Tear-Jerker Expedia Commercial Features Same-Gender Wedding

8 06 2013

Earlier this week, Cheerios received very nasty, racist responses to its new commercial featuring an interracial family.  It’s 2013, and racist prejudice still reveals its ugly presence every once in a while to remind us that it still exists.  The shift toward tolerance for same-gender couples is years behind majority tolerance of interracial couples.  So, I suspect it takes a great deal more bravery for companies to support LGBT rights and marriage equality, let alone feature LGBT people and same-gender couples in their advertising.

But, the pro-LGBT companies are coming forward, explicitly resisting homophobes’ efforts to re-erase LGBT people.  The newest pro-LGBT advertisement is an Expedia commercial that features a father attending the wedding of his daughter and her (female) partner.  See it below.

This one differs from other advertisements which either feature still photos of same-gender couples, or even a quick, passing (semi-subtle) reference to same-gender marriage.  It is almost like a mini-movie, with tension, character development, and a happy ending.  What I appreciate is that it takes on the father’s perspective, and that he struggled with how to navigate his daughter’s “new” life and relationship.  This is an honest portrayal of how many parents come around to accepting their LGBT children.  (I suspect that few come out to parents who have been LGBT-friendly all of their lives.)

Expedia has been an explicitly LGBT-friendly company for years.  But, until this commercial, that friendliness was only expressed to and known among LGBT communities.  They, like many companies, advertise to LGBT consumers, but save themselves the homophobic backlash by ensuring that only LGBT people know that.  Now, they have made the bold step (though after others) to tell heterosexual, cisgender America that they are LGBT-friendly.

Uh oh… the gay storm is coming.  Hallelujah!





Happy Pride Month! #LGBTPride365

4 06 2013

June is LGBT Pride Month!  (It’s true — even the President recognizes it.)  Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, and queer communities in the US have come a long way, with so much progress toward equality that remains.  So, there is a lot to celebrate and an infinite number of reasons to be proud.  (See my 2012 post at Kinsey Confidential.)

Here’s a little treat to kick off the month — Heather Small’s “Proud.”  It was used for the 2012 Olympics in London, but has been used quite a bit for LGBT audiences and celebrations.  The lyrics are below, including my favorite: “Realize that to question is how we grow (to question is to grow).”


“Proud” by Heather Small

I look into the window of my mind
Reflections of the fears I know I’ve left behind
I step out of the ordinary
I can feel my soul ascending
I’m on my way
Can’t stop me now
And you can do the same (yeah)
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
It’s never too late to try
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
You could be so many people
If you make that break for freedom
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
Still so many answers I don’t know (there are so many answers)
Realize that to question is how we grow (to question is to grow)
So I step out of the ordinary
I can feel my soul ascending
I’m on my way
Can’t stop me now
You can do the same (yeah)
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
It’s never too late to try
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
You could be so many people
If you make that break for freedom
What have you done today to make you feel proud? (yeah)
We need a change (Yeah)
Do it today (yeah)
I can feel my spirit rising
(change, yeah) We need a change (yeah)
So do it today (yeah)
‘Cause I can see a clear horizon What have you done today to make you feel proud? (to make you feel proud)
(let me hear ya X3)So what have you done today to make you feel proud?
(yeah) ‘Cause you could be so many people
Just make that break for freedom
So what have you done today to make you feel proud?




On The Proposal To Replace LGBT With “Gender And Sexual Diversities” (GSD)

2 03 2013

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people have made a great deal of progress toward gaining equal status and rights in the US, particularly within the past decade.  But, on the eve of the US Supreme Court’s consideration of same-gender marriage, we find ourselves still battling rigid stereotypes and prejudice.

Arguments against equal protections for transgender people continue to reduce them to their bodies and/or their sexualities, claiming their presence poses a risk of sexual violence for cisgender people.  Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people continue to be depicted as a threat to children and families, often outright accused of sexual deviance, including pedophilia, bestiality, and sexual addiction.  A great deal of the efforts to challenge anti-LGBT prejudice, discrimination, and violence entails battling these myths and stereotypes, and promoting an image of LGBT people as mere humans.

The Importance Of Self-Definition

The extent to which LGBT people are oppressed in the US can be gleaned by the power that heterosexual and cisgender people hold to name, recognize, represent, and include LGBT people.  As such, there are efforts by LGBT activists and advocates to address each of these elements of inequality: from challenging the exclusion of LGBT people from important social institutions, to challenging the use of “gay” as an insult; from promoting greater (positive) visibility of LGBT people in the media, to advocating for greater attention to sexual identity, and gender identity and expression in politics.

One aspect of LGBT empowerment, then, is obtaining the power to name oneself, and to be visible, represented, and included.  Sociologist Patricia Hill Collins talks about the importance of self-definition for Black women’s empowerment in her scholarship on black feminist theory:

[S]elf-definition offers a powerful challenge to the externally defined, controlling images of African-American women.  Replacing negative images with positive ones can be equally problematic if the function of stereotypes as controlling images remains unrecognized…The insistence on Black women’s self-definitions reframes the entire dialogue from one of protesting the technical accuracy of an image…to one stressing the power dynamics underlying the very process of definition itself…By insisting on self-definition, Black women question not only what has been said about African-American women but the credibility and the intentions of those possessing the power to define.  When Black women define ourselves, we clearly reject the assumption that those in positions granting authority to interpret our reality are entitled to do so.  Regardless of the actual content of Black women’s self-definitions, the act of insisting on Black female self-definition validates Black women’s power as human subjects (pg. 114).

Gender And Sexual Diversities

The successful recognition of LGBT people as just that — LGBT — has only recently been achieved in general US discourse about sexuality and gender identity and expression.  And, by no means has the acronym gained complete use over less inclusive terms: “gays and lesbians,” “homosexuals,” “gay people,” “transsexuals,” and so forth.

Of course, the acronym LGBT is not entirely exhaustive in its inclusion of all sexual and gender minorities.  Queer is sