Robin Reardon's Blog: Robin Reardon: Speaking of writing..., page 6

Who wants to be tolerated now? Bigots?

With the stated intent to preserve the religious freedom of government officials (and, presumably, to avoid legal hot water regarding the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling), Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin has issued an executive order that a new marriage license be created for that state, one that does not mention the name of the clerk executing the document. The question arises: Is this a good way to cast a little oil upon the roiling waters set to boiling by Kim Davis and give everyone a little breathing space, or is this a way for cultural and religious dinosaurs to drag their feet and at least slow the progress of LGBT rights?

Once upon a time in the United States, there was no legal recognition of a union between two women or two men. LGBT couples who wanted to call themselves married did so without the support of—or, in fact, any kind of acknowledgement by—government. Then in the year 2000, Vermont created an instrument called a civil union that could be entered into by gay couples. Other states followed, putting into place civil union and domestic partnership laws.

To some in the LGBT community, this seemed like a good thing. Maybe it wasn’t “real” marriage, but it was a step in the right direction. And now that the unions were legally recognized, gay people would have an opportunity to demonstrate that they were just as capable as straight couples (and, as it has turned out, possibly even more capable) of maintaining the married state. After all, wasn’t tolerance better than hatred?

To others, this separate-and-unequal treatment felt like a slap in the face, or worse. They weren’t interested in being tolerated. They insisted on full acceptance and labeled as cowardly anyone who said they were pushing for too much too soon. They demanded to be recognized as full citizens with all associated rights and privileges, and—while they were at it—as real human beings alive on the face of the planet.

In 2004, this second group—those not willing to be tolerated—began to see light at the end of the tunnel when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled that denying any citizen full marriage rights was inconsistent with the state Constitution. In the ensuing years, state after state went in one direction or the other, with some following the lead of Massachusetts and some amending state constitutions to ban “gay marriage.” The gap between these two directions was bridged legally by Obergefell v. Hodges. The cultural/religious gap remains and even seems to be widening.

Smack in the middle of this gap is Kim Davis, the Kentucky Rowan County clerk who has been refusing to issue licenses to LGBT couples and/or altering the licenses themselves to omit the name of the county and the name of any clerk. And it seems Governor Bevin, with the executive order, is following her lead.

So is Bevin throwing oil on the waters, as he claims? Is he allowing LGBT couples in Kentucky a separate-but-unequal counterpart to a marriage license that will protect them from the fury of Kim Davis and her ilk, or is he denying them, yet again, full citizens’ rights?

What are the ramifications of a marriage license that lacks the names of those in authority to issue it? Will it be valid in other states? Would it withstand a legal challenge? Does it leave a crack through which someone—or some government—could refuse the rights due to a legally married couple because the document lacks authority?

And here’s an interesting question: Whom is Bevin trying to placate with this executive order? With this executive order in place, who is it who’s being tolerated? Is it LGBT couples who are being singled out yet again for separate treatment, or is it the Kim Davises of the world—those who insist on living in a separate reality from what’s just outside their doors?

I say let’s reject tolerance. All citizens deserve full acceptance and full rights, and all who would deny those rights should be openly declared to be the bigots that they are. For they meet the very definition of bigotry: the reserving of a right or privilege for one group of people to the exclusion of another for no reason other than the opinion of the first group. Bigotry it is, and Governor Bevins is not just encouraging it. He’s codifying it.

Ben Carson: Delusional canary

Dr. Ben Carson seems to be in the process of disappearing from that stage on which the GOP presidential wannabes gather every so often. But even if his campaign is running out of steam, some of the things he has said—specifically about LGBTQ people—represent fallacies that he points to as reasons to decry marriage equality and transgender rights. In a sense, he’s like the canary in the coal mine, except that he only thinks he’s dying.

The recent actions of Governor Matt Bevin of Kentucky (who is placating Kim Davis by instituting a new marriage license devoid of the names of responsible authorities) and Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (who issued an administrative order preventing gay couples from being granted marriage licenses) are supported by entirely too many people, and this support is based on the same fallacies Carson proclaims as though he knew what he was talking about. He doesn’t.

I find myself wondering whether the fallacies that Carson believes are what has informed his opinion about LGBT rights, or if it’s the other way around. But even if his opinions led the way to believing the fallacies, he’s far from alone in believing and repeating these falsehoods. Let’s explode some of them. Maybe some people with genuinely good intentions who are currently on the wrong side of these issues will engage their brains and see the light.

*** Note that you'll see many links in this post. I felt it was necessary so no one would think I was making this stuff up. ***

Fallacy #1: Marriage equality is a states’ rights matter.

Early in 2015 Carson demonstrated his woeful misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution when he said that it was unconstitutional for federal judges to be involved in the marriage debate, because the question was purely a states’ rights question. The first problem with his position is that whether the laws of the land should be applied equally to all citizens is not a states’ rights question. The second problem is that he’s evidently forgetting (if he even knew) that it was precisely this question behind the U.S. Supreme Court decision that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional (Loving v. Virginia, 1967).

