Posts tagged LGBT Issues

The GOP’s War on Marriage

June 29, 2009 · Filed under Culture War · Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thank you, Mark Sanford, for protecting the institution of marriage for us, the American people, against those evil homogays who want to destroy it. You, like many other Republicans, have been working hard over the past decade to prevent the full enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment — especially those parts about “liberty” and “equal protection under the law”.

I think my favorite part about the Republican Party platform is that it has nothing to do with, say, the evils of cheating on one’s wife or divorce. No, apparently the only — or at least the biggest — threat to marriage is same-sex marriage. But here’s the funny thing. The divorce rate in the United States is estimated to be 40-50%. Estimates vary, but the most conservative put the infidelity rate at about 20%. So, basically: not only is who I marry none of the Republican Party’s business, not only does it have no effect on anyone else’s marriage, but even if neither of those things were true, divorce and adultery would still be the biggest threats to the institution of marriage.

But I guess none of that matters to the Crazy Crusaders for Marriage. Let’s take a look at the hypocritical douchebags who go on at length about the “protection” of marriage against “them evil homosexuals”. In only the past five years, we’ve had Mark Foley — the crusader against internet predators who was actually a predator himself; Ted Haggard — fundy-wingnut-in-chief who apparently was down with hiring male prostitutes and doing crystal meth; Robert Allen — member of the Florida Statehouse and state chairman of the McCain campaign; Larry Craig — the Republican senator from Idaho with the “wide stance”; Bill Clinton — the “Democrat” who signed the “Defense” of “Marriage” Act while doing naughty things with a cigar with his intern; Glenn Murphy — the national chairman of the Young Republicans who got another Young Republican drunk to take advantage of him; John Ensign — senator of Nevada and fellow adulterer; the list really does go on and on.

You’d think that the massive hypocrisy of the Republican Party might reflect somehow on the legitimacy of their rantings about “protecting marriage”. You know, considering that they themselves are responsible for more damage to the institution of marriage than anything else. Well, I suppose that’s a bit of an exaggeration. It’s a totally legitimate argument to say that the 24-hour Britney Spears marriage and the other shenanigans which go on in Las Vegas are far more harmful to the moral fabric of this country than anything that gay marriage could wreak.

In conclusion: if the Republican Party leadership wants to prevent the “decay” of the institution of marriage, they should do a number of things: (1) pass tougher divorce laws; (2) stop cheating on their wives; (3) come out of the closet already.

Leave a comment »

First as Tragedy, Second as Farce

October 26, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Columbia University, Commentariat, LGBT Issues, NY State · Tagged , , , , , ,

This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.

In Armin’s latest opinion piece in the Spec, he seems to imply that the ROTC is a vehicle of freedom of speech. However, his logic is fatally flawed.

First, students are free to join the ROTC program, they simply cannot do so on this campus. As of now, with the ROTC off campus, the rights of students to their freedom of inquiry and conscience remain intact. They are free to associate or not associate with the revered bastion of homophobia and sexsim as they see fit.

Second, he makes the assumption that the University is speaking on “behalf of others”. The wording here is interesting in that this would be correct in either one of two situations: (1) if there were no LGBT members of the Columbia community who might suffer as a result of the re-institution of this program (there are); or (2) if the institution of the University is fundamentally separate from its students and has no obligation to defend them (it isn’t, and it does, respectively).

Tuition at this school is not cheap, as I am sure many are aware, and I don’t pay tuition so that the University might integrate into its apparatus programs that arbitrarily discriminate against either myself or my fellow students. The students — future alumni — are a fundamental part of this institution, and it is for that reason that the institution itself has both reason and obligation to defend its students against an element that would seek to discriminate against them.

If the issue here were the establishment of an ROTC club, I would have far fewer qualms. However, the prospect that money that I pay to this University could be used in a University-sanctioned and and University-integrated program which discriminates me is quite frankly unacceptable. Indeed, I see no reason why the very same rules which apply to student clubs should not apply to entire University departments.

Lastly, in a somewhat unrelated note, I would just like to say that the complacency of so many people in permitting an institution which not only has a history of systematically discriminating against homosexuals, but continues to do so, is nothing short of despicable. I have faith that the very same people who will go and vote in favor of the return of the ROTC would not do so if it discriminated against blacks “just so long as they didn’t force their blackness on everyone” or against women “just so long as no one noticed their breasts”.

