Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
—Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Activists need Priority Check
Recently there have been a number of articles written about the potential repeal of the US military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) with regards to Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual members of the armed forces. In reading these articles I have consistently astonished by the assumptions, elitism, and hypocrisy I find in them. Right now, many of you are probably thinking that I'm going to talk about the assumptions and hypocrisy in conservative anti-DADT arguments and articles. While there is certainly plenty of criticism to go around, those are not the articles I am referring to in this piece.
Earlier today I was pleased to see that a writer at my alma-mater, the University of Wisconsin took up the initiative to write an opinion piece about DADT. What I was surprised to find was an article that claimed the repeal of DADT would be meaningless and ultimately a mere political pandering to the LGBT community. The author of the article claimed that rather than fighting to repeal DADT, activists should be spending their time and energy on more important issues such as Marriage Equality. While I personally believe that creating hierarchies of "issues" is generally a fruitless effort that only promotes divisiveness within a community, this is not the first time that I have been told by "activists" that fight against DADT should be abandoned. As such I feel compelled to share my thoughts on why repealing DADT should be one of our top priorities and certainly of more immediate concern than marriage equality.
To start with, every discriminatory barrier that is torn down, be it marriage equality or DADT by its very nature helps to advance LGBT equality. This is because every discriminatory barrier that is torn down is also a new opportunity for LGBT people to interact with and win over the support of ignorant and misinformed people.
On a more practical note the financial and educational opportunities for LGBT people that would result from the repeal of DADT are also benefits that would lead towards equality. For people like myself that come from financially poor families, military service offers one of the only real opportunities we have to attend college, especially more prestigious and expensive universities. For people in even worse financial or familial situations than I was, for example those who have been kicked out of their home or college or fired from their workplace, military service offers one of the only options for ensuring a stable paycheck, a roof over your head and an opportunity to further your education and resume and leave the cycle of poverty.
Alternatively, marriage equality provides little to no support and progress for those that are most in need. The right to marry is by its very definition about securing the rights of people in committed relationships, people that by definition have support structures and people in their lives that love them. For far too many LGBT people in our society, having a "partner" or support structure is a privilege they do not have. This issue is particularly salient when put into the context of the effect that discrimination has on LGBT mental health. My personal belief is that it is likely far more emotionally damaging for an LGBT person to live with their legally unrecognized than to live in a military governed by DADT having to hide your identity or your partners identity, and having the constant fear that you might be discovered and lose everything. Policies such as Don't Ask Don't Tell, and many others that discriminate against LGBT people on issues of basic necessities like housing, employment, and education are likely to blame for dramatically increased LGBT suicide rates. Yet our diverse LGBT communities have chosen for one reason or another to spend the bulk of our time, energy, financial resources, and political capital on marriage equality?
Marriage equality does nothing to remedy the discrimination that poses the most immediate threat to our LGBT brothers, sisters, parents, and children. While marriage equality is certainly an important issue, its actual benefits exist primarily in the realm of taxes, hospital visitation, immigration, adoption, and social status symbols. All of these are extremely important and need to be fought for, but in my personal opinion they don't hold a candle to ensuring the basic welfare of LGBT people without jobs, homes, educations, or income.
Like marriage equality, repealing DADT isn't going to solve all of the social, economic, and educational ills that continue to oppress LGBT voices, but it will at least provide an option for LGBT people in immediate need while the rest of us use our positions of privilege to fight for true equality.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't fight for marriage, any issue regarding the full and equal recognition of LGBT people by the law is worth fighting for, all I'm saying is that as successful student with a wonderful partner, perhaps I need to ask myself whether I'm fighting for marriage because it benefits LGBT communities or because it benefits me personally. I personally think LGBT marriage Equality would be great, I'm just not sure it should be the most important priority for me as a human rights activist right now.
1 comment
We All have a Story to Tell
Written by Engine-of-Change's newest contributor Cheryl Hager.