Fallacy #2: Allowing gay people to marry ruins the lives of good Christians.

This is how Carson put it: "The way it works now is they target you and they have all kinds of hate speech ridicule [sic], if there’s a way they can bring action against you they will do that, try to ruin your life.” And this: "Look at all the people who because of their religious convictions and their belief in what the Bible says have lost their livelihood and they’re put in jeopardy over the gay marriage issue...”

Carson is no doubt referring to the very, very few small business owners who have flouted their own states’ anti-discrimination laws and refused to do business with LGBT people. Not only is the number of affected individuals minuscule, but also the problem wasn’t marriage equality. The problem was that they broke the law. They would have been in just as much trouble if they had refused to do business with Dr. Carson because he’s African American.

Fallacy #3: Marriage equality will open the door for all kinds of changes.

According to Carson, “…to change the definition of marriage, the problem is once you do that for one group, why wouldn’t you have to do that for the next group?” But he’s confusing the “definition of marriage” with the laws about marriage. If he defines marriage as a legal partnership between one man and one woman, then yes, marriage equality will change that.

But the only laws that Obergefell v. Hodges changed were those put into place, mostly in this century, by states whose legislatures specifically banned same-sex couples from legal marriage. Marriage laws still require the parties to be consenting adults, not too closely related, not already married to someone else, who can pay the license fee, and (in some states) who have no dread diseases. Ridiculous questions about whether this opens the door to polygamy, incest, or marriage to one’s donkey, are exactly that: ridiculous questions.

Fallacy #4: Allowing same-sex couples to marry, or allowing a transwoman to use the women’s bathroom, is giving them extra rights.

On the marriage “extra” right, Carson says: "Everybody gets equal rights, but nobody gets extra rights, extra rights to change everything for everybody else to suit them.” Um… where’s the “extra” right? It’s marriage. And it’s not “gay marriage,” because LGBT individuals aren’t expecting a different kind of marriage. It’s just marriage. Nothing extra about it. Also, he’s thrown in another absurdity, namely that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it changes everything for everybody. Like… what? What does he think will change for him, or for anyone he knows? Or for anyone he doesn’t know, other than LGBT people?

On restroom use, he says: “…I’m not sure that anybody should have extra rights—extra rights when it comes to redefining everything for everybody else and imposing your view on everybody else.” Is it an "extra right" to be able to use a public restroom in peace and not be harassed by anyone? For example, the way a transwoman would be terrorized by men in a men's room? Oh, and he thinks there should be transgender bathrooms. Like, huh? If you’re going to do that, why not make all bathrooms unisex? But—wait—he had a problem with mixing the sexes in a bathroom… I wonder if he realizes he didn’t engage his brain before speaking on this one.

Fallacy #5: Christians are being too quiet and should protest more loudly against LGBT rights.

Carson has said that evangelical Christians should “stand up,” should “not remain silent.” He says “the secular-progressive movement…has been very successful…beating people down so that they are silent.” He says these liberals want Christians to “sit down and shut up so they [presumably, the liberals] can drive the boat.”

There’s no way to talk sensibly about this one. Obviously the man doesn’t know how to read and never listens to any news broadcasts or to any of the other presidential wannabes on stage with him. Perhaps he’s also unaware that the majority of Americans today are in favor of marriage equality, whereas in 1967 when Carson gained the right to marry a white woman, only 20% of Americans would have approved.

Fallacy #6: Censoring extreme liberal speech would not affect conservatives.

At least twice, including during an interview with Glenn Beck, Carson said he would “monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists.” And when asked if he didn’t see that this kind of censorship could backfire and affect the expression of conservative views, he said, “I think we would have to put in very strict guidelines for the way that that was done.” He wasn’t worried, because it would apply only to “extreme political biases.”

It would seem, therefore, that he hasn’t heard any extreme political bias coming from his side of the fence. Well, others have, and—sorry Dr. Carson—but yes; you, yourself, and many others, would be just as affected as your opponents by this type of censorship. When it rains, the heavens don’t create little holes of sunshine for you and your friends.

Fallacy #7: Being gay is a choice.

In my opinion, this one fallacy underlies almost all of the others. If Carson understood that he did not choose to be straight and could not choose to be gay, he would (if he is as smart as he wants us to think he is) be forced to reassess his entire position on LGBT rights.

Here’s his take on choice: “[Many] people who go into prison go into prison straight, and when they come out, they’re gay.” Perhaps he doesn’t watch television or go to films and so has never seen the way sex in prison takes place between inmates. Or perhaps he thinks he knows what’s in the minds and hearts of people who are released from prison. Or perhaps he’s just insane.

Ben Carson believes so many weird things that I have limited myself here to LGBT issues because of my personal mission.

Please note that I am not wishing ill for Ben Carson. I am not wishing he would die. But if that canary isn’t really dead, I do wish it would stop singing.

 

Subscribe to my blog

Islam: Beauty or Beast?

In my research for my stories about gay teens, I see rant after rant by people who are obviously stark-raving terrified of homosexuality. And when I look up from the question of sex, I see a very similar fear concerning religion and, most specifically, fear by Christians in the U.S. of Islam. Fear can often be mitigated through education. I've seen it reduce homophobia in many cases. However, in my own efforts to educate myself about Islam, I'm not learning much that would mitigate fear. (Please note: I am talking about the religion of Islam and its scripture, not about Muslims. The scripture itself is immutable, but its interpretation by individual Muslims can vary a great deal.)

Rana Elmir*, deputy director of the ACLU of Michigan, is an American Muslim tired of being expected to apologize for the actions of Islamic terrorists. In her words, “…terrorism is not mine. I will not claim it, not even through an apology.”

Upon reading her recent Washington Post article, my mind went in several directions at once. To try and clear the muddle, I created a couple of mental experiments.

If I were a devout Christian, and some wacko, self-proclaimed Christians did something horrid like picket the funerals of gay people who had died, would I feel obliged to apologize to the LGBT community or anyone else on behalf of Christianity? My answer: No; people like the Westboro Baptist Church do not, in my opinion, represent anything the least bit Christian; they are an offshoot, off-their-heads splinter group.If I had an extended family of, say, 200 people, and three or four of them committed crimes similar to those of the so-called Islamic State, would I feel obliged to apologize on behalf of my family? My answer: Not unless there was something like a family creed that supported those actions.

So, do my exercises help me agree—or not—with Elmir’s position? In the first example, my empathy with her is clear. She considers the so-called Islamic State to be as far from true Islam as I believe the WBC to be from true Christianity. But the second example does not give me the same clarity.

Given my Western background and early years in the Episcopal church, my understanding of Islam is only as deep as a relatively superficial examination can be. I think I know more about the religion and its history than most of my acquaintances, but that’s not saying a whole heck of a lot. And I’m frequently confronted with new and important aspects that I hadn’t been aware of. For example, although the scripture is not written in chronological order according to the life of the Prophet Mohammad, the verses that appear in surahs with higher numbers in the scripture are said to supersede those with lower numbers, which appear earlier in the Qur'an. And as the Prophet moved from Mecca to Medina, the need for fighting to protect himself and his followers grew; so the violence of their lives grew, and the wording—and the intent—of the revelations followed suit. The intensifying of the concept of “us against them” drove this change.

What does this mean for today’s Muslims? Elmir makes the case that the vast majority of people killed by the so-called Islamic State have been Muslims, not Christians or followers of other (or of no) religions. While she is correct, I think it’s necessary to add “so far.” It’s “so far” because we know that what all Islamists (that is, extremists) want is an end state in which the caliphate is global and sharia law applies everywhere to everyone. We know that the terrorists are unafraid of dying and killing to achieve this end state. And we know that these extremists point to their scripture to justify this goal.

[image error]

So what is the non-Muslim world to make of a religion whose scripture appears to support both peaceful Mulsims like Elmir and fanatics like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Do we compare this dichotomy to the fact that a great number of self-proclaimed Christians advocate gun ownership so they can kill the “bad men with guns?”

I don’t think the comparison holds. The Christian Savior, Jesus of Nazareth, was a pacifist in almost every example we have of his behavior, and he was famous for telling his follows to turn the other cheek and to love their enemies. Qur’anic scripture instructs followers to kill enemies and to punish—violently and horribly—anyone who disobeys sharia law. If the supposed “Christians” who advocate shoot-em-up-bang-bang activity were to follow their own scripture, they would be turning their guns/swords into plowshares. If a Muslim picks up a gun, he or she can point to any number of verses in the later surahs of the Qur’an that not only justify that action, but that actually require it.

It is not for me to say whether Islam is an inherently violent religion, or whether it’s a religion of love and peace. But I think it is the job of people like Elmir who understand Islam and the Qur’an far better than I do to explain to the non-Muslim world how this dichotomy can be possible and—even more importantly—how it can be believed.

Some Muslims are trying very hard to help. Irshad Manji (a peaceful Muslim) founded the organization Moral Courage to help people speak up, in spite of their fears, when they know something is wrong. Looking through the organization's site, however, has not helped me understand the dichotomy of peace vs. violence in Islam. There was one beautiful effort recently, though. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, Muslim Mona Haydar and her husband Sebastian Robins set themselves up on a sidewalk in front of a public library. They offered free coffee and doughnuts to passersby who responded to their two large signs: "Ask a Muslim" and "Talk to a Muslim." The response was wildly positive, and the couple are considering repeating the experiment.

So while I understand why Elmir doesn’t want to apologize for the behavior of people she considers to be outside of her religion, I do think she and others like Haydar should do what they can to help non-Muslims understand the contradiction. Only then will we have any hope of quelling the rampant fearmongering of politicians and supposed religious leaders who would paint all Muslims with the same brush.

My challenge to Rana Elmir and other peaceful Muslims: No apology needed. But help us to understand.

*Rana Elmir is the deputy director of the ACLU of Michigan and lectures on issues related to Islamophobia, free speech, and the intersection of race, faith, and gender.

Subscribe to my blog

Who wants to be tolerated now? Bigots?

With the stated intent to preserve the religious freedom of government officials (and, presumably, to avoid legal hot water regarding the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling), Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin has issued an executive order that a new marriage license be created for that state, one that does not mention the name of the clerk executing the document. The question arises: Is this a good way to cast a little oil upon the roiling waters set to boiling by Kim Davis and give everyone a little breathing space, or is this a way for cultural and religious dinosaurs to drag their feet and at least slow the progress of LGBT rights?

Once upon a time in the United States, there was no legal recognition of a union between two women or two men. LGBT couples who wanted to call themselves married did so without the support of—or, in fact, any kind of acknowledgement by—government. Then in the year 2000, Vermont created an instrument called a civil union that could be entered into by gay couples. Other states followed, putting into place civil union and domestic partnership laws.

To some in the LGBT community, this seemed like a good thing. Maybe it wasn’t “real” marriage, but it was a step in the right direction. And now that the unions were legally recognized, gay people would have an opportunity to demonstrate that they were just as capable as straight couples (and, as it has turned out, possibly even more capable) of maintaining the married state. After all, wasn’t tolerance better than hatred?

To others, this separate-and-unequal treatment felt like a slap in the face, or worse. They weren’t interested in being tolerated. They insisted on full acceptance and labeled as cowardly anyone who said they were pushing for too much too soon. They demanded to be recognized as full citizens with all associated rights and privileges, and—while they were at it—as real human beings alive on the face of the planet.

In 2004, this second group—those not willing to be tolerated—began to see light at the end of the tunnel when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled that denying any citizen full marriage rights was inconsistent with the state Constitution. In the ensuing years, state after state went in one direction or the other, with some following the lead of Massachusetts and some amending state constitutions to ban “gay marriage.” The gap between these two directions was bridged legally by Obergefell v. Hodges. The cultural/religious gap remains and even seems to be widening.

Smack in the middle of this gap is Kim Davis, the Kentucky Rowan County clerk who has been refusing to issue licenses to LGBT couples and/or altering the licenses themselves to omit the name of the county and the name of any clerk. And it seems Governor Bevin, with the executive order, is following her lead.

So is Bevin throwing oil on the waters, as he claims? Is he allowing LGBT couples in Kentucky a separate-but-unequal counterpart to a marriage license that will protect them from the fury of Kim Davis and her ilk, or is he denying them, yet again, full citizens’ rights?

What are the ramifications of a marriage license that lacks the names of those in authority to issue it? Will it be valid in other states? Would it withstand a legal challenge? Does it leave a crack through which someone—or some government—could refuse the rights due to a legally married couple because the document lacks authority?

And here’s an interesting question: Whom is Bevin trying to placate with this executive order? With this executive order in place, who is it who’s being tolerated? Is it LGBT couples who are being singled out yet again for separate treatment, or is it the Kim Davises of the world—those who insist on living in a separate reality from what’s just outside their doors?

I say let’s reject tolerance. All citizens deserve full acceptance and full rights, and all who would deny those rights should be openly declared to be the bigots that they are. For they meet the very definition of bigotry: the reserving of a right or privilege for one group of people to the exclusion of another for no reason other than the opinion of the first group. Bigotry it is, and Governor Bevins is not just encouraging it. He’s codifying it.

Subscribe to my blog

TRUMP: Like Driving in Boston

I live close to the city of Boston, Massachusetts, and I puzzle at comments about how bad Boston drivers are. Here’s the thing: You can count on a Boston driver to do whatever it takes to get wherever they want to go as quickly as possible. In other words, although you should expect anything and everything, it helps to understand that what looks like unpredictable driving almost always has the objective of expediency in mind. With this knowledge as my guide, I have little or no trouble with Boston drivers. (Now, some of the streets on the other hand… but that’s a different story.)

Like many people, over the past several months I’ve gone from being disdainful of the candidacy of Donald Trump to being amused by it to being flabbergasted by it to being confounded by it to being infuriated by it. But recently I’ve come to an altered state when it comes to this man and the positions he takes.

The worlds of politics and business have much in common, and their hallmarks are similar: strategy, understanding the current information, shifting tactics to gain or maintain advantage. There’s no question that Mr. Trump has remarkable business acumen, and it’s made him an extremely wealthy man.

