangent aside, i wonder if a class action suit was brought against not only state, but federal government for not holding up their end of the bargain...sue for return of taxes, punitive damages, whatever...if that would not serve as a way to bring the issues of second class citizenship to the forefront. it would be *just* about sexual deviants wanting to wreck marriage then...it would be about the dignity that all humans have a right to. it would be about all the groups who don't have a place at the table, not just the ones who didn't get silverware or a clean plate.

ok, i'm rambling off into hyperbole. that's what i've been wondering.

bueller? bueller? anyone???

There's a number of problems. The first is that the government has sovereign immunity. What that means is that for most things you can't sue the government, particularly not the Federal government. The second is that if you are going to sue the Federal government, that very same government has to tell you that you *can* sue them. Third, we'd have to determine on what possible grounds we are suing them. The social contract is an unspoken contract and so would not stand up in court. Fourth, in order to have standing we would have to show that the government was in breach either of law or of a signed contract.

What we *can* do is sue our states for violation of our 14th Amendment rights. But even that should probably be done only on a limited basis. What we're going to have to have is that enough states will pass laws guaranteeing marriage equality. Then when a couple in one state, moves to another state where their marriage is not recognized, sue that state for violating the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. The short version of that clause is that a contract executed in California is legally binding in Oregon. This is going down the same path as interracial marriage took. By 1967, 33 states had legalized interracial marriage. All of the states of the South, however, still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books and in force. Mildred and Richard Loving were an interracial couple (she black, he white) who were originally from Virginia but had moved to DC and gotten married. They then went to Virginia and had to rent a hotel room. Their being married violated Virginia law and so they were arrested, tried and convicted. The judge suspended the sentence on the proviso that they leave Virginia never to return. They appealed the decision and the Virginia Supreme Court upheld it in one of the uglier court decisions one is like to read in American law. They then appealed it to the Federal courts and it thus wound up in the Supreme Court.

We *can* use the law in that way but a class action lawsuit simply won't work because the legal system has to recognize that you have rights under the law and, at present, it doesn't in a consistent fashion which, after all, is what the whole argument is about.

cheers
Aj

[little man]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

There's a number of problems. The first is that the government has sovereign immunity. What that means is that for most things you can't sue the government, particularly not the Federal government. The second is that if you are going to sue the Federal government, that very same government has to tell you that you *can* sue them. Third, we'd have to determine on what possible grounds we are suing them. The social contract is an unspoken contract and so would not stand up in court. Fourth, in order to have standing we would have to show that the government was in breach either of law or of a signed contract.

What we *can* do is sue our states for violation of our 14th Amendment rights. But even that should probably be done only on a limited basis. What we're going to have to have is that enough states will pass laws guaranteeing marriage equality. Then when a couple in one state, moves to another state where their marriage is not recognized, sue that state for violating the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. The short version of that clause is that a contract executed in California is legally binding in Oregon. This is going down the same path as interracial marriage took. By 1967, 33 states had legalized interracial marriage. All of the states of the South, however, still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books and in force. Mildred and Richard Loving were an interracial couple (she black, he white) who were originally from Virginia but had moved to DC and gotten married. They then went to Virginia and had to rent a hotel room. Their being married violated Virginia law and so they were arrested, tried and convicted. The judge suspended the sentence on the proviso that they leave Virginia never to return. They appealed the decision and the Virginia Supreme Court upheld it in one of the uglier court decisions one is like to read in American law. They then appealed it to the Federal courts and it thus wound up in the Supreme Court.

We *can* use the law in that way but a class action lawsuit simply won't work because the legal system has to recognize that you have rights under the law and, at present, it doesn't in a consistent fashion which, after all, is what the whole argument is about.

cheers
Aj

i kind of figured that wouldn't work, or someone would have grandstanded that play already. i wonder, though, if just the effort would garner enough press to make people just stop and think for a minute.

i do find some irony in a system that outlawed interracial marriage because the people were "different" from one another. now? they want to keep people who are alike from marrying.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by little man

i kind of figured that wouldn't work, or someone would have grandstanded that play already. i wonder, though, if just the effort would garner enough press to make people just stop and think for a minute.

i do find some irony in a system that outlawed interracial marriage because the people were "different" from one another. now? they want to keep people who are alike from marrying.