Frankly, when Justin asked me to contribute to Engine-Of-Change, I wasn't sure what I would write about. Would anything I say offer any value, to anyone? As a mom, my opinions come more from the heart, than from scientific or academic evidence. However, after reading Kyle's article today on Pro-Life Across America (I drive that stretch of interstate regularly) and last weeks comments on CBS, my mind was suddenly filled with the memories of my own experiences with abortion. Two of those memories are as vivid as if they happened yesterday. Both caused me to question what I believe. They are relevant today because these experiences have formed and shaped the person I am today. But even more importantly, these experiences have led to my belief that regardless of what I believe, I do not have the right to dictate hows others should feel or believe. We each have our own story to tell, and I would like to share part of mine with you.
Bringing my children to daycare one morning, a light at the intersection of 1st Ave and 1st Street turned red. Other than the occasional icy roads, this intersection was like any other. It had never caused me a problem nor stood out in my memory, until this day. As the light turned red, and I applied my brakes, I found myself surrounded by vivid pictures of aborted babies. As the protesters grew closer they slammed the images into my windshield so neither my children or I could look away. My kids, who were very young were terrified and screamed at the images that now surrounded them. It didn't seem to matter to the people outside the car that my kids were with me or that they were screaming in terror, nor did it matter that I was not entering the abortion clinic that sat on the corner of 1st and 1st. No one bothered to ask if I was pro-life, or pro choice, what religion I belonged to, or what God I believed in.
Many years earlier, when I was 12 years old, I had my first experience with the topic of abortion. I was babysitting for a family of 6 kids. The neighbor of the family I babysat for, Beth, was the same age as I. We did many things together when I babysat, after all, we were just kids ourselves. One day Beth came into the house in tears. Upon getting her to open up, she informed me that she was pregnant. I was still a virgin, and had no idea she was already having sex. Despite our close friendship, she had never confided this information in me. As the conversation continued, she confessed that the father of this future baby was her own father. I still wonder to this day that two girls, at the age of 12, in the early seventies or at any time for that matter are supposed to do with this type of information?
I have seen many teens pregnant, spoken with rape victims, have been with parents that have no business being parents, have experienced adoption, the joys of motherhood, and have read about abortion doctors being killed for doing their job.
Ultimately, I have learned to recognize that the abortion debate is not so much a matter of we believe personally. It is about religious groups, trying to convince us that if we do not believe the same things they do, then we are wrong. How can it be wrong to be different when it is our differences as people that make our world so interesting and complete?
I was once told that the world is like a crayon box. Every crayon is different, some are dark and some are light, some are bright and others deep, some are sharp while others have been worn down through the years, some are wrapped in paper, while others have had their paper torn away, some are our favorites, others become forgotten until some day in the future, but without each and every one of them, the box is incomplete. Just like us, they all have a story to tell.
Heartbeat at 18 days!
Ladies and gentlemen, I am most ungruntled.
Between Duluth, Minnesota, and the Twin Cities, lies a 2-hour stretch of I-35 best explained as "anti-abortion alley". Up to half of the billboards on this highway are anti-abortion ads. Many proclaim the ready availability of loving foster care or the regrets of mothers who aborted their pregnancy. Others, however, look like this:
Prolife across America is making a shameless bid for your hardwired evolutionary heritage, in order to convince you to avoid abortions. And it works.
What do I mean by evolutionary heritage? I mean that you love babies. Even I love babies, and I'm at that surly age where all things adorable are intrinsically untrustworthy. How could we not? Our infants have one of the longest developmental stages of any species, require huge investments of energy before birth, let alone adulthood, and are completely helpless for months after birth. The costs of ignoring a baby are so great that any population of humans with even fleeting disinterest in their newborns would fail to flourish within generations. There are literally millennia of selective pressures built into your nervous system that demand the highest priority when presented with images of infants.
Anyone showing you a baby and priming you to make an important decision about something else should be distrusted on this basis alone. It's simply impossible to make rational decisions around them.
What is an 18-day old embryo?
What really bugs me is that Prolife Across America is totally lying about what it means to have an abortion. It conjures up an image of an angelic, curled-up human being, tiny heart fluttering as it lies suspended in the womb. Nothing could be further from the facts at 18 days.
Embryos are not babies. In fact, 18-day embryos and babies are about as close to each other as I am to being "recently deceased". Eighteen days after conception, an embryo is just over a millimeter long. Babies are roughly four hundred times larger—and a thousand times heavier. Babies also possess functional organs and a nervous system. At 18 days post-ovulation, the neural crest has begun to form—parts of which will become the brain and face. Traces of blood vessels are beginning to form, and a tiny, tube-like precursor to the heart is present.
The heartbeat doesn't even start until 22-28 days, when the heart tube bends into an S-curve along the chest and begins to slowly push fluids throughout the embryo. Circulation won't start for another few weeks, as vasculature remains incomplete. The hindbrain, responsible for our basis autonomic functions like heartbeat regulation and breathing, takes another 20 days to begin to form. Basic brain function is months away; cognition even farther.
The essential fact is this: terminating the development of an embryo at this stage is not at all like killing an infant, or a child. Without the ability to survive (even with mechanical assistance) outside the womb, the embryo is entirely dependent on a near-parasitic relationship with the mother's uterus. There are no neurons at 18 days, no sense organs, no vasculature, no muscle control, and no brain structures so richly associated with subjective human experience. My big toe is larger, and has significantly more interesting internal structure.
"But you're missing the point! This has the potential to become a human being!"
Yes, blastocysts become embryos, which become fetuses, and eventually mature into the human beings we know and love. But consider this: most of those potential human beings are aborted by your own body. Somewhere between 35-50 percent of fertilizations produce embryos with chromosomal abnormalities: some copying errors, some inherited from the parents. The vast majority of those embryos are systematically eliminated by elaborate genetic safeguards before they ever make it to the fetal stage. Far more fail due to aggressive immune response, infection, or chemical interference. Smoking (even on the part of the father), IUDs, and cocaine are all risk factors.
In fact, in Ness, et al's study of 1350 women, 400 experienced spontaneous abortion before 22 weeks. They estimate the odds ratio for smoking at roughly 1.8, which suggests that roughly 16% of pregnancy failure in their sample could be attributed to tobacco use. If smoking were a completely causal factor, 5.5% of those pregnancies were aborted because their mothers smoked.
Should we hold those mothers morally responsible if they participate in behaviors which significantly raise the risk of their fetus dying? Culpable for manslaughter?
Future potential is not equivalence
Look, Pro-Life Across America: If embryos are babies, we're surrounded by death. Perhaps half of the child-bearing women you know have aborted their fetuses through biological accident or risky behavior like smoking. Are the children they have now not every bit as precious? Must we mourn the failure of their millimeter-long tissue masses as the death of a toddler? Or can we admit that between blastocyst and child there's a whole lot of confusion, and that maybe—just maybe, we need to think about those fuzzy areas on their own terms?
What those terms should be, I leave up to the reader.
Utah ends fight for LGBT progress by declaring cease-fire
Utah State Capitol
Photo by Scott Catron
KCPW News Radio in Utah is reporting that Utah Lawmakers have declared a one-year cease-fire on the topic of LGBT issues. An interesting development in a state that is home to not only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints but also to a massive LGBT population in Salt Lake City and yes, even in Provo.
The decision came today among growing concerns that communication in other key areas such as the economy were breaking down because of the divide on LGBT issues.
While I respect the difficult position these lawmakers have been put in, I am disappointed to see that LGBT residents of Utah are being told, yet again, to wait a little longer. While I cannot begin to imagine the stress and turmoil of being a member of a state legislature during one of the greatest recessions in our nations history, the fact of the matter of the matter is that a state's financial condition should never stand in the way of right an wrong and a debate over civil rights should never be allowed to stand in the way of ensuring a states budgetary security.
Its not that I don't understand the position the Utah legislature is in, in fact I applaud Representative Christine Johnson and Representative Howard Stephenson for their commitment and perseverance. But I don't understand how a group of presumably intelligent, thoughtful, and politically active people can't separate the debates they have over LGBT rights from the debates they have over the budget. I'm not asking anyone to change their religious beliefs, but isn't it about time we called upon our representatives to accomplish something rather than remain in gridlock, holding every issue on the floor hostage? How have we come to a place where the terms "truce" must be called in order for our law-making body to function?
In any case, best of luck on the remainder of their political calendar, just please don't forget about us in the future! In order to ensure they don't forget about us, take a minute and write your Representative or Senator right now and make sure they know you care about LGBT Equality!