But there’s one other necessary hallmark that’s harder to detect: planning. It could be that Trump is a great business planner; only a deep dive into his history is likely to reveal the truth. But we can see that when it comes to politics, he tends to shoot from the hip. And there's one critical difference he does not seem to have perceived: Business deals primarily in product; government deals primarily in people. Understanding this difference requires a competency that so far has not been evident in Trump’s campaign or his words: nuance.

As an author, I’ve decided to stop looking at the question of why his apparently erratic outbursts haven’t toppled him, looking instead at why he might have said them. At first blush, his statements (especially his recent Muslim-denying proposal and, even worse, his suggestion about killing terrorists' family members as a deterrent) are often racist and/or bigoted. His recent commitment to FADA (First Amendment Defense Act, which would allow LGBT discrimination in "religious liberty" situations), in my book, cancels any credit he might have gotten from his past moderately progressive position on LGBT discrimination issues. However, although he might in fact be a racist and a bigot, I’m not convinced that these characteristics are what’s driving hi m. 

So what's driving him? I think it’s Business. And, in Trump’s case, a lack of apparent planning and a lack of nuance.

Let’s take his proposal to keep Muslims from entering the U.S. as a case in point. A recent article in The Atlantic, “Donald Trumps Call to Ban Muslim Immigrants,” opens with this: “The Republican frontrunner demands a ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.’”

This strikes me as classic business thinking:

Mr. Trump has a "business" goal (keeping America safe).He believes safety is threatened by radical Islamists more than by anything else.He doesn’t know how to tell these radicals from peace-loving, law-abiding Muslims.America's “business” is bleeding "money/profits" (i.e., safety) from an identifiable if not completely understood source.To save the business, he wants to shut off whatever valves are allowing the bleed to occur until he can understand and eliminate the source/cause of the bleed.

The businessman Trump believes this bleed is happening because the screen we've used to filter out terrorists (in this case, radical Islamists) doesn’t have a fine enough mesh to catch people like San Bernadino terrorists, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. Trump knows we need to replace this screen with something finer, but he also knows it’s not a “just do it.” However, he lacks the planning skills and the understanding of nuance to see the following:

We’re dealing with people and populations, not products.Any sudden, radical action is going to have consequences outside of the matter at hand.The consequences will affect some areas we can predict and some areas we cannot predict.The affected areas will be people’s lives.Making the line between the so-called Islamic State’s version of Islam and Western values sharper is playing directly into the hands of the terrorists. People such as Ted Koppel and others who have a grasp on nuance have said this already.

Change just a few words in the above approach, and it applies equally well to the preemptive slaughter of terrorists' family members.

Mr. Trump is not driving erratically because he’s and idiot; I don’t see him as an idiot at all. In fact, his driving seems erratic only if you try to see him as a politician. If you understand that he’s going to do whatever it takes to meet his business goals as quickly as possible, you can see that he approaches every issue as a business man. And if he were applying to be CEO of a business, he’d be a viable candidate. But his devotion to business at the expense of politics would be catastrophic to any country who elected him as their leader. When it comes to nuance and depth of understanding, Mr. Trump is a bull in the proverbial china shop, and he is not qualified to govern America.

Subscribe to my blog

Marriage Stability: Are gays better at it?

True confession time. Many years ago, although I considered myself extremely accepting of LGBT individuals (as they say, straight but not narrow), I asked a wonderful lesbian a terrible question. Okay, yes, it was 2004, while my home state of Massachusetts was still trying to decide whether marriage was a right open to all citizens (and not just the straight ones), but still. This 45-year-old woman wore a gold band on her left ring finger that I knew matched the one on her female partner’s left hand, and one of us brought up the subject of the marriage equality debate. At one point in the discussion I asked, “So, have you ever been married?” There was a long pause, and then she replied, “Just the once.” I nearly melted in shame, and so I should have.

Back then, in the early days of broad-based discussion about marriage equality, I’m glad no LGBT person asked me for my opinion about the likelihood that “gay” marriages would be as stable as “straight” ones, because I would probably have embarrassed myself further. After all, I was aware that men were more likely than women to be commitment-averse, and for sure most of society made it harder rather than easier for a gay or lesbian couple to make a go of their relationship. So despite my self-proclaimed progressive attitude, I would have expected straight marriages would be more stable over the long run.

Wrong again.

If I had met the same standard I expect from others—that is, thoughtful analysis before drawing conclusions about complex issues—I would have know better. And I would have been better able to rebuff the insistence from homophobic bigots that “gay” marriage would undermine “real” marriage by redefining the nature of families. But, even though I saw this argument as specious and idiotic, it wasn’t until I had data in hand that I could construct a worldview that supported reality: Comparing the marriages of straight, lesbian, and gay male couples, the most stable of the three might just turn out to be gay men.

If this is, in fact, true, here are some of the reasons that might support it.

1. Homosexual couples don’t enter their relationships with pre-determined ideas about what their partners will do based on gender roles. There could easily be disagreements about who does what, but negotiating through the conflicts is more likely to be based on egalitarian rather than presumed positions.