Let me throw another iron in the fire here: Marriage rights are important and I support them, but are we allowing that particular issue to over-shadow other (and in my estimation more important) issues? Issues such as equality in housing, the workplace, hiring, healthcare, etc., and the worst one: violence against LGBTs. I think these are at least as pressing, however the whole marriage thing seems to be such a focus that I don't really hear people talking about these other things. Gays and lesbians and trans people are getting beaten and killed all the time. We need more law enforcement crackdowns on bashers, current laws to be enforced more, more hate-crime legislation, campaigns to raise awareness and educate people, etc. I think the "It gets better" campaign has been a great step, but we need something like that to address these other issues too. Think about all the AIDS activism in the 80s and 90s and how much things changed for the better because of it. In the press, marriage rights seems to be the only thing reported on, as if all we need is that right, then we will have equality. But we won't.

I know we can't have a utopian society where all these issues are permanently and completely fixed, but that doesn't mean we have nothing more to gain.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Let me throw another iron in the fire here: Marriage rights are important and I support them, but are we allowing that particular issue to over-shadow other (and in my estimation more important) issues? Issues such as equality in housing, the workplace, hiring, healthcare, etc., and the worst one: violence against LGBTs. I think these are at least as pressing, however the whole marriage thing seems to be such a focus that I don't really hear people talking about these other things.

I think the reason marriage equality gets so much attention right now is that we're *so close* to winning that fight. There's a sense that we're in the home stretch, so a lot of people want to throw in their lot for a fight that actually has an end in sight. Kind of like how a lot of competitive runners will tell you they get a burst of energy they never would have thought possible when they round that last turn and they can see the finish line. I predict that once we've achieved marriage equality, one of those other issues will take the forefront, and we'll be having the same conversation again, only it will be some other issue that some people think shouldn't be getting all the attention when there's all these other others to work on. As a community, we seem to focus on one thing at a time, and I actually think that's a good thing. I think we can get a lot more done with a lot of people focusing on one thing at a time rather than trying to focus on a few dozen issues at once.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I think the reason marriage equality gets so much attention right now is that we're *so close* to winning that fight. There's a sense that we're in the home stretch, so a lot of people want to throw in their lot for a fight that actually has an end in sight. Kind of like how a lot of competitive runners will tell you they get a burst of energy they never would have thought possible when they round that last turn and they can see the finish line. I predict that once we've achieved marriage equality, one of those other issues will take the forefront, and we'll be having the same conversation again, only it will be some other issue that some people think shouldn't be getting all the attention when there's all these other others to work on. As a community, we seem to focus on one thing at a time, and I actually think that's a good thing. I think we can get a lot more done with a lot of people focusing on one thing at a time rather than trying to focus on a few dozen issues at once.

True enough- there are also some things with marriage equality that just fit in with many of the other struggles we have. These have to do with taxation and do feed into housing rights along with employment. There are also some very important variables concerning child custody that are part of marriage equality. It really isn't just about "marriage."

That said, we continue to be second class citizens on many fronts and violence against us- all over the US is something that needs our full attention. There is so damn much work to be done! Our being able to work together from every aspect of queer identity is paramount.

Oh.. throwing in self-defense measures (Aj brought this up)- a good alternative to a hand gun are the various personal stun guns available. These are legal in most states, easy to carry, not expensive and effective. Also good for dog attacks. I had a situation in which all I had to do was activate mine in the air over my head to stop a man that was coming at me physically. he ran like hell when he saw and heard the charge. I would have landed the next charge on his body if he had not stopped, but, I didn't have to.