CBS' true colors revealed
Unfortunately, the true colors of CBS have been revealed. Late last week it was announced that CBS had rejected a proposed advertisement from LGBT dating site ManCrunch.com. The ad can be seen here While I stand by my assertion that as a community we must be willing to let down our guard and provide our adversaries with opportunities to prove themselves to us, it is with great sadness that I admit that the stark hypocrisy and homophobia of CBS has indeed been revealed in this case. May we hope for their hearts and minds to change we move into the future.
But until then, I call upon all of you that have not already done so, join the facebook group that is protesting CBS, contact CBS, sign the online
Polis introduces Bill to protect LGBT Students from Harassment & Discrimination
U.S. Representative Jared Polis introduced legislation today that would protect LGBT students from harassment and discrimination.
The bill, H.R. 4530, or Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA) would prohibit discrimination against any public school student on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. It also protects their friends by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of association with actual or perceived LGBT people.
Polis introduced the bill by saying that "Hatred has no place in the classroom" and "Every student has the right to an education free of harassment and violence." In addition to Polis, the bill was supported by 60 separate co-sponsors from both major political parties. It is also supported by a myriad of organizations ranging from LGBT advocacy groups such as GLAD to educational associations such as the National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Be Careful what you wish for... Pro-Choice and LGBT activists join forces to restrict the First Amendment
UPDATED: FEBRUARY 1st 2010
As a long-time LGBT rights activist, the last couple of days my e-mail, facebook, and news feeds have been lit up with news and opinion surrounding CBS's decision to allow Focus on the Family to air a pro-life commercial during the Super Bowl. The commercial, which will feature the family of University of Florida football star and Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow. Tebow's mother has told the story repeatedly of being advised by her doctors to seek an abortion and her decision to follow what she considered "God's Plan" in carrying Tim to term.
The primary argument being made against CBS is that 5 years ago, CBS denied an ad from the United Church of Christ inviting LGBT to join the church because according to CBS the ad was too controversial and at the time the station did not allow for "issue advertising." Today, CBS has stated that it has changed its policy regarding "issue advertising" and the that the UCC ad would be welcomed if the UCC is ready to cough up the 2.5 million dollars to purchase ad time.
In the setting of that background, I have to ask, "Why are social justice activists fighting CBS on this???" Instead of criticizing and demonizing CBS for accepting an ad from one of our adversaries, shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that CBS is finally tearing down the wall of silence surrounding issue-based advertising during the most widely viewed television event of the year?
I'm no fan of Focus of the Family, in fact (I've been trying to get my mother to protest with me there for years) and I'm certainly not pro-life (It seems silly and irresponsible to ask someone to care for a child who has neither the will or means to do so) but it strikes me that pro-choice and LGBT activists should be careful what we wish for when it comes to asking CBS to reject an ad because we disagree with its content, that sounds a bit like a restriction on the First Amendment of the Constitution. Besides, I have no doubt that if Planned Parenthood wanted to put an ad up, that we would be protesting its presence. In fact I think its likely that we would be calling the protesters on the other side bigots and patriarchs.
It is precisely this type of poorly-thought-out protesting that grants those on the right every bit of justification in saying that "liberal activists" are crazy and don't respect the foundations our nation was built on. This website is devoted to Change and I'm serious about creating the change we want to see in the world, but that takes more than just willpower, a megaphone, and an online petition. We have to start organizing, framing our messaging, and most importantly taking a moral and ethical high ground that defends the rights of all people to be free and express their perspective, even if we disagree with it.
UPDATED 1:15PM PST - Thanks for all of the feedback, as always with a new blog / website, we're learning here too. A couple of comments require me to clarify and provide some sources.
One comment asked about the protesters I was referring to. The answer is that my primary motivation came form being invited to join the facebook group "Tell CBS: Reject the Focus on the Family ad or accept the UCC's!" My initial response to invite was to join the group and immediately sign the petition. In fact last night I had already completed a draft of a posting to appear on this site entitled "Bigotry in commercial advertising gains prominent stage" After a conversation with my partner I realized that further research was warranted.