2. When it comes to day-to-day activities and communication, women understand women better than men do, and men understand men better (a la Henry Higgins in Pygmalian/My Fair Lady: “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”)

3. Most women know better than to expect from most men the same kind of consideration and sympathy they can get from their close female friends, so their expectations of other women are higher than they are of men. This could make lesbian relationships more challenging than gay male ones, because the women will expect a lot from each other—more than most women expect of husbands—while most men don’t have corresponding high expectations of other men.

4. Historically, men are more likely to find monogamy challenging than women, and it seems gay men are likely to give it even less importance than their straight counterparts; therefore, extra-marital sex is less likely to be something gay men would break up over. A 2009 Scientific American article (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/n...) cites some interesting comparisons.
• Extra-partnership sex: 59% for gay men, 14.7% for straight men, 13.5 for straight women, 8.25 for lesbians
• Agreement about having extra sex: 43.7% for gay men, 5% for lesbians, 3.5% for straight couples

5. We all grew up in a culture that expects us to marry—unless we’re gay. So most LGBT adults probably grew up with the expectation that they would not, in fact, marry, not only because there was no legal basis for them to do so, but also because until fairly recently few people believed it should be an option. So it’s unlikely that today’s LGBT married folk got married because it was something they or anyone else expected of them. Too many straight marriages take place for exactly this misguided reason, and this basis doesn’t lend itself to stability.

6. As noted above, men tend to be more commitment-averse than women. For gay men, this very likely means that by the time they decide to marry, they’ve been together long enough, or have been together and then apart and then together again often enough, or both, to feel as though the union is something they don’t want to be without.

If you’d like to read more about the studies and draw your own conclusions, here are a few resources to start with:
• The Gay Guide to Wedded Bliss (The Atlantic) http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...
• What Straight Couples Can Learn From Gay Couples About Relationships (Huffington Post) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-g...
• Are Gay Marriages Healthier Than Straight Marriages? (Politico) http://www.politico.com/magazine/stor...
• Monogamy Is All the Rage These Days (Scientific American) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/n...
• Same-Sex Parents Are Found to Be More Attentive than Heterosexuals (Queerty) http://www.queerty.com/same-sex-paren...

Have a Gay holiday!

To help you with your gift-giving (and—true confession—to help draw attention to my newest book, THROWING STONES) I'm offering the e-book of that title plus two of my earlier titles at reduced prices, now through January 3, 2016: http://www.robinreardon.com/holiday-sale

If you've been telling a friend (or several friends) that they should read one of these books, now's your chance to offer them a deal they can't refuse.
Happy Holidays! http://www.robinreardon.com/holiday-sale

Marriage Stability: Are gays better at it?

True confession time. Many years ago, although I considered myself extremely accepting of LGBT individuals (as they say, straight but not narrow), I asked a wonderful lesbian a terrible question. Okay, yes, it was 2004, while my home state of Massachusetts was still trying to decide whether marriage was a right open to all citizens (and not just the straight ones), but still. This 45-year-old woman wore a gold band on her left ring finger that I knew matched the one on her female partner’s left hand, and one of us brought up the subject of the marriage equality debate. At one point in the discussion I asked, “So, have you ever been married?” There was a long pause, and then she replied, “Just the once.” I nearly melted in shame, and so I should have.

Back then, in the early days of broad-based discussion about marriage equality, I’m glad no LGBT person asked me for my opinion about the likelihood that “gay” marriages would be as stable as “straight” ones, because I would probably have embarrassed myself further. After all, I was aware that men were more likely than women to be commitment-averse, and for sure most of society made it harder rather than easier for a gay or lesbian couple to make a go of their relationship. So despite my self-proclaimed progressive attitude, I would have expected straight marriages would be more stable over the long run.

Wrong again.

If I had met the same standard I expect from others—that is, thoughtful analysis before drawing conclusions about complex issues—I would have know better. And I would have been better able to rebuff the insistence from homophobic bigots that “gay” marriage would undermine “real” marriage by redefining the nature of families. But, even though I saw this argument as specious and idiotic, it wasn’t until I had data in hand that I could construct a worldview that supported reality: Comparing the marriages of straight, lesbian, and gay male couples, the most stable of the three might just turn out to be gay men.

If this is, in fact, true, here are some of the reasons that might support it.

1. Homosexual couples don’t enter their relationships with pre-determined ideas about what their partners will do based on gender roles. There could easily be disagreements about who does what, but negotiating through the conflicts is more likely to be based on egalitarian rather than presumed positions.

2. When it comes to day-to-day activities and communication, women understand women better than men do, and men understand men better (a la Henry Higgins in Pygmalian/My Fair Lady: “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”)

3. Most women know better than to expect from most men the same kind of consideration and sympathy they can get from their close female friends, so their expectations of other women are higher than they are of men. This could make lesbian relationships more challenging than gay male ones, because the women will expect a lot from each other—more than most women expect of husbands—while most men don’t have corresponding high expectations of other men.

