Charlie Crist and Gay Families

Florida governor Charlie Crist has been in the news lately, first for his being named in the new Kirby Dick film Outrage, and now for announcing that after one term as governor he is throwing his name into the ring to run for Senate. Nate Silver has done a good job at looking at the impact of Crist and his stances on certain issues. One of these issues is his stance on gay rights. Nate writes:

Crist supports civil unions but not gay marriage, and was a somewhat lukewarm supporter of Florida's Amendment 2, which passed in November and amended Florida's constitution to ban gay marriage. Crist has also stated that he opposes any change to Florida's longstanding ban on gay adoptions.

I'd like to examine this stance a little further, because it is a little bit interesting to me.

So Charlie Crist (who happens to be an alleged closeted homosexual), supports banning gay marriage, but supports civil unions, but supports banning gay adoptions. Incidentally, gays can be foster parents in FL, just not adopt the kids. This actually tells me a lot about Crist. It tells me that he views civil unions as purely contractual agreements that couples are making and that he is ok with that. What he is not ok with is the idea of gay people as families. In fact, the article that mentions Crist being against gay adoptions states

Governor Charlie Crist has said he opposes any change to Florida's ban on gay adoption. He and other Republican lawmakers say a traditional family provides the best environment for children.

What strikes me as odd about this is: Aren't these children who are in need of adoption already not in "traditional" famlies? Is Crist (and his Republican cohorts) implying that children who are living with foster parents or in orphanages, with no sense of permanence or stable family life, are better off than being placed in a permanent home with two parents who really want them?

Furthermore, is this the weight that the gay marriage debate holds for Crist? If two people, regardless of sex and gender, are allowed to get married, which to the conservatives is an absolute synonym for "family," then the adoption ban would certainly be challenged.

It seems to me that Crist doesn't have a problem with gay people being together, he just has a problem with them being real families. Of course, I can't help but wonder if he really feels this way, if he is compensating for something, or if he is pandering to his party. He's fairly moderate, so I wouldn't guess the latter. Of either the first two, I'd guess that Charlie Crist is pretty self-loathing for his stances.

Charlie Crist and Gay Families

From Garden State Equality: Please call Senators Codey and Sarlo TODAY, Friday, April 3, 2009

Starting at 9:30 am TODAY, Friday, April 3, 2009 - this can't wait until after today - we ask each of you, no matter where in New Jersey you live, to call Senate President Dick Codey at (973) 731-6770 and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo at (201) 804-8118. It's got to be today and will only take moments of your time.

Here is your message:

"Has the Senator seen page 24 of today's Star-Ledger? The article reports that a country club tried to deny equal membership to a gay couple because they are not married and cannot marry in New Jersey. Tell the Senator to read page 24 and that I support marriage equality!"

Mention page 24 in your message. Senators Codey and Sarlo read the hard copy of the Ledger every day. Let's make sure they get to page 24. For your edification, here is the article:

The Star-Ledger, Friday, April 3, 2009
COUNTRY CLUB SNUB SPURS CALL FOR EQUALITY
Gay couple says marriage would have prevented misunderstanding
By Paul Brubaker

When Michael Norton responded to the Glen Ridge Country Club's advertisement for new members, all he wanted was a pool here he could keep cool this summer.

But when Norton asked if a membership would include his domestic partner -- the same way the club allows married members to include their spouses on their memberships -- a club administrator gave him the cold shoulder.

"It was unbelievable. I thought I was kicked in the stomach," Norton, 58, of Bloomfield said yesterday.

Barry Schrager, president of the country club's nine-member board, said Norton and his partner, Stewart D. Grossman, 62, were victims of an unfortunate misunderstanding that stemmed from the employee's error in stating the club's membership policy. The club abides by state law, which recognizes same-sex couples as civil unions and domestic partners, he said.

Grossman and his partner did not pursue a membership, but as the two men are preparing to file allegations with the N.J. Division of Civil Rights against the 115-year-old club, they say the problem is bigger than just one country club's gatekeeper. Their situation would have been avoided if state laws would allow them to say they are married.

"The equality is in the word," Grossman said. "If you tell people you're married, people know what that means."

Stephen Hyland, a Westwood family law attorney who has many gay and lesbian couples as clients, said the Glen Ridge Country Club incident could be attributed to the legal prohibition of the word "marriage" with regard to same-sex couples.