The description of the facebook advocacy group and online petition included a description of CBS' rejection of the UCC ad 5 years ago and the acceptance of the "Focus" ad this year, followed by a demand that CBS publicly offer the UCC the opportunity to have their ad aired. To my surprise, with a quick google search I found several news articles in which CBS did exactly that. CBS has explained that several years ago they realized their ban on controversial issue ads was out of touch with society and began the process of revising its policies. They have gone on to say that several Super Bowl ad spaces are still available and that the UCC ad would likely be approved and aired if proposed today.
I say all of this because it is clear that CBS has already met the demands of the protesters exemplified by this facebook group, yet the group continues to criticize, threaten FCC complaints, and expound the position that CBS is systematically denying the UCC and other liberal organizations.
Finally, I should note that the title of this post is a bit misleading. The First Amendment does not apply to private businesses but only to Government restrictions on Free speech. I draw the analogy because I believe (and I encourage you to disagree) that when a critical mass of citizens call for the repression of a view-point that they disagree with, we have taken a dangerous step towards citizens calling upon our representative government to do the same.
UPDATE AND CORRECTION JANUARY 30, 2010 - Unfortunately, the true colors of CBS have been revealed. Late last week it was announced that CBS had rejected a proposed advertisement from LGBT dating site ManCrunch.com. The ad can be seen here While I stand by my assertion that as a community we must be willing to let down our guard and provide our adversaries with opportunities to prove themselves to us, it is with great sadness that I admit that the stark hypocrisy and homophobia of CBS has indeed been revealed in this case. May we hope for their hearts and minds to change we move into the future.
But until then, I call upon all of you that have not already done so, join the facebook group that is protesting CBS, contact CBS, sign the online petition. Please do anything and everything within your direct power (and within the law) to ensure that CBS hears our voice loud and clear and knows that we will simply will not stand for this type of hypocrisy. - In short, "be the change you wish to see in the world." (Gandhi)
"May I have some more please sir?" - SC Lt. Gov. compares hungry children to "Stray Animals"
South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer has done it again, reiterating comments that compare hungry children and poor people in general to stray animals. According to The State Newspaper politico.com, and NPR, at a town hall meeting Lt. Governor Bauer explained his desire to place greater restrictions on funding for free and reduced lunch programs by saying that his grandmother taught him at an early age to "stop feeding stray animals." Bauer went on to explain say, "You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply.... They will reproduce, especially ones that don't thik too much further than that."
When asked later about his comments Bauer repudiated and then reiterated his comments by saying that he never intended to compare poor people to animals, he was merely trying to make the point that like stray animals, the government is "breeding a culture of dependency." To top it all off, it was revealed by the Associated Press that Bauer was himself a recipient of free lunches himself following his parents divorce.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Thank You, South Carolina - Andre Bauer | ||||
| ||||
While I recognize that this story has been so well reported that even Jon Stewart has had time to pick up on it, the reality is that Lt. Gov. Bauer's comments are merely the tip of the iceberg on a sentiment felt by a variety of people across the country. It is that dialogue, or lack there-of that I am primarily concerned with.
As stated earlier, the primary sources for the information in this post are the State Newspaper, Politico.com, and NPR, all of which have large if not majorities of liberal identified readers. (I have no empirical evidence to support this claim, it is merely based upon my observations of the comments sections.) However despite having huge liberal audiences three things immediately jumped out at me when visiting each of these pages to read their stories about Bauer: (1) There are a wide variety of people from a wide variety of backgrounds that are really passionate and opinionated about the issue of welfare reform, (2) There are an extraordinary number of readers out there that don't seem to understand why these comments were so offensive, and (3) There are an extraordinary number of "tolerant liberals" that were more than willing to make equally as rude and offensive comments about Bauer and the state of South Carolina as he made about people receiving free and reduced lunches.
This particular post is starting to get a bit long-winded and I have law-school home-work to do, but given that Engine-of-change has just started up and these are incredibly interesting topics, I'm going to commit to taking each of them up and finding others with opinion different from mine to take them up, one per week, for the next three weeks.
So please, come back Sunday for what I hope will be an informative and enlightening conversation about the issue of welfare reform. I promise to provide a wide-variety of perspectives from a number of different people because that what Engine-Of-Change is all about, free dialogue among passionate people.
LGBT College Conferences Sweep the Nation
Undergraduate students from across the country are gathering together to share, learn, and develop strategies for combating homophobia and bigotry on college campuses. With the United States Supreme Court set to decide a case on public funding of openly discriminatory College Student Orgs, this years conferences are more important than ever. Even better, no matter where you are in the country, their is likely to be an LGBT college conference just down the road.
For more information on these and many other College Campus Related LGBT Events and issues visit www.campuspride.org
February 19th-21st - GET REAL! The Midwest Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Ally College Conference "MBGLTACC"
University of Wisconsin - Madison, WI
Registration: $60 (before Feb. 5th) $75 (after Feb. 5th)
Feat. Loren Cameron, Mia Mingus, and Kate Bornstein!
February 19th-21st - "Come Out West" - The Western LGBT College Conference Cal Poly - San Luis Obispo, CA Registration: (before Feb. 1st) $25 High School Students $35 College/Graduate Students $40 Staff/Faculty for College/High School $45 Community Members (Non-student, faculty, or staff) Feat. Justin Hager of Engine-Of-Change.com and many others!
February 20th - Northern California LGBTQIA Conference University of the Pacific - Stockton, CA $20 (before Feb 1st) $30 (after Feb. 1st) Feat. Miss Coco Peru!
February 27th - West Coast College Prep Day & Fair for LGBT & Ally Students and Families (Sponsored by Campus Pride, USC LGBT Resource Center and the GSA Network) UCLA - Los Angeles, CA Registration: FREE for Students and Families ($175 for participating colleges) More than 100 Colleges from across the country will be represented!
April 2nd-4th - Power of One Northwest LGBT Leadership Conference Washington State University and the University of Idaho
April 16th-18th - Sh(OUT) The Northeast LGBT College Conference University at Buffalo, the State University of New York - Buffalo, NY Registration: $30 (before March 31st) $45 (After April 1st) Feat. Alex Sanchez and Lyndsey D'Arcangelo!
"Traditional marriage" restricts religious liberty
Even though we can't all agree on whether the U.S. is a Christian nation, most people will agree that it was founded on religious freedom. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the constitution prohibit the government from respecting any religion over another, taxing religious activities, and abridging the practice of any religion, except where actions are prohibited by law.
I am puzzled, therefore, when people express concern that extending the right to marry to LGBT people would circumscribe religious freedom.
The fact of the matter is that legal recognition of marriage has never been a guarantee that two people can be married in a given church. The government has never, to my knowledge, forced the Catholic church to marry an unbaptized couple, nor forced the Mormon church to admit family members who are not members of the church to the wedding ceremony. As Media Matters notes: the Iowa court ruling that Beck complains about explicitly reminds us that churches will remain free to choose who they can marry.
No, the government is not coming to your church to force you to marry scary lesbian or gay couples.
Now, consider that there are several churches (including the Unitarian Universalists and MCC) and many church leaders which do support the right of same-sex couples to marry. While these churches may bless same-sex unions, those unions remain unrecognized by almost every state government.
Therefore, the only religious consequence of legalizing same-sex marriage would be to expand the range of churches which are granted full recognition of their religious practice: in effect, an expansion of religious liberties, consistent with the establishment and free exercise clauses. Amendments like Proposition 8 extend no rights to anybody while curtailing the freedom of churches which wish to marry same-sex couples. Their effect (as far as churches are concerned) is only to restrict religious liberty.
Cindy McCain says No to H8!
You cannot imagine the joy and surprise I felt upon seeing that Cindy McCain, wife of Senator and former Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, and her daughter Meghan, took the time to sit down with Adam Bouska and be photographed for the NoH8 Campaign! According to NoH8campaign.com, Cindy McCain wanted to participate in the campaign to show people that party doesn't matter - marriage equality isn't a Republican issue any more than it is a Democratic issue. It's about human rights, and everybody being treated equally in the eyes of the law that runs and protects this country.
