Don't Ask Don't Tell

This article titled, "Top generals buck White House on military gay ban" raises a very interesting and important issue. In spite of all the recent pushes to get DADT repealed, this article questions the timing of the repeal. I think that having the voices of the generals in the Marine Corps is an extremely significant perspective to have. One general communicates his concerns, 


"My suspicions are that the law will be repealed” eventually, Amos told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “All I’m asking is the opportunity to do that at a time and choosing when my Marines are not singularly tightly focused on what they’re doing in a very deadly environment.”


The issue seems very plausible and despite my own personal incentives, it is hard to dismiss a general's words and beliefs. They further voice their concerns by saying, 


“Assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption,” among individual units fighting or readying to deploy, Amos said Friday. “It will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat.”


My question is, is this an attempt to just further elongate the repeal in attempt to stall? Or are these problems more important than we give them credit for?

Personal versus Political

It really frustrates me that anti-gay marriage supporters are pressuring the appellate judge to disqualify himself from hearing arguments next week in the Prop 8 case, because he is married to a woman who was once the director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Southern California. Apparently, "Prop. 8 supporters had argued in a brief filed Wednesday to the court that Ripston has "an avowed interest" in the case, 'an interest that unquestionably will be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding.'"


I trust that this Judge will do his best to separate the politics of this case with his own personal life. What frustrates me though is the fact that we have had politicians (in the past as well as today) who definitely used their government position to support their personal agenda. In the past we have had people who worked in the government who were also members of the KKK or had friends and family that were and yet they were never pressured to resign their position. The Supreme Court Justices definitely have personal beliefs that affect the way they interpret the constitution but there is nothing anyone could really do about that. The way you interpret anything will be influenced by your own personal belief and past experiences.  In a way, its impossible to separate the politics and the personal.  So when I read that this Judge has been pressured to disqualify himself from the case, I just thought it was a very silly argument. 


http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/02/Judge_Wont_Recuse_Himself_in_Prop_8_Appeal/

European Union Forces Recognition Of Same-Sex Relationships By All Member States

There is good news from Europe today on the relationship recognition front, via Joe.My.God.

Pink Paper reports:

The European Parliament has declared that civil documents – birth and death certificates, marriage certificates, etc. – must be recognised the same in every European Union nation.

That means countries that don't allow same-sex marriage or civil unions are expected to recognise such unions from countries that do.

On 23 November, the Parliament said it "strongly supports plans to enable the mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents" and "stresses the need to ensure mutual recognition" of them.

The next step is for the European Commission to propose ways to achieve mutual recognition of all partnerships and marriages throughout the EU.

"This is a great development for the many couples and families who see their fundamental rights diminished every day when crossing a border inside the EU," said Ulrike Lunacek, co-president of the European Parliament Intergroup on LGBT Rights.

Co-President Michael Cashman said the statement adopted by the Parliament "follows the Commission's assertion in September that freedom of movement must be guaranteed for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation."

"Claims that mutual recognition will undermine national sovereignty are plain wrong; it won't affect national marriage or partnership laws, but simply recognize civil unions that already exist," Cashman said.

Member nations of the European Union are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Currently seeking to join the EU are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Iceland, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. Elsewhere, it is legal in Argentina, Canada, South Africa, Mexico City, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C.

Interestingly, in most of the countries which have civil partnerships (which are basically like the civil unions and comprehensive domestic partnerships in the United States) they are restricted to be accessed by same-sex couples only.

What Would You Do

Over Thanksgiving Break, I was watching television and I saw a commercial for a new television series called What Would You Do?  Now I just came across a short article about the show. The purpose of the show is to see how the average American responds to others in a crisis or need. In one episode, a father and son are at a restaurant and the son tells his father that he is gay. The father responds terribly and tell his son he can't be gay, because being gay is wrong.  These two men are actors and the point is to see how others in the restaurant respond to this situation. The article describes the audiences response:


"Patrons are noticeably uncomfortable — two so much so that they get up and leave the restaurant. But will any of them actually step up to the plate and confront the father?"


I am not really comfortable with this scenario. If there was girl about to get kidnapped, then I would expect others to jump in and help her. But this is a private conversation between a father and a son.  And although it is wrong of the father to not accept his son's sexuality, I do not necessarily think it is the duty of those around them to step in and correct him. The show is implying (I think) that the others in the restaurant should intervene and support the son.  However, its not anyone else business and the most that others can hope for is that the son and father work it out.  I think a better solution to destroying homophobic attitudes is education, not intervening in a conversation between a father and son at a restaurant. 