[Hack]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Let me throw another iron in the fire here: Marriage rights are important and I support them, but are we allowing that particular issue to over-shadow other (and in my estimation more important) issues? Issues such as equality in housing, the workplace, hiring, healthcare, etc., and the worst one: violence against LGBTs. I think these are at least as pressing, however the whole marriage thing seems to be such a focus that I don't really hear people talking about these other things. Gays and lesbians and trans people are getting beaten and killed all the time. We need more law enforcement crackdowns on bashers, current laws to be enforced more, more hate-crime legislation, campaigns to raise awareness and educate people, etc. I think the "It gets better" campaign has been a great step, but we need something like that to address these other issues too. Think about all the AIDS activism in the 80s and 90s and how much things changed for the better because of it. In the press, marriage rights seems to be the only thing reported on, as if all we need is that right, then we will have equality. But we won't.

I know we can't have a utopian society where all these issues are permanently and completely fixed, but that doesn't mean we have nothing more to gain.

I get what you are saying, Atomic. I live in a state where queers have pretty much no rights. A constitutional amendment was passed here to ensure that and everything.

There are little pockets in Michigan where we have some rights, say in Ann Arbor or the more progressive 'burbs of Detroit. But, by and large, I am a second-class citizen here.

I have often started heated debates in LGBT political circles here by saying, "Why don't we start with employment rights? Why do we have to go for the big one right away?" It's akin to saying, why can't we make out first, why do we have to jump right to crazy monkey sex?

When I bring this up, I am practically shouted out of the room as being a radical or something. I've spent my entire life in mainstream politics, and I know the way to get the majority to accept a concept is start small. I've built more campaigns around this simple notion than I care to admit.

I understand, however, many more places in the US are far more progressive than where I live (a shame, really, because Michigan was a progressive bastion back in the day, with the labor movement and then the student movement and whatnot). I understand other places are light years ahead of where we are in Michigan in terms of queer rights. And maybe that is part of what drives a perceived impatience in the community...this patchwork of progress here, lack of progress there.

Jake

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Let me throw another iron in the fire here: Marriage rights are important and I support them, but are we allowing that particular issue to over-shadow other (and in my estimation more important) issues? Issues such as equality in housing, the workplace, hiring, healthcare, etc., and the worst one: violence against LGBTs. I think these are at least as pressing, however the whole marriage thing seems to be such a focus that I don't really hear people talking about these other things.

I think that marriage was an issue that was kind of forced on us. By that I mean that through the mid-to-late nineties the queer movement was, more or less, happy about domestic partner benefits. Marriage was seen as something to be tackled down the line. However, the religious right started lying saying that domestic partnership was just a way to destroy marriage by stealth. At that point, I think what happened is that folks started to think that if we were going to be *accused* of trying to sneak into marriage through the backdoor we might as actually *do* that since it was going to be said about us anyway.

That said, I think that these other issues are equally as important but I also think that they can be solved in other ways. For example--and before anyone jumps down my throat for throwing around privilege, I *recognize* how lucky I am--I am a knowledge worker. I have spent most of my adult life being paid to transfer knowledge in my brain into the brains of other people or to recombine that knowledge in very interesting ways. Of the jobs I've had since 1994, almost *all* of them have offered domestic partner benefits. I was the first gay employee at one start-up I worked at and after I started, they had me wait a few days until they could contact Aetna and change the health insurance plan so that it DID cover domestic partners. They hadn't thought about it until they needed to.

Now, this was all in the Bay Area and so locale contributed but it has been my experience that fields that didn't exist one hundred years ago (computer science, genetics, etc.) are far *more* likely to provide domestic partner benefits and to have explicit non-discrimination language that protects queer people. Housing is probably going to have to be dealt with through a combination of legislative and legal processes.

Gays and lesbians and trans people are getting beaten and killed all the time. We need more law enforcement crackdowns on bashers, current laws to be enforced more, more hate-crime legislation, campaigns to raise awareness and educate people, etc.