4. Historically, men are more likely to find monogamy challenging than women, and it seems gay men are likely to give it even less importance than their straight counterparts; therefore, extra-marital sex is less likely to be something gay men would break up over. A 2009 Scientific American article cites some interesting comparisons.

Extra-partnership sex: 59% for gay men, 14.7% for straight men, 13.5 for straight women, 8.25 for lesbiansAgreement about having extra sex: 43.7% for gay men, 5% for lesbians, 3.5% for straight couples

5. We all grew up in a culture that expects us to marry—unless we’re gay. So most LGBT adults probably grew up with the expectation that they would not, in fact, marry, not only because there was no legal basis for them to do so, but also because until fairly recently few people believed it should be an option. So it’s unlikely that today’s LGBT married folk got married because it was something they or anyone else expected of them. Too many straight marriages take place for exactly this misguided reason, and this basis doesn’t lend itself to stability.

6. As noted above, men tend to be more commitment-averse than women. For gay men, this very likely means that by the time they decide to marry, they’ve been together long enough, or have been together and then apart and then together again often enough, or both, to feel as though the union is something they don’t want to be without.

If you’d like to read more about the studies and draw your own conclusions, here are a few resources to start with:

The Gay Guide to Wedded Bliss (The Atlantic)What Straight Couples Can Learn From Gay Couples About Relationships (Huffington Post)Are Gay Marriages Healthier Than Straight Marriages? (Politico.com)Monogamy Is All the Rage These Days (Scientific American)Same-Sex Parents Are Found to Be More Attentive than Heterosexuals (Queerty)

Subscribe to my blog

Colorado Shooting: Do some people just WANT to be angry?

Last August, I posted about the absurd, self-righteous, willfully ignorant response of far too many people that followed on the heels of the doctored video published by the misnamed "Center for Medical Progress," which presented fabricated claims about Planned Parenthood and the supposed sale of dead baby parts. I think those who jumped on the anti-PPFA bandwagon need to look hard at the further insanity they encouraged, manifested most recently by Colorado PPFA shooting suspect, Robert Dear. I'm republishing that August post. Maybe now, people will be open to truth. Maybe now, those who just wanted to be angry about something will be angry about something they should be angry about.

[Reposted from August 18, 2015]

MISPLACED OUTRAGE and DEAD BABY PARTS

While the kerfuffle around Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and the false reports about its supposed selling of dead baby parts doesn't deal directly with my writing or my books, it does deal directly with the raw material from which my stories arise.

Not long after the release by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) of that first inflammatory video, we knew that it had been recorded secretly under false pretenses and had been heavily edited to garner the juiciest bits for public horrification and to imply financial gain by PPFA.

Then it became known that CMP had been plotting its unethical actions for some time. Then it turned out that the addresses associated with CMP are, in fact, just postal drops. And, lo and behold, there are no scientists or physicians engaged in advancing medical treatments associated with it, despite its name. CMP's history of anti-abortion efforts have been well-documented, and the organization has various law suits pending against it.

But what's fascinating me isn't the attempted entrapment or the byzantine machinations of the CMP, as bad as they are. No; as an author, what fascinates me is our reaction to the story.

It's easy to see the line between the people who have supported and who continued to support PPFA and what it stands for, and those who claim to be horrified and outraged by what they believe to be true (even though it isn't). But I want to expose the real reason the line exists.

In some cases, like that of Republican presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson, the blatant hypocrisy is easily exposed; despite his objections to the supposed news about PPFA, he's on record for using "two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation” to further his own research. Not only do his objections about PPFA fly directly in the face of his own medical background, but also they represent a blatant vote-getting attempt.

For the horrified reactions of others, there is at least a little basis for credibility. Or there was, until the lies told by CMP became known. Now the battle lines have shifted. On one side are the people who have always supported PPFA as well as those who've educated themselves about the truth of CMP's false assertions. On the other side? People who want to be horrified, and people who want those people to vote for them—for example, people like Dr. Ben Carlson, though he's hardly alone.

So what's really going on here? Let's strip away the frills and see what's left. The outrage claims to be about what's happening to the organs and tissues of aborted fetuses—that would be medical treatments and research; replacement organs for infants born in desperate need of them; tissues and stem cells used to defeat the true horrors of diseases that have plagued humankind for millennia.

How many of these outraged people would refuse a heart transplant needed by themselves or a loved one? How many would refuse transplanted eyes for their own infant, born blind with underdeveloped eyes? How many would turn down life-saving treatments or medications that we know about only because of research with fetal tissue and stem cells?

I can hear one of the outraged say, "That heart was donated by someone who decided to give it up!" Not necessarily. Sometimes the surviving spouse is the one to make this decision, not the deceased. Now I hear, "But we're talking about babies!" Well, we're taking about fetuses that would probably but not necessarily develop into healthy babies, fetuses whose mothers have decided not to carry them to term. Now the cry is, "Abortion is murder!"

