Jesse Liberty's Queer Politics Weblog

Too Queer for Catholic Charity

Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:37:43 GMT

Not since Birmingham has the Catholic Church been so willing to turn its back on children, to further the causes of discrimination

In one of the most astonishingly indefensible and uncharitable actions in the long, sordid history of the Catholic Church's war on homosexuality, the Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities announced today that they will no longer provide adoption services, rather than comply with state law that requires no discrimination against same-sex adoptive parents.

Jesus called the children to him and said, "let the children come to me and do not stop them, because the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these." - Luke 18, 15-16

Rev. Hehir, President Catholic Charities

Mixing Politics and Business

Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:20:07 GMT

(This is being posted simultaneously to my technical blog , my Queer Politics blog , and my Amazon blog . )

Here’s what I’d like to discuss over the next few posts

Is it appropriate to mix business and politics?
When does it become inappropriate?
What price do you pay (loss of sales, etc.?)

Let’s start with some arguments in their most stark terms:

Argument one: There should be a wall between your business and your politics, and the business should never reflect your politics. Your clients don’t care, they don’t need to be exposed to your politics, and you do yourself (literally) immeasurable harm. We’ll call this the Church&State argument.

Argument two: While it is not necessary for every client to know all my politics, I am an activist in a cause that benefits from being not only “out” but “ in your face ” and failing to integrate these two aspects of who I am is an opportunity lost. Let’s call this the Out&Loud argument

There are many intermediate positions, but these will get us started.

I have chosen, over the past few years, to let my politics bleed into my business presence, and as that continues to grow, I think it is worth discussing whether or not it is a good idea (my family and friends have an easy answer: “no.”)

Example 1: I have a page on my business web site called “Articles and Publications” – There you can find links to my articles both print and on-line. I’ve added a section for my political articles printed in my local newspaper . Argument in favor: Writing is what I do for a living. Argument against: this is a technology business site and these articles are not about technology.

Example 2: I had repeated requests for recommendations on technical books by readers and students. I created a Recommendations page on my business web site (click on Books, then click on Recommendations). Over time, I received requests to go beyond technical books (“what fiction do you like, what else are you reading?”) On the one hand, what does that have to do with business? On the other hand, reinforcing that Liberty Associates, Inc. is me, a real person, not a part of a large conglomerate is part of what I bring to the table.

So I started adding recommendations. For a while this was apolitical (lots of literature) but then I got into a spurt of reading political books, and so now the non-fiction section is divided into categories: “ Queer ,” “Evolution,” “Neuropsychology,” “Philosophy, Politics and History.” It is the first category that dovetails with my other politics.

Does having a section on Neuropsychology diminish my site? What about evolution? What about Queer? Why would one be more problematic than the other. Of course, the answer to that question depends on whether you are asking “what is appropriate” vs. “what is likely to lose more business?”

We’d all like to believe that we do now let money affect our deeply held political and identity positions, but when you have two children and a mortgage, reality intrudes.

Covering

One of the more interesting trends in Queer theory is the concept of “Covering.” Two recent books, The Long Arc of Justice by and Covering by Kenji Yoshino. Covering is the process of coerced hiding of crucial aspects of one's self. The assertion is that there are four stages that marginalized groups and individuals go through: conversion (assimilation), passing (the closet), covering ("just keep it to your self") and acceptance.

The question I'm raising today is wheter separating one's politics from one's business identity is a form of covering if the politics are assocaited with a group that is struggling with covering or passing in general.

This leads to two different branches of discussion: (1) would this issue arise if your political cause was unrelated ot issues of identity (e.g., if you were an anti-war activist) and (2) is there a special obligation if, like me, you are both bisexual and happily married to someone of the opposite sex (in which case passing is the default unless you go out of your way to continually declare otherwise).

Dialog

I invite your participation in this discussion, through comments and replies to these posts.

In Memoriam - Coretta Scott King

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:58:21 GMT

In Memoriam

April 27, 1927 to January 31, 2006.

Save Us From Our Friends

Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:41:47 GMT

	KCTV News reports from Madison Wisconsin that a "bipartisan group of state lawmakers" in Wisconsin have brought forth a well-intentioned, but manifestly unconstitutional bill to make it a crime to protest within 500 feet of a funeral, wake, internment or memorial service for an hour before or after a ceremony.
	The inspiration for this law is that members of Fred Phelps church have been protesting outside funerals of about 80 soldiers killed in Iraq, claiming, disgustingly, that "God is killing American soldiers because the US accepts homosexuality."

While Phelps and his followers turn ones stomach, the first impulse, to restrict speech, is almost always wrong. Today we stop Phelps, tomorrow we stop anti-war protesters. The right answer when people like Phelps protest is to make room for them and then turn your back.

I assume this law will never see the light of day, because its Constitutional half-life is measured in minutes.