Thats just my thoughts though, what do you think?


http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/02/What_Would_You_Do_Features_Gay_Son,_Antigay_Parent/

"Hate under cloak of religion"

Religious groups are often very much against the idea of homosexuality and preach that it's sinful and immoral. But unless they take the same path as the Westboro Baptist Church and hold up disgustingly offensive "God hates fags" signs, no one really considers religious organizations a hate group.

This article addresses the Family Research Council, a large Washington-based group strongly associated with the religious right. The Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization centered around civil rights, has called out the Family Research Council on their hateful preaching reminiscent of those who opposed racial equality for African Americans.

One of the Family Research Council's pamphlets explain the "evils" of homosexuality, with one called "Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle." Similar to the ridiculous claims from decades ago that African American teenagers would assault and harass white females because they are "unable to control sexual impulses," spokesmen for the Family Research Council have ludicrously stated that children are more vulnerable to molestation in same-sex parent households.

I'm all for the freedom of speech, and if people are going to continue to be nonsensically close-minded and hateful toward specific groups, they have the right to. But these people are pushing for legal action to marginalize the LGBT community based on their own hateful beliefs, and that is unconstitutional. Like the author of the article writes, "... we now recognize [rhetoric used by anti-black equality] as hate speech. It's past time to do the same with rhetoric that denigrates gays and lesbians."

LGBT Rights in Contemporary Opera

Right before Thanksgiving, I saw the last showing of USC Thorton Opera's fall production. One of the featured pieces was the 2006 opera "Three Decembers" by Jake Heggie. This contemporary piece set in 1986  has only three characters - a mother and her two grown children.

The story is about a dysfunctional family and a neglectful mother. The reason I found the opera to be advocating LGBT rights was the character of the son, Charlie. Set in 1986, Charlie is living with his partner stricken with AIDS. Ten years later, his partner dies, and many years later, Charlie finds a new partner. However, the plot of the opera manages to be about the character of the mother, with Charlie's plight as a sub-story.

The seamless integration of a gay man in the midst of the AIDS scare into an opera is pretty remarkable. Charlie is not "the gay character," he happens to be gay. The music emphasizes humanity  rather than difference.

The director of the opera said that he saw "Three Decembers" as the future of opera and where it was heading. I am excited that such controversial issues, like gay men and AIDS, can be seen as a story about people instead of making a political statement. Today, there are so many LGBT legal issues going on - DADT, same-sex marriage, bullying liability - that everything is a political statement.  Ke$sha and Katy Perry have even released billboard hits with underlying messages about gay rights. While all the political battling is necessary to fight for equal rights, it's nice to think about settings in which being gay doesn't have to be political or strategic or a statement but can just be.

The Gender-Bending World of Anime

So, in order to prepare for a Japanese placement exam this December, I've been "studying" by watching original Japanese anime cartoons. No I don't think this will really help me. But I can dream.

I've learned ... anime is weird. Really weird. The series I've been watching (Ranma 1/2 if anyone's actually curious) ran from the late eighties to mid-nineties, and the principal character is a guy who turns into a girl when cold water is splashed on him. Who also does kung-fu. The entire show is laced with cross-dressing, over exaggerated sexuality, and atypical relationships.

In Japanese society, homosexuality is not against the law, but is frowned upon. There has been little to no action in order to legalize same-sex marriages, and anyone not straight is called "hentai," which means twisted or backwards.

How can a society based on family values and honor come up with such ridiculous, non-traditional sexual themes? Such anime shows are very popular in Japan, but differ so starkly from societal values. I found an article which explains the "gender-panic situations" of the cartoon in detail. The author says gender-panic is used as a comedic tool. I also found an anime-news forum (the things you can find on the internet these days) with a blog about gender-bending. One blogger said that:

"Recently, anime has been focusing a LOT on ridiculous slapstick comedy and "man in a dress" has been good for kicks ever since M*A*S*H or Some Like it Hot.

It's not a case of gender-bending being any more or less acceptable from a cultural standpoint, it's just an example of an industry running on creative empty."

So is anime using gender-bending to promote LGBT issues or for comedic effect? Is the use of gender-bending hurtful or harmful to the LGBT community in Japan? What do you think?