Some liberal blogs have attempted to paint the McCain families support for marriage equality as too little too late which I personally think is shameful. I would have loved to see Cindy standing in opposition to Prop 8 two years ago but I am still thrilled to her standing for LGBT rights today. Social Justice advocates should not and cannot afford to turn-away allies that are willing to stand for what is right, in even in the face of familial and societal opposition. Congratulations and Thank you to Cindy and Meghan McCain.
In two related points of interest, Meghan McCain is facing opposition from a George Washington University Republican Student Organization because she is planning to speak out about LGBT marriage equality at GW next month. That story can be found at
If you want to support the NoH8 Campaign, you can submit your own NoH8 photo, find out more information, and donate to the campaign by visiting www.Noh8Campaign.com
Put it to a vote? That's not going to work for long.
Politicians and ordinary folks alike have expressed outrage at marriage-equality measures enacted by their legislature or judicial system. "Put it to the vote!" They cry, insisting that were it not for "activist judges" or "liberal lawmakers", justice would be better served.
This view is not only wrong, but counterproductive.
First, it has always been a fundamental doctrine of our government that pure democracy must be tempered with measured representation. The very existence of the courts and legislature is evidence of this--and the reason for it is to prevent popular but unethical positions from gaining too much power. We rely on our constitution, judges, and legislature to moderate the public in order to protect unpopular rights--rights like marriage equality. In Loving v. Virginia, for example, the Supreme Court finally overturned popularly supported laws in several states preventing marriage between different races--laws which, in the case of Alabama, remained on the books all the way through 2000.
Even if one does not accept that marriage equality is a correct decision, insisting on popular democracy is simply counterproductive. To understand why, take a look at Lax and Phillips' 2009 study of support for same-sex marriage, ordered by state and age cohort.
Two things should strike you immediately. First, popular support (as polled) is already in favor of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and ten others lie above 45%. Other research suggests that support has increased steadily over the last 20 years--and it's not hard to see why.
Marriage equality attitudes are strongly predicted by age.
In three-quarters of US states, respondents aged 18-29 explicitly support same-sex marriage. Those most strongly opposed are also the oldest. In ten or even twenty years time, these voters will be replaced by a new, more liberal, generation. We know that social attitudes tend to remain stable or become slightly more liberal as one ages. We also know that same-sex marriage support has been trending up steadily. That strongly suggests that as new people are born, they adopt a social culture more friendly to LGBT people and their relationships, and carry it forward throughout their life. All of this suggests that the popular vote argument is short-lived at best, and likely to backfire.
Future votes on gay marriage will demand equality. It will take decades, to be sure! Yet pending a reversal of a sixty-year trend, we'll see the US population declare, state by state, that marriage and families belong to all of us.
Welcome!
Welcome to Engine of Change!
Three years ago I was participating in a National Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, and Transgender rights tour called the Soulforce Equality Ride. While on that ride I had the unique opportunity to engage in real dialogue with people from across the country on a myriad of social justice and other political issues. What I came to understand is the frustration that far too many of us feel, not only from our political, ideological, and philosophical adversaries, but from within our own communities as well. Since that time I have tried to continue the dialogue with people of numerous backgrounds and beliefs. Our conversations have focused primarily on the anger, misinformation, and general frustration with the current national legal, political, and educational systems. It is in response to those frustrations and my belief that true change can occur if only we would take a moment to really learn from one-another that Engine of Change has been created.
Engine of change is a website that focuses primarily on social justice issues that face our nation today, and while it will undoubtedly have a liberal slant, my hope is that this can be a true market-place of ideas. A website where left and right, rich and poor, gay and straight can come together in a true spirit of dialogue to learn from one another and recapture the spirit of community that is America at its best. So please read, laugh, cry, smile, scream, share, and respond. But most importantly please enjoy your time at Engine of Change and help others enjoy it too. Criticism is welcome, personal attacks are not.
Special thanks are required for several people for always reminding me of the true meaning of life and love. Among these people are my mom Cheryl, Bishop Yvette Flunder of the UCC, Bill Carpenter of Soulforce, and of course the love of my life and webmaster Kyle. (He wrote the site engine too!)
Also, please be sure to check out the bios of the amazing people contributing to Engine of Change. You might be surprised at what you find.
-Justin Hager Founder of Engine of Change