"If this couple had been able to marry, then there would not have been any need to explain anything further," Hyland said. "On the other hand, if you have to leave it up to an individual, then these things are going to pop up."

Norton e-mailed Amy Sikkerboll, the club's controller, on March 23 asking about membership fees for the club's house and pool, according to an e-mail exchange provided by the couple's attorney. He had read the club's advertisement in a community newspaper calling for new members.
Norton later sent a follow-up message asking if Grossman would be included in the membership.

Sikkerboll responded with an e-mail stating "Memberships include spouses but not significant others."

In a later message, Sikkerboll wrote, "This is a very old rule still in force that says couples must be married. There is ongoing discussion at the board level and hopefully it will be changed in the near future."

Sikkerboll did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment. Schrager, the club's board president, released a statement on Thursday saying the club's policy is to consider all applicants without reference to race, religion or gender. He added that the club recognized all couples sanctioned by state law, including domestic partnerships and civil unions.
"This has been and continues to be the policy of Glen Ridge Country Club," Schrager stated.

In a telephone interview, Schrager said that Sikkerboll's e-mailed statements about the club's policies were incorrect. "The truth is, this club is very different. It's a very welcoming environment. We welcome people of all backgrounds," Schrager said. "It's kind of ironic that this occurred."

David Wald, spokesman for the state Division of Civil Rights, said that authorities were aware of the situation. An investigation would not begin until a formal complaint was filed.

Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, said Norton and Grossman's experience at the country club was not unique, and that the organization has received thousands of complaints of discrimination against domestic partners. "This case is Exhibit A of why we at Garden State Equality are calling for marriage equality," Goldstein said. "This should be a wake-up call to every one of the 120 state legislators. Wake up and smell the inequality that same-sex couples endure."

Schrager said the Glen Ridge Country Club changed its membership policy more than a decade ago to include women.

Asked if the club ever excluded groups other than women from membership Schrager said, "There is no institutional memory. As the laws have evolved, we've evolved."

From Garden State Equality: Please call Senators Codey and Sarlo TODAY, Friday, April 3, 2009

Facing the Fears

I am tired of having to keep commenting on these calls for protest in response to the passage of Proposition 8. So I'm going to lay it out here and no one's gonna like it:

We dropped the ball.

To clarify that statement, I'm not sure we ever HAD the ball. Rather, we thought we did and it turned out to be in the other team's hands.

Since last Tuesday's election, there have been many protests going on, mainly in California, but throughout the nation. I am now seeing Facebook events calling for a protest on the Mormon Church in NYC.

I understand why. People are angry. They feel betrayed. They thought that in a state as progressive as California, there would be no way this would pass. They assumed that because we were electing the first black president of the United States, that the black voters would vote against discrimination. They assumed people would see past the crazies in the LDS church and vote with their consciences instead of hate propaganda.

That's why we lost.

I want to compare this to two movements. The first is the great movement that the Obama campaign inspired this year. Consider the fact that the Obama campaign took NOTHING for granted, even when it was up double digits in the polls. It relentlessly beat against the Republican machine with its message of hope and unity. And when it started to win those states from the Republicans, it fought HARDER. Compare that to the McCain campaign. The campaign that was full of hateful and deceptive speech, fueling anger amongst its supporters to try and rail them into action. They never had a chance. Why? Because the Obama campaign chose the high road. It chose to talk to PEOPLE. It chose to take the time to dispel myth and rumor and lies with patience and grace. And it never believed that it was infallible. The Obama camp knew it was right. But it still had to convince people. It had to demonstrate itself. It empowered the voters by saying "Here are the facts. Maybe this is best for you, maybe you disagree with it. You decide."

The LDS Church (one of the most prominent proponents of Prop 8) had a mix of both these campaigns. Yes, they used the lies, misleading information, scare tactics, and oh, the children! But it also relentlessly fought the way Barack Obama's campaign did. It never gave up, and when it made inroads, it continued to make more. Just like McCain thought he could win on ideology alone, so did the gay and lesbian community.

The second comparison is between this movement and the Civil Rights movement. When the African Americans engaged in the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, they did it through nonviolent protest. Sit-ins, boycotts, civil disobedience. And yes, the March on Washington. And it was simply about standing up and being counted as a real valued member of our society. It was about not being mistreated. It was about equality: the equality of being SEEN as no different that a white person.

Our movement has always been about anger. Maybe it's a reflex of repression, since we are able to hide who we are, unlike most other minority groups. Our argument of late has been more about "It's 2008 (or whatever), how can people be so closed minded?" as if we just EXPECT people to change their minds, than it has about trying to HELP them make a well thought, personal opinion on the matter. The movement is so quick to harshy (and wrongly) judge the African American community, as if they should know better. But I ask: How many people went to black churches and tried to make our inroads? I've heard "It doesn't matter, it wouldn't make a difference. People are set in their ways." So instead of confronting these issues head on, we'd rather run out into the streets and scream about how unfair it is. How dare you vote us down when we're not willing to come to you as PEOPLE and tell you we need your HELP.

Organizing the gay community and its supporters to make sure they all vote is not enough to defeat this. If we're going to wait until we naturally have a mind shift and gain enough friends and family to ensure our rights with no outreach effort on our part, it's going to be a day far away from now. We need to win over more people. The "independents" as it would be. Those on the fence. And then we need to win over those just on the other side of the fence. And we need to do that by LISTENING to them. They are on the fence because they have concerns. Let's take the time to address those concerns and show that we are a people of strong moral fiber that are compassionate and share their interests and fears. Let us not show them, once again, that we were angry at them and hate them for failing to see what we refuse to show them. We can reach so many people if we are willing to face our own fears of hearing why they are afraid of us.

Facing the Fears

Protesting vs. Planning: The Reaction to Prop 8

I think what's frustrating about what's going on in California right now is that it's a whole lot of people marching and yelling but there is no agenda. They're expressing their outrage but that's not going to change things. It's too late now... the measure has passed. There is nothing that protesting and marching is going to accomplish besides ring attention to the matter. But what happens when you get attention?? When I read and watch the news, what they are talking about is the gay people in CA that are protesting the passage of Prop 8. That's IT. They're not talking about what the protesters want DONE... because no one's got a plan!! So instead of getting people on their side, all they are doing is marginalizing themselves as the angry gay people in California.

I think that this is a fantastic article about what happened in CA and what to do about it:
“No on 8” – When Reactive Politics Become Losing Politics

Protesting vs. Planning: The Reaction to Prop 8

Two Problems with the Prop 8 Decision

I have two related issues with what's going on regarding this amendment.

First of all, what I think is disappointing is that the people couldn't reject this bill themselves. This would have sent a very clear message that we are on a path toward equality. Instead, this must now go to the courts to be struck down. They will either say it is unequal and thus unconstitutional, or that it is a revision and not an amendment and therefore must go through the state legislature. Either way, we sort of lose. Yes we get what we want, but we sort of get it in a roundabout way. I feel that the BEST way to beat this down is to repeal it in 2010.

Secondly, this was a very close election. And this would all be over if California required a supermajority (60%) to pass constitutional amendments. If this goes to the legislature as a revision, it will require 2/3 of the vote to pass as such.

HOWEVER I do not recommend anyone push for a required supermajority yet! If that happened and this went up for repeal in 2010, it will be that much harder to beat it.

Now, I'm not telling California how to conduct its business, but to pass an amendment taking away rights from a group with 52% of the vote hardly seems right.

Two Problems with the Prop 8 Decision

What to do about the Prop 8 mess.

Here is my opinion on how to handle this Prop 8 disaster.

Introduce a referendum that would eliminate the word "marriage" from the Constitution. Replace all instances of "marriage" with "domestic partnership". This will do one of two things:

1. It will solve the problem outright. Since the fundamental argument about marriage is that it is first a foremost a sacred religious rite, it keeps the term "marriage" in the church, and brings the all-encompassing "domestic partnership" into the socioeconomic and legal understanding of the idea.

2. It will cause the fundamentalists to stand up in outrage and refuse to allow the term "marriage" to be lessened by the term "domestic partnership". In doing so, they will ultimately prove the inherent problem: "domestic partnership" is both separate, AND unequal to "marriage". Therefore, as determined by Brown vs. Board of Ed., all couples must be allowed to marry.

The argument is also thus: If marriage is first and foremost a sacred institution, those who are married in non-religious ceremonies (gay or straight) must also not be allowed to use the term "married," nor be subject to its benefits. Inversely, any gay couple who is married by any minister of faith MUST be required to register as a married couple under the law, as their institution was religious.

Bottom line: Stop screaming at people. It's much more effective to move toward something, make THEM scream, and then follow it up with "Oh but you said..."

What to do about the Prop 8 mess.