This is a tough one. I actually support hate crimes laws because I understand the need for them. Every bashing isn't just an immediate attack on the queer person in question but is a message sent to all queers in the area 'next time, it could be you'. The problem is convincing OTHER people of that. If you do not or cannot imagine being attacked because of *what* you are then it looks as if people other than you are being given 'special protection'. We aren't but it *looks* that way to people of a certain mindset. This is an area where I think we may have to give some ground--NOT in the sense that we'll just have to accept a certain level of violence but we may have to accept that the law does not make it *legal* to assault someone for being queer, law enforcement, depending upon locale, may insufficiently investigate the crime because it is a queer bashing. That means we may have to use social pressure or some other way of pressuring local law enforcement to act right. Again, I'm not saying that I oppose hate crimes laws, I do not. It's just not a battle I think is winnable and I think we can use the existing laws to our benefit.

I am also in favor of queer people getting concealed carry permits in locations where that is possible. I think the stakes for any potential bigot need to be raised. It is one thing to attack someone you think is weaker but won't be armed. It is quite another thing to attack someone who *might* be carrying a gun. After a couple of gay bashers are shot while trying to hurt one of us, I think they will have to use a very different calculus. Let them sit in a bar or their home and wish to do violence to us all they wish. I don't care. Let them step up to one of us with violence in mind and I hope that queer person shoots them dead, quite honestly.

Originally Posted by Hack

When I bring this up, I am practically shouted out of the room as being a radical or something. I've spent my entire life in mainstream politics, and I know the way to get the majority to accept a concept is start small. I've built more campaigns around this simple notion than I care to admit.

PLEASE continue doing this and going into queer communities and passing on your experience. We need more people with your knowledge who understand that we have to win enough people to on our side so that we have the majority.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Aj.........I need to digest what you said. It is never my intention to discourage anyone. When I asked my grandmother how she and my grandfather stayed married for 60+ years.........her reply was....'you have to be decent with each other always'. I think those are words to live by.

My world of acceptance is truly but a pipe dream, where the world is not a melting pot but a salad bowl. Differences are as celebrated as commonalities.

Lately I have been failing at articulating what my intellect tells me....as someone said in another thread........'I used to be so smart'. Maybe it's because more and more I operate from an open loving heart which does not always translate to words.

Take your time, Toughy. I do want to say two things. While we might have dreams of how the world would be if we had a better people to do social change with, we only have us. If we lived in world of *infinite* resources, there would be no need for competition. If we lived in a world where everyone thought alike, then, ironically, we could have the world you're talking about where differences are as celebrated as commonalities.

But look at who we are. Is there a *single* culture that anyone can name where one couldn't tell a story about two sisters jealous of one another and people will understand what that story is about? Can anyone think of a culture where a story about a couple kept apart by their parents, or one where a good woman stays by her drunkard husband, or families quarreling about this or that would not resonate? There's a reason for that. People are jealous. They get angry. They quarrel. They are selfish. They prefer their family over strangers. They prefer their countryman or their neighbor over the stranger in their midst.

This is what we have to work with and we have to do it in the most democratic fashion because all the other alternatives are pretty unsavory.

One thing about your operating from an open, loving heart. I don't often talk about this and, quite honestly, I have done an insufficient job letting my love for humanity come through. That is my own failing as a writer. I am operating from an open and loving heart too, Toughy, even if I'm less obviously public about it. I hoped (and still hope) that my loving heart will come through without my having to tell people 'see, I'm a loving and open-hearted person'.

When my son was just a toddler and I would get frustrated with him, I would say "act my age!" It was my way of reminding myself that I was the adult and he was the child and my desiring for him to behave like an adult was patently ludicrous. That, to me, was being both open-hearted and loving. Instead of trying to make him be what I thought I needed or wanted him to be, I had to meet him where he was, warts and all. When I met Jaime, the mistake I told myself I would avoid was expecting her to be anyone other than she is. I try not to see my wife through rose-colored glasses although I'm sure that I do. You've met her, it's easy to do. But if we are going to last, I need to meet her right where she is and never expect her to be anyone other than herself. That, to me, is being open-minded and loving.

That is how I try to approach my love of the other 6 billion of you lot. I don't expect us to be anything other than what we are. So any social change we're going to have has to be done with that in mind. That's not to say we shouldn't dream big, but expecting humanity to one day live in a state of perpetual kumbaya is to expect a 2 year old to act like a 22 year old.


Cheers
Aj