Femagination » Gay Rights

What’s With Arizona??

Ellen Keim — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:00:33 +0000

Arizona State Flag

Maybe it’s in the water. Maybe it’s the heat. Whatever it is, it’s bringing out the worst in the people of Arizona. I didn’t even realize that the governor, Jan Brewer, signed a bill into law last September denying benefits to domestic partners of state employees. The new law, which takes effect October 1, redefines “dependent” and excludes coverage for domestic partners, including heterosexual partners, children of domestic partners, disabled adult dependents, and full time students over 22 who are claimed as dependents.

Interestingly enough, the University of Arizona has decided to reinstate benefits to domestic partners, using funds separate from state money, in order to remain competitive in attracting talent. According to the Arizona Daily Star, about 20 employees of the University left because of the repeal of domestic partner benefits and some job offers were rejected for the same reason.

I’ve always seen the offering of benefits to domestic partners and other dependents as a way to get more people insured in America. Without those benefits, many people will not have health insurance at all. Why shouldn’t a person be able to cover more than herself on her policy if she is willing to pay the family premium? In fact, I think insurance policies ought to cover adult children indefinitely. There’s a terrible gap in insurance coverage between 22-year-olds and those who have finally established their careers to the point where they get employee benefits.

Nor do I think people should be forced to marry just so they can share a family insurance plan. It’s not the place of the state to pry into what kind of relationship domestic partners have.

This stinginess on the part of the Arizona legislators is only part of negative picture being painted of Arizonans. Besides signing into law the new immigration law that allows law enforcement officials to request proof of legal immigration, residency, or citizenship of anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant, the governor also signed a bill that bans ethnic studies classes in the state’s public schools. The new law (see PDF) bans classes that “promote the overthrow of the United States government,” “promote resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group,” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” (In Tucson alone, where the school district is 56 percent Hispanic, there are approximately 1,500 high school students enrolled in ethnic studies classes.)*

In other words, students are going to be discouraged from being proud of their ethnic heritage. I’m assuming that anything that might promote resentment toward the majority (white) population will also be discouraged (such as telling the truth about certain parts of history). And since when did ethnic study classes promote the overthrow of the U.S. government? I thought it was mainly the Christian militia nuts who advocated that.

As if all this weren’t enough, there is the recent brouhaha over one public elementary school’s decision to paint over the faces of “ethnic” schoolchildren on a mural outside of the school so that they would all be white. Why? Because people were yelling racial epithets at it as they drove by. (Drive-by harassment.) Apparently that action has been reversed, but the fact that they would do it in the first place is beyond belief. Mind you, these were pictures of actual students who attend the school. (See Huffington Post story for more details.)

I realize that the eyes of the media are on Arizona right now and that equally absurd things go on everywhere, but it does seem that Arizona has a racism (not to mention a homophobia) problem. And the fact that it has a high number of immigrants shouldn’t be an excuse for the prejudice. Some (most) people don’t like change, and this is a changing world. In spite of the United States’ relatively restrictive immigration policy, it still has a lot of immigrants. And they are having babies. OMG!

Soon whites won’t be the majority anymore, and then what will they do?

I guess what they are trying to do in Arizona.

* Source: Feminist Majority Foundation’s Feminist News

Death Penalty For Gays?

Ellen Keim — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:38:11 +0000

A Huffington Post article on December 8, 2009 reported that legislation has been proposed in Uganda that would impose the death penalty for some gay Ugandans and put their family and friends in jail for up to seven years if they fail to report them. Gay rights activists contend that this bill is part of a reaction to Africa’s gay community becoming more vocal.

The article explains that “the Ugandan legislation in its current form would mandate a death sentence for active homosexuals living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. ‘Serial offenders’ also could face capital punishment, but the legislation does not define the term. Anyone convicted of a homosexual act faces life imprisonment.” In addition, “anyone who ‘aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage of acts of homosexuality’ faces seven years in prison if convicted. Landlords who rent rooms or homes to homosexuals also could get seven years and anyone with ‘religious, political, economic or social authority’ who fails to report anyone violating the act faces three years.”

Opponents point out that the bill signals a return to the brutal regime of Idi Amin, which would throw citizens in prison for life for merely touching another person in a gay way and put them to death if convicted of a crime called “aggravated homosexuality.”

Uganda is only one of several African nations who are criminalizing homosexuality, which they say is increasing because of “foreign influences.” High school teacher David Kisambra says that “the youths in secondary schools copy everything from the Western world and America. A good number of students have been converted into gays. We hear there are groups of people given money by some gay organizations in developed countries to recruit youth into gay activities.”