And we've reached the heart of the matter. It's really not about harvesting baby parts for the sake of profit. That isn't what's happening; even the New England Journal of Medicine has nixed this claim. Also, PPFA doesn't discuss donation until the pregnant girl or woman has already made her decision, and the only "profits" go to infants in desperate need of transplants and all kinds of people who benefit from medical advances made with the tissues.

So what this really boils down to, yet again like some dogmatic trope that won't go away, is a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body.

There are lots of people who are against the right to choose, and they use terms like "murder" to apply to abortion. Okay, I get that; I might not agree with them, and in fact they are now in the minority in America, but they're entitled to their opinion. However, it's time they admitted that their outrage at the scintillating story from CMP—and the reason they refuse to believe the truth about PPFA—is that they have a problem with abortion. Nothing else.

PPFA does nothing other organ collection and donation organizations don't do. They don't sell body parts or tissues from anyone, to anyone, for any reason. What they do is provide family planning advice, birth control, STD testing and treatment, and cancer screening for women and (as appropriate) men, especially for individuals who can't afford to go elsewhere for these services.

What these outraged individuals—whatever their motivation—are doing is making a difficult situation much, much worse. They're denying access to organs and tissues that benefit humanity, they're removing prevention and treatment for STDs and cancer, and they're fostering the creation of more and more unwanted humans in a world where there are already too many people.

Where's the outrage now?

Subscribe to my blog

Women: Wake up! LGBTQ+ rights are yours, too!

Have you noticed how often some group or some individual with an anti-gay screed, proposal, project, rant, etc. is advocating policies that repress women at the same time that they’re repressing LGBTQ+ individuals?

One example is a recent meeting of the World Congress of Theocrats. They insist that families should be “the source of ordered liberty, the fountain of real democracy, the seedbed of virtue.”  Their platform, “The Natural Family: A Manifesto,” is against LGBTQ+ rights, a woman’s right to reproductive control, and no-fault divorce. It also promotes a lifestyle in which families should earn a living wage, which sounds great until they reveal that this wage should go only to the husband. This group doesn’t limit itself to the U.S. In fact, each time they meet outside the U.S., there’s an upsurge of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in the host country. And given the antediluvian attitude behind these efforts, they must also be repressing the rights of women everywhere.

In Omaha, Nebraska recently, a rabid group of anti-gay citizens shouted down speakers at a meeting to discuss updating the public school system’s 30-year-old sex education curriculum. The biggest problem seemed to be that the proposed changes would include information about non-straight and non-cisgender ways of being. Some of these haters went so far as to berate and verbally attack LGBTQ+ students who were there to support the changes, yelling at them up-close-and-personal for being evil and sinful, telling them they were going to hell, and shouting into their faces that they should apologize for their sexuality. One woman stood and literally screamed about the need to keep her daughters “pure.” Which leads me to wonder what “pure” means. If her daughters don’t know anything about LGBTQ+ people, will that keep unwanted pregnancies and STDs away? Does she think purity is the same as ignorance? In fact, ignorance is widely acknowledged as the main strategy to keep women suppressed in many different cultures, and the education of these women has shown itself to be the saving of them.

Even some feminists are holding other women back. One famous woman doing this is Germaine Greer. She and her ilk insist that transwomen are not real women. She says they’re men and should stop masquerading as women. Here we have another instance of ignorance. Greer is certainly smart enough to do what I did, and discover that transwomen tend to have female brain structures, whatever their genitals look like. Her position seems to be that because these transwomen lived a good part of their lives as men, they can't understand the subjugation "real" women have suffered. To which I say, "And Ms. Greer cannot possibly understand the suffering trans individuals have suffered." So as a transphobe, Greer is holding back transwomen while promulgating ignorance within the feminist community.

It’s almost too easy to point out the coincidences of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and limiting women’s rights by the GOP's current cluster of candidates who are presidential wannabes. They speak at gatherings such as the National Religious Liberties Conference in support of hate-mongers who like the idea of a Rose Bowl float on which a gay person would be stoned to death while preaching the kind of “family values” that can be maintained only if everyone is straight, married to someone of the opposite sex, and in a family that’s ruled (or at least presided over) by the man. They think we should continue to pay women significantly less than men for the same work and abide by laws that allow a man to decide what a woman can and can’t do with her own body.   

It’s time we start calling out the parallel efforts of too many (not all, by any means, but—yes, too many) straight males to suppress anyone who doesn’t have sex the way they do. Not only do we need a “new normal” for our daughters, as Craig Yoshihara points out; we also need a new normal for life.

So this is a call to women everywhere: Wake up! Rise up! Support your own rights, and your own well-being, by supporting the rights and well-being of anyone whose rights are being trampled in the name of—in the name of what? Male dominance, perhaps? No, wait—straight male dominance.