Anti-marriage Petition Drive

Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:38:34 GMT

I'm please to say that my latest opinion piece was published this week in the Beacon, small excerpts follow....

....Over 170,000 of my neighbors signed a petition to begin the process of amending the constitution of the commonwealth of Massachusetts to ban same-sex marriage. Ouch.

Let me be clear, what troubles me is not that so many signatures were "stolen" or the result of trickery; what troubles me is that so many were signed knowingly, by good people.

"This sort of marriage is not in the best interest of children." "God has a plan for marriage and this isn't it." "Allowing this kind of marriage will pave the way for all sorts of moral depravity."

Oops, those quotes are from the 1960s when the nation debated allowing racial intermarriage, (I get so confused sometimes). But that was before the Supreme Court ruled that such decisions are not up to state legislatures, nor up to public vote, even though 90 percent of Americans favored laws banning such marriages.....

Karl Rove and Same Sex Marriage

Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:48:51 GMT

Karl Rove has said that President Bush "absolutely will push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage... five thousand years of human history should not be overthrown by the acts of a few liberal judges...

A few facts from history...

Earliest recorded marriages go back to circa 17 BCE . The father deliverd the bride to her husband (she had no say in the matter). In 527 the Justinian lawyers drew up laws which regulated marriage but it was a civil contract between the father and the husband for the property that was the wife

Until the 9th century (1100 years ago) marriages had no church involvement. For the next 700 years the Church recognized marriage but it was not a sacrament. In 1563 the Council of Trent transformed the ceremony into a sacrement of the church (though divorce was and remains prohibited by the Papacy).

For most of human history, the bride was owned by the husband. In Western culture, marriage could involve 9 year old girls, divorce was impossible, by law a husband could not be held to have raped his wife.

That is "western culture" - In New Guinea it has been belived for over 3,000 years that for an adolescent male to become a man, he must fellate an adult male.

5,000 years of "marriage" does not exist; and historically marriage has included polygamy, poylandry, child abuse, rape, ownership, enslavement, as well as (more recently) civil and religous ceremonies. In this country, until 1967 it was illegal in many state for couples of different "races" to intermarry and that prohibition enjoyed support by 90% of Americans until it was overturned by the US Supreme Court.

Rove's statement illustrates two great lies this administration has been perpetuating. One is that there are 5000 years of continuity in the definition of marriage. The other, more pernicious, is that when judges protect the rights of marginalized minorities through state constiutions, they overstep their bounds and diminish democracy.

Ours is a Constitutional democracy, and the entire point of a Constitution is to set some laws beyond the reach of popular opinion.

(reprinted with revisions from an earlier posting no longer available)

An open letter to my neighbors

Fri, 23 Dec 2005 02:01:41 GMT

I sent a version of the following to a number of my neighbors....

Your name (or someone with the same last name as you) was listed as having signed the petition to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to annul all the existing same-sex marriages. This vote, if passed would prevent future same-sex marriages or civil unions (thereby breaking apart thousands of families and leaving tens of thousands of children with un-married parents).

It has been proven that there was a concerted effort to obtain signatures through tricks and fraud by professional signature collectors (this was so well documented that the State Senate passed a special resolution to deal with it). In any case, you can find out if your name was added against your wishes by clicking here.

If, on the other hand, as I hope is not the case, you did sign this petition, I'd love to spend some time talking with you about your motivation and concerns. We could do this by email, by phone or in person, at your convenience.

Currently there are thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples in Massachusetts. Every professional and expert who has studied the question agrees that these children are far better off if their parents are married; they feel safer, do better in school, have fewer emotional and physical problems, are better protected by law, are more financially secure; there is no benefit, and great harm to them if their marriages are annulled. At the same time, since same-sex marriage was legalized, the divorce rate in our state has remained unchanged; one of the lowest in the nation. Not one church or other religious organization was “forced” to perform a same-sex ceremony, nor has there been any other measurable harm done in any way.

I grew up with the understanding that the Constitution is supposed to protect the least powerful and most marginalized. No one's rights should ever be put to a vote.

Finally, we know that at least some of the amendment's backers are playing politics. Right-wing political organizations and Republican Party representatives have publicly stated their intent to use marriage as a wedge issue in coming elections.

The argument that the SJC justices overstepped their lawful duty is a misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary. In 1967, The Supreme Court of the US overturned laws prohibiting so-called miscegenation when over 90% of the public supported those laws and when they had been lawfully passed by dozens of state legislatures. That is the role of a Supreme Court, to protect the constitutional rights of the minority trumping even an overwhelming majority’s wishes.

So, if your name was added by mistake, please take action to have it removed, and if it was intentional, then by all means, let's discuss your concerns, because I know you, and I find it hard to believe that you would intentionally destroy existing marriages, and put the children of those marriages at risk, especially if you had the opportunity to meet some of these families.

Thanks,

Jesse Liberty