However, apparently there are also foreigners who are encouraging the Ugandan government’s homophobic reaction. According to the article, “The measure was proposed in Uganda following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy for gays to become heterosexual. However, at least one of those leaders has denounced the bill, as have some other conservative and liberal Christians in the United States.”

Rachel Maddow, host of The Rachel Maddow Show, debated the point with Richard Cohen, author of Coming Out Straight. Here is a video of their exchange:

Health officials are concerned because they fear this will hinder efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. See “Stigma Driving AIDS Crisis Among African Gays.” I remember the AIDS hysteria in the U.S. in the ’80s. One of the most appalling things I heard during that time was that AIDS was God’s way of getting rid of homosexuals. The problem is, AIDS is also spread by men to women and is in fact the leading cause of death among African men and women. (The African Region has 11% of the world’s population, but an estimated 60% of people with HIV/AIDS.) Source: World Health Organization.

The only way to combat this disease is to let homosexuality out of the closet, not put it in prison.

In Memoriam

Ellen Keim — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:39:04 +0000

On Thursday, October 8, 2009, eleven years after Matthew’s death, the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, 281-146, to give final House passage to the Defense Spending Bill that included the Matthew Shepard Act, which added gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and disability to the federal law prohibiting crimes motivated by hatred or minority bias.

For background, see my posts “Sexual Hate Crimes” and “Hate Crimes Legislation Debate.”

Also: yesterday was the 11th International Transgender Day of Remembrance. Check out Bird of Paradox for this Transgender Europe press release.

A photographic exhibition at the Hammer Museum, University of California Los Angeles, shows a comparative study between teenage girls and adult male-to-female transsexuals

Noble Savage points out in “Transforming Our Views of Transgender” that some feminists do not consider male-to-female transexuals to be female simply because they say so (or because they have the operation relieving them of their male “equipment”). This convoluted viewpoint comes from the supposed feminist “belief” that gender is not biologically determined, but rather socialized behavior. This black-or-white way of thinking only serves to marginalize transgender individuals and deprive them of their human rights.

For example, Julie Bindel writes in Standpoint.com that “despite campaigning against gender discrimination, rape, child abuse and domestic violence for 30 years, I have been labelled a bigot because of a column I wrote in 2004 that questioned whether a sex change would make someone a woman or simply a man without a penis.” (Read her recent article, “The Operation That Can Ruin Your Life,” here.)

Go here to read more about this exhibition.

A Survey for Women

Ellen Keim — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:26:12 +0000

Noble Savage tipped me off to this survey for women about feminism, marriage and motherhood. The survey is being conducted by the University of Mary Washington Mothering Study. Here is the researchers’ statement:

“We are studying the relationship between feminism and mothering. There has been a historical tension between the feminist movement and mothers. Some have accused feminists of ruining the family by encouraging women to move into the workplace, obtain legal abortions, and less commonly serve as primary caregivers. On the other hand, feminists have also advocated for affordable high quality childcare and have been very involved in women’s health issues including childbirth and breastfeeding. Some branches of feminism especially value motherhood. Little research has been conducted on whether feminists are more or less likely to desire motherhood, the ways in which feminists may be different from non-feminists in how they approach motherhood, and how people (both feminists and non-feminists) perceive feminist mothers. We hope to contribute to this literature.”

I enjoyed taking the survey because it really made me think. It isn’t long–15 to 30 minutes.

Friday Videos: Gloria Steinem

Ellen Keim — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:56:43 +0000

This is an hour-long program featuring Gloria Steinem, a famous Second Wave feminist, now age 75. (This program is a year old.) You can pick and choose what sections you want to watch. Just click on “Watch Full Program” and select.

Tuesday Tidbits

Ellen Keim — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:41:53 +0000

“Misogyny, Up Close and Personal” by Melissa McEwan in the guardian.co.uk. How we can love men while not liking everything they do.

Marcella Chester’s blog about being a rape survivor: “Abyss2hope.” This particular article is about the incidence of sexual abuse among boys and girls. Also check out her website, “Date Rape is Real Rape.”

Bitch Magazine blog post by Mandy Van Deven about the classist, sexist, racist, homophobic and just plain mean blog, People of WalMart. (I could find the Facebook page for PeopleofWalmart, but not the website.)

Feminists Naomi Wolfe and Phyllis Chesler “face off over the veil” at Salon Broadsheet. This one’s especially interesting to me because like Wolfe, I defend any woman’s right to wear a headcovering, but I identify with Chesler’s views since I am also a Second-Waver. Read the article by Wolfe that started the debate: “Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality.”