The same forces which discriminated against African Americans 50 years ago, the same forces which discriminated — and which continue to discriminate — against women 100 years ago, are the same forces which discriminate against LGBT today. They level the same arguments that racists and anti-miscengation advocates used half a century ago (the battle over gay marriage is the same battle that was fought in Loving v. Virginia), and the same arguments that sexists used in an attempt to keep women out of the military (“it’s not safe for them”, for example).

To those who are considering voting in favor of returning the ROTC to campus, think about it like this: if it were black people who would be prevented from taking part in an entire department at this University, would you vote in favor? If it were Asians? Women? Latinos? Think about this: is it more okay to discriminate against gay people than any other minority?

Comments (1) »

Palling Around With Traitors, Or Those Who Feel One

October 21, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Commentariat, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , ,

Long before my letters of acceptance and rejection from universities trickled in, I was sitting in a cafe with my Columbia interviewer – who, herself, had graduated not long ago. She had been a political science major — the same major which I then — and now — intended to pursue. Throughout the interview, one of the most salient features of my life had been my wide-ranging political activism. Not surprisingly, she asked me about it.

Before the interview, I had prepared answers to a wide variety of questions — such as “Why Columbia?” or “How come the Core is so very, very awesome?” — but I suppose this one had not crossed my mind. As I thought about it in the few moments of not-quite-awkward silence that ensued, I realized something.

As someone who comes from an upper-middle-class area of New Jersey, I have often been accused of armchair liberalism or whatever the term for it is these days. But the fact of the matter is that my outrage at various policies — be it the Republican deregulation of the economy or Congressional and executive apathy towards the genocide in Darfur, inevitably stems from two sources.

The first, most likely, is my faith — a bizarre combination of Judaism and Quakerism. I was raised a reform Jew, in a tradition which preaches and practices social equality, justice, and the celebration of differences. My high school education introduced and immersed me in Quaker tradition which resembled my Jewish upbringing in many ways.

The second is my sexuality. As a gay American, I have understood — though perhaps to only a fraction of what many others experience — what it is to feel “othered”, to feel like I don’t belong or that others look down on me.

These two undeniable aspects of who I am — which have thankfully dovetailed well — have led me to a personal ideology that is faith-based, empathetic, and desirous of social, political, and economic justice.

Not long ago I had a discussion with Learned Foote, my class president (2011) and friend, and Gen Liberatore, another friend and member of the class of 2011, about the NROTC controversy. Each of us approached the issue from a very different point of origin.

At the time Learned made some of the same points he recently made in his very well-written opinion piece in the Spectator as well as a variety of others in support of the return of NROTC.

While many of his points are valid I am forced to disagree with him when it comes to his characterization of Columbian opposition to the return of the military to campus.

My opposition to the return of the ROTC is not based on some sort of infantile tit-for-tat schematic, nor do I think that distancing this institution from the military will necessarily force the military to change its policies. My opposition is based in my experience at my Quaker high school, where military recruiters were forbidden to come on campus, where everyone — LGBT people included — was loved and cherished (even the football team — notorious at other institutions for its rampant homophobia — participated annually in various gay rights events), and where notions of social justice prevailed.

Until I arrived on my high school campus, I had remained in the public school system of New Jersey where, though in a heavily Democratic district in a heavily Democratic state, homophobia lurked around every corner and I was terrified almost constantly. I cannot think of a single instance in which I felt secure in my identity. I am proud to say that, today, I feel safe as who I am, and that I attend an institution which affirms that safety.

But my fear is that, should an institution with both an anti-gay culture and anti-gay policy invade this campus, the LGBT community will suffer. It is my fear that we will not be able to feel as safe in our persons or identities and that we will not be able to either feel (or, indeed, be) fully active members of our community. The return of the NROTC will establish, for the first time in a long time, an entire department at this institution where an entire section of our student body cannot participate.

Therefore, it is not out of a belief that we, alone, can change national policy, but rather out of a fear that national policy will change us that I oppose the return of the military to our campus.

Leave a comment »