Oh Happy Day!

At last! 

Seems I moved away from the District just as the fun stuff was starting to happen. I'm thrilled to know that the District of Columbia has entered the ranks of that handful of brave states extending marriage rights to all of its citizens. The fact that D.C. is ahead of California and other seemingly obvious venues is mind-boggling. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and some neo-con, wing nut in Congress to stick some rider on a bill that would strip this right from the District. I suppose I can breathe a sigh of relief?

Congratulations to my brothers and sisters in the GLBTIQ community. This is an historic day indeed!

The Sanctity of Marriage: Rove Edition

Just a reminder folks, gays and lesbians are a threat to tradition marriage. Far be it for me to gloat, but the next time some knee-jerk neo-con runs around yelling that the sky is going to fall if "teh gays" are allowed to marry, let them put this in their pipe and smoke it:

Karl Rove granted divorce in Texas

So much for the sanctity of marriage.

'Splain dis Luucy...

So, I'm reading the Washington Post today about Meredith Baxter. You know? The mom from that 80s hit, Family Ties. Turns out, she's a Lesbyterian. That isn't much of a news item or really what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is the poll at the end of a related blog entry titled "Coming Out at Mid-life" about Ms. Baxter's coming out.

The WaPo offers the following choices:

A) Yes. She had cultivated such a straight image over the years, I found the news jarring.
B) No. I really don't think other people's sexual orientation is any of my business, so this didn't faze me.
C) Who is Meredith Baxter?

Seems 8% are shocked by this. They're probably the same 8% who make up part of the 10% of the population who are estimated to be GLBTIQ and are all in the closet themselves. Eighteen percent of respondents had no clue who Meredith Baxter is. They were probably born after 1986, so they're forgiven. The remainder--74%--said they don't care one way or the other and they weren't fazed.

If that's the case, folks, then answer me these, please: first, if 74%--nearly 3/4 of those polled--don't care, then why do we still have Don't Ask, Don't Tell? And second, if this is in fact the case, why don't we have equal rights for GLBTIQ citizens and why do we have to keep fighting for basic civil rights? Why don't your poll answers match your voting record or your actions?

If you can answer both of those questions with more than a "Some of my best friends are gay, but NIMBY" answer, I welcome your response.

Photo source: Screen shot from my MacBook.

Fair Enough. Or, A Step in the Right Direction. And Yet...

Seems Salt Lake City, with the blessing of the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has passed an ordinance making it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians when it comes to housing and employment. Fair enough. And thank you.

But what irked me in the Washington Post's coverage* of this is this statement by Church spokesperson, Michael Otterson:

"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.

The emphasis is mine and begs this question: how do marriage rights for same-sex couples incite violence against the "traditional" institution of marriage?

First of all, the use of the word violence is inflammatory and incites fear and hatred. Secondly, and I've said this before, the institution of marriage as managed by hetrosexual couples doesn't exactly have a stellar record of non-violence or wholly-owned and utter sanctity. And thirdly, discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the demographic. Laws like this shouldn't require the blessing or sanction of any church.

That is all.

* The same quote can be found in the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage, too.

Which is the Greater Threat? Gays or White Males?

Very few of you probably follow politics in Utah, but I do for a few reasons. First, because I grew up in Utah. Second, because I'm a sociologist of religion whose area of specialization is Mormonism and studying how it manifests itself on the social and political landscape. Third, because the Mormon Church is a political powerhouse, as continually evidenced by recent events in California, among other pivotal moments in American history. And fourth, because my fundamental rights as a member of the GLBT community are a constant source of consternation for many Mormons, especially in Utah, where most of their elected officials are Mormon.

In the last year or so, one of the state legislature's more controversial figures has been a state senator from West Jordan, Salt Lake County, Utah named Chris Buttars. If you want to read more about this flaming homophobe, go to the Salt Lake Tribune and search for him. Or Google him. Whatever. While he's the impetus for this post, he isn't what I'm going to write about. Instead, I'm highlighting the Trib's best columnist and voice of reason in Mormondom--a guy named Robert Kirby.

Recently, he wrote about Chris Buttars and the "threat" gays and lesbians pose to America. Pay special attention to his closing sentence. It's priceless. Here is Sen. Buttars, Gay Rights Won't Destroy Us.