Hate Crimes Legislation Debate

Ellen Keim — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:47:43 +0000

Jos, on Feministing, is against hate crimes legislation for several reasons, one being:

“Hate crimes legislation puts the power to bring and pursue such charges in the hands of a law enforcement and criminal justice system that disproportionately targets marginalized communities. As a result, hate crime charges are brought against black folks for allegedly targeting white folks and against queer folks for allegedly targeting straight folks. In fact, as the Sylvia Rivera Law Project (SRLP) points out in their non-endorsement of GENDA, so called anti-white hate crimes constitute the second highest amount reported by the FBI. Self defense in the face of a racist, homophobic or transphobic attack can equal a harsher sentence for the person being attacked in the first place.”

Read entire post here.

The SRLP’s statement includes their assertion that “[hate crimes legislation] encourage[s] us to lay blame and focus our vengeful hostility on one person instead of paying attention to institutional prejudice that fuels police violence, encourages bureaucratic systems to ignore trans people’s needs or actively discriminate against us, and denies our communities health care, identification, and so much more.”

The SRLP’s interpretation of the FBI statistics is misleading. Anti-white crimes may be the second most numerous type of hate crime based on race, but they still only constitute 18.3% compared to the 69.3% of the race crimes that are anti-black. Big difference. Also, the FBI statistics don’t even include a separate category for transgendered individuals.

Jos’ objection, “the fact that hate crime legislation does not have any quantifiable positive impact makes it a very poor reason to go against my larger belief about prisons” is a legitimate one. But I don’t understand a view that is willing to let hate crime perpetrators off the hook. Ideally, laws reflect the values of a society but sometimes they help to bring about change in those values. Hate crime legislation is both. There are still a lot of people in this society who think it is all right to commit crimes against persons and property base on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/nationality and disability. They need to be shown in no uncertain terms that our society will not stand for that behavior.

Meanwhile, I agree that other means to change people’s attitudes should be employed. But that kind of change can be slow in coming. Jos’ assertion that “harsher sentencing does not decrease the amount of hate crimes being committed” may be true, but not making laws against them implies a tolerance that our society cannot afford to exhibit.

The Matthew Shepard Act that is now going through Congress is an example of the attempt to tighten hate crimes laws. It seeks to achieve three objectives:

1) Expand the law to authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Current law only includes race, color, religion or national origin.

2) Eliminate a serious limitation on federal involvment under existing law which requires that a victim of a bias-motivated crime was attacked because he/she was engaged in a specified federally-protected activity such as voting, serving on a jury or attending school.

3) Add “gender” and “gender identity” to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act*

This does not seem to be too much to ask.

*Source: Matthew Shepard Foundation

Held to the Same Standards

Ellen Keim — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:38:34 +0000

Reuters/Mihai Barbu

In the past week, Martina Navratilova has been sued by a former lover, Toni Layton, for millions of dollars in damages and spousal support. Navratilova’s defense hinges on whether or not she can convince the court that her and Layton’s relationship isn’t bound by the same standards as heterosexual marriage.

Layton and Navratilova were never legally married (they did “marry” in an unofficial ceremony in New Hampshire, but then moved to Florida which does not recognize same-sex unions) but they did live together for eight years and shared assets and property. If this had been a legal marriage, there is no question that Layton would be awarded some of those assets and quite possibly spousal support as well.

One reason why I think gay marriage will eventually become legal is so that gay relationships can be held to the same standards as heterosexual ones. Divorces can be as messy as lawsuits but they don’t usually involve the collection of damages. As it stands now, both parties are vulnerable and neither is protected. As long as the law has different standards for same-sex relationships, these cases will inevitably be settled haphazardly. The legal system doesn’t take kindly to such inconsistencies.

The same sort of dynamic is present in custody suits between same-sex parents. (See my post, “Custody Fights Between Lesbian Parents.”) Just by being required to handle such cases, the courts are falling back on the marriage model to help them decide their outcomes. And the more often this happens the more likely it is that legal precedent will pave the way for gay marriage, if only to keep things tidy.

Louis Bayard of Salon.com writes that ” Martina Navratilova can no longer cast herself as an apostle for gay rights while using a homophobic legal code to deny her ex-partners alimony [Yes, this has happened before--see article link at top of post]. This is more than bad behavior, it is bad precedent.” Layton herself is quoted as saying, “‘If I was a man, married or not, I’d be entitled to half of everything that she earned during those years together. But because I’m a woman, it seems, rather conveniently, she believes I’m entitled to next to nothing.”

Navratilova–and the rest of the gay community–needs to wake up: if they continue to press for equal rights (and I am totally behind their doing so) then they better prepare themselves for the equal responsibilities as well.