Open Forum: The 10th Amendment and Gay Marriage

A federal judge has recently ruled that section three of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The ruling is a major blow to those trying to keep federal benefits from married gay couples and will likely make its way before the Supreme Court shortly.

What is most interesting about the case is that the Judge found that not only did part of DOMA violate the equal protection clause of the constitution but that it also violated the tenth amendment! The tenth amendment has traditionally been used by conservatives to argue in favor of states rights.

How will the ruling on the 10th amendment play out in the future of proceedings on gay marriage? On one hand it can be argued that the federal government cannot dictate marriage if a state chooses to recognize gay marriage. However, couldn't it also be used to argue that if the Supreme Court or Congress decided to make marriage equality the law of the land that states could choose to abstain?

Open Forum: Constitutional Amendment Allowing SSM?

We are always fighting off propositions to have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. In many locales voters have voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman within their state constitutions.

What about a fight to amend the state constitutions to allow for marriage equality? If it loses, we lose nothing. If it wins it would be unprecedented and make world history. It would be the first time voters decided to grant marriage rights to all couples.

Do you think this could work anywhere, if so, where? Why aren't there efforts by pro-equality forces engaging in these tactics? Is there a state or country where voters are most likely to vote to approve same-sex marriage and on what basis?

Open Forum: Did Queers Have Something Similar to the "Bradley Effect" Occur?

I have rehashed this entry because the election is over and it appears the "bradley effect" has occured on queer propositions.

"The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect, is a proposed explanation for observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other. Named for Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in some voter polls, the Bradley effect refers to an alleged tendency on the part of some voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his/her white opponent." (Wikipedia)

The "Bradley Effect" was a shocking dose of reality about the inconsistency of polls to determine how truthful people are about their voting decisions. It also went on to show the racial implications of the governor's race.

While it is now 26 years later, the notion of a "Bradley Effect" has resurfaced because Barack Obama, a bi-racial candidate was running for the office of the presidency of the United States of America. It became interesting for political pundits and insiders to ponder whether people were indicating they would vote for the democratic ticket while in private would vote against it because of the racial implications. It turned out that not only did this not occur, but Obama defeated all odds and carried traditionally republican strongholds.

I wonder however whether this can be applied to certain LGBT issues that were on the ballot this Nov. 4th. The marriage amendments in Arizona, and Florida this year have passed, California is still too close to call but likely passed as well. There is also the adoption ban by unmarried co-habitating couples in Arkansas. All of these referendums hold major implications for Americans straight and gay.

People opposed to gay rights often argue that they "have gay friends" or are "not bigoted against gays." It has become increasingly unpopular to be associated with "homophobia." Is it possible there is a segment of the population that claims they will vote against these marriage amendments and in favor of LGBT rights while secretly espousing another point of view to hide their own fear of being labeled a bigot? The exit poll data showed us defeating the bans in California, Florida, and Arkansas, so why are the results different?

Get DADT on the Debate Platform

Soon the presidential debates between Barack Obama and John McCain will ensue. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network an organization devoted to overturning the military ban on gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers is asking for us to send in requests to moderator Jim Lehrer for Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) to be one of the questions asked of them at the forum.

http://www.sldn.org/page/speakout/debate

How to Counter Opposition in Marriage Debate

Quick and easy talking points when arguing for Marriage Equality:

Opposition: Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman.

Equality: The definition of marriage has changed throughout the course of history. Biblical marriage supported polygamy where men could take on several wives and concubines. Marriage has historically been an institution where a man would be possessive over his wife and she would be subservient. Today we see marriage in the context of loving and financially sound relationships, there is no legitimate reason to hold back on allowing this option for all interested parties.

Opposition: If you open up marriage, others will demand it as well and society will tumble.


Equality: Marriage is currently available for two people and gay marriage activists only seek to continue this tradition and allow 2 people of the same-sex to have this right. This line of reasoning by the opposition is a scare tactic to suggest that this paves the way for polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia. This is far from the truth since those are illegal and not consensual. Two same-sex individuals committing to each other is vastly different.

Opposition: Why can't you just settle on a domestic partnership or civil union and leave marriage sacred?

Equality: Domestic partnerships and civil unions are inferior to the status of civil marriage. Marriage provides full benefits while civil unions lack in hundreds of benefits and rights that are afforded to heterosexual couples. Marriage is also a universal concept, if a same-sex couple is civil-unionized one place, and they move to another country that does not have civil unions, their partnership will not be recognized. Marriage is a concept that is understood internationally, and LGBT people should not be given second class citizenship.

Opposition: My religion is against same-sex marriage.

Equality: There is no reference in the bible to same-sex marriage. That being said, everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs and each and every house of worship can decide whether or not to honor same-sex relationships. Religion however is separate from government and gays and lesbians should be recognized under a contract of civil marriage.

Opposition: Two men or two women cannot procreate and create a family.

Equality: There are also infertile straight couples, and those who marry and do not want children. Providing government benefits and a ceremony to honor two people who have committed to one another has nothing to do with procreation. While it is true that gays and lesbians cannot procreate, they can choose options such as insemination, donor sperm/egg, and adoption of children.

Open Forum: Is the Notion of a "Queer Community" a Fairytale?

We often hear the terms "Gay community" or "LGBT community" to refer to sexual and gender minorities who have banded together under an umbrella term. Is there really such a community? The notion of whether we are a community is subject to debate in Queer theory circles.

Each subgroup has a different struggle and a different agenda, we all have overlapping similarities. We all have overlapping political aspirations. Does this make us a community? We also have divisions amongt us. Do Gay men really care about Lesbian rights and having a women centered and feminist empowering movement. Do Lesbians really accept Trans-women as female? Are Homos and Hetero's throwing out the Bisexuals as just a confused bunch? Do Transgender people really care about LGB rights once they have transitioned and are "passable"? Do Asexual people really want to be labeled with a bunch of Queers who are "defined" by their sexuality? and finally do Intersex people want to be lumped into the umbrella with those who have "GID"?

Even amidst our so called respective populations we have divisions. Gay men are divided into categories Bears, Twinks, Fetish practitioners, etc. Lesbians divide themselves up by Butch, Femme, and Trans. Transgender people are divided by classifications of M2F, F2M, Andogyne, Genderqueer, Pre-op, Post-op, etc.

There is a lot of inner debate and struggle within our so called "community" and there is misunderstanding and even downright hatred. So often we hear arguments about which letter comes first in the acronym LGBT and we hear other debates that acronym is not all inclusive. We also often hear that the B or the T is being left out.

That being said there are some unifying themes that we all share. We all have the struggle of being closeted, and embracing and coming to terms with our identities, and we all share an opposition that hates us and wants to deny us rights.

There are other indications that maybe the "community" part of the debate is valid. During the 1980's at the height of the AIDS crisis, Lesbians were at the hospital beds of dying gay men. Many people don't know that some of the greatest leaders in ACT-UP (an organization set to fight HIV/AIDS discrimination) were lesbian women.

Stonewall was started by the acts of many brave and angry Transgender people which paved the way for the rights and empowerment of Gays and Lesbians.

The Gays who have a substantially larger population have accepted the Trans community and brought their issues and legislation to the forefront. Had it just been Trans people alone, their movement would not have advanced as quickly or at all.

So that being said there are divisions but there is also love and unity.

How do YOU define community and do Queers fit that mold?