Words and Rights Matter

I don’t know if you’ve heard the news but two Texas representatives took the first steps in recognizing same-sex couples. Yes, you heard that right, two representatives from Texas.

In February 11 Democratic Senator Chuy Hinojosa from McAllen proposed a bill that would grant same-sex couples civil unions. But on Valentines Day, Democratic State Rep. Lon Burnam from Fort Worth gave LGBTQ Texans a better Valentine’s Day message; full marriage equality to same-sex couples. Both have received harsh criticism from opponents of same-sex marriage but Senator Hinojosa has received that criticism from both sides of the aisles, with members of the LGBTQ communities claiming, “civil unions are not the best avenues for achieving equality.” read more

I also agree with these claims.

And although I am sure that Senator Chuy has good intentions I know that his intentions cannot make up for our unequal representation. Furthermore, this also got me thinking about partisan and policy rhetoric. The other day I became really interested in Rich Tafel, founder of the Log Cabin Republicans and Public Square. So I googled him and came across this video http://bigthink.com/users/richardtafel. Tafel argues that Democrats need to learn how to talk Republican. He goes on to say that Democrats frame policies or issues in a way that threatens the status quo as opposed to the Republicans who use more result-orientated rhetoric. In my opinion what he meant was that Republican rhetoric appeals to people’s wallets. Tafel said that when we speak about “rights” or “getting rights” we make the status quo, conservative individuals, feel that we are taking something away from them. Tafel used the push to “universal healthcare” from Obama. He said that instead of President Obama saying it’s a right for everyone to have access to healthcare, he should have framed it saying, “folks we do have universal healthcare in America, it’s called the emergency room.” Tafel went on to say that it would be more cost-effective to invest in preventable health issues than to have our tax dollars pay for the emergency room. I agree.

But this rhetoric is problematic.

Rich Tafel is telling me that I, a queer Latina, low-income, woman need to watch my words to satisfy the “status quo”? And who is this “status quo” anyway? Privileged white wealthy men? Rich Tafel is telling me that demanding rights is not the best way to do it because it might make the status quo feel like we’re taking something away from them? Really? Why shouldn’t discourse aim to make people realize that the rights that oppressed groups demand are rights that the “status quo” already have? Why should oppressed groups comprise their principals to satisfy the money in someone else’s pocket? And while Gay Rights Activist groups like to frame it in similar ways such as, “Three words that will save the economy: Gay Bridal Registry,” I would like to offer my own thoughts:

Equality representation for my partner and I is not for sale. My life and health are not for sale. My welfare is not for sale.  Why must we try to put a dollar sign in front of every issue what is wrong with just doing the RIGHT thing? Civil unions might mean the ability to file joint tax returns but it does not mean the RIGHT to marry; it does not mean marriage equality.

How equal is marriage equality?

While more states celebrate marriage equality there are about 40,000 foreign nationals in same-sex relationships living the U.S. who, no matter where they live, can’t really take part in that celebration.

Yes, we have made a significant change. Yes, we finally have a president who unapologetically recognizes gays and lesbians. But for all those screaming “Victory!” in their state because marriage equality is now a thing, I ask, what does equality mean to you?

I feel as we have forgotten the Defense Against Marriage Act. DOMA signed by President Clinton in 1996 defines marriage between a man and a women and does not require a state to recognize same-sex marriages. Despite the fact that the law is not being defended by our current administration, DOMA is still enforced. Which means, I can go get married in Maryland but the federal court will not recognize my marriage. Sounds unnecessary?  

Not for the 40,000 foreign nationals in same-sex relationships to whom getting married still means running a risk of getting separated rather than a life-long togetherness. Unlike, straight couples where a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident can file for their spouse’s green card, same-sex couples don’t have that option. In fact, if attempted, the undocumented spouse may face deportation.  That doesn’t seem very equal to me.

Fortunately, President Obama is already on it trying to grant same-sex couples equal immigration rights. However, there is of course opposition with ridiculous reasons as to why they are opposed. David Nakamura and Zachary A. Goldfarb from the Washington Post report on some of those oppositions in their article titled “In immigration debate, same-sex marriage comes to the fore”. Republicans fear that this will kill any chances of a “comprehensible immigration reform”.Some evangelical churches and religious organization continue to fight against anything dealing with same-sex marriage by claiming that it will indefinitely ruin the traditional family. Many now claim that President Obama has to choose between Latinos and gays.

But is this really about either group?

No, this issue shouldn’t be put in the middle of the table as if now the undocumented straight individuals had to fight the undocumented gays and lesbians for a right that has been long overdue to both parties. This is simply about providing the exact same opportunity that straight couples already had to same-sex couples. Does this mean that if same-sex couples have equal immigration rights Obama will not push a full immigration reform? No, why should extending equal rights have anything to do with writing an immigration reform? Does this mean that if a legally married spouse wants to petition for a green card for their spouse the traditional family values will fall apart? NO! 

The fact that this issue even has to be discussed clearly shows how broken the notion of marriage equality really is. 

It's a nice day for a queer wedding :)

What is marriage?

*crickets*

Hello? Is this thing on? I asked what is marriage?
Give up? Beats me. That's like asking what's family: it's different for each person that you ask; I'm not going to proclaim to have all of the answers or know how you should define it. All I know is that I can say, "this is marriage to ME" and someone else could have a completely opposite view... or the same view with a little tweaking. Nobody's definition will be exactly alike. Some people don't even believe that marriage should exist. So there you go! However you look at it though, is there anything wrong with two people falling in love? I should say not. How about two or more people? That's great too! More love for them! There could be a lot of restrictions between the couple(s) or none at all. Fine by me.

But BANNING PEOPLE from getting married? Really? C'mon now... we aren't in Kindergarten. To me, marriage restrictions are like stopping your classmates from using the monkey bars because they have blonde hair. Blech...talk about bad taste. As Americans, we really do deserve the same rights as each other COMPLETELY, not "sometimes" or "when the government feels like". So believe me when I say I'm actually somewhat proud (*gulp*) to live in a place that ideas can SLOWLY change for the better, allowing people to join in the equality.

First, snaps to the Obama Administration for recognizing Section 3 of DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, as unconstitutional. To summarize, Section 3 basically says that marriage should only be defined as between a man and a woman and because of the recent repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", there has been a "shift" in the current administration's thinking to what is constitutionally sound. (The link is below, if you would like further clarification). THAT SAME DAY, Hawaii's governor, Gov. Neil Abercrombie, "signed legislation legalizing civil unions". Yes, I understand, some people believe that civil unions aren't marriage but remember when I said slowly changing? This is what I was referring to. Personally, and this is MY opinion, slow progress is progress; I believe the more the United State's citizens realizes that marriage is for everybody, and the more they see that LGBTQIA people are "just like everyone else", the more legislation will pass for marriage equality. And this just in today: Maryland's "Marriage equality bill" was completely passed and will be signed by Gov. Martin O'Malley.

Did I mention that this happened all this week?! To me, even though these are baby steps, they are such an important accomplishment for the queer community. We are being recognized as citizens and being allowed to partake in the thousands of rights that come with marriage. I hope that one day, everyone can have their marriage legally recognized by the nation. That's really something to celebrate in my eyes. SO, go put on your moth3&#@$%^&g stilettos and shake it for marriage babies!

I'll meet you on the dance floor :)

Love,
femmeDeathTrap



Govt. Will Stop Defending DOMA
Hawaii Gov. Signs Civil Union Bill
Marriage in Maryland

This, not just in

Following LGBTQ news is difficult but worth the effort. Difficult because you have to seek it out. Worth the effort because the effort it takes to bookmark a blog or two or raise consciousness with friends is infinitesimally smaller than the wear of living without validation of your community identity. Thank you to all the groups that consolidate this information in one place making it infinitely more accessible —however marginalized (Just a side note, that the niching of services for any group is problematic in itself; “it’s a Band-Aid on the bigger problem, which is not taking issues that relate to [LGBTQ] seriously.” Author Ann Friedman adds it “serve[s] to draw an even brighter line around topics that should concern” everyone.”) I digress. Enough caveat.

I got tired reading about marriage the other week—how news other than seems marginalized even in these marginalized spaces. I tallied a small sampling of articles on Advocate. 36% of the articles had to do with marriage or domestic partnership. If you include things like adoption and all things that follow the unrecognized right its more like 43%. Which doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for everything else. There’s a large counter-dialogue among activists that counters the focus on marriage. The strategy serves primarily white middle-class GL communities. Most importantly it ignores the more urgent issues that affect LGBTQ communities who are challenged by a multiplicity of opressions. Things like hate crime, violence, access to health care, depression, homelessness, suicide and on and on. These issues were addressed in…wait for it…less than half of one percent of the articles. There IS a way to address these issues without sensationalizing them. Marriage and its benefits are just further up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and we’re not there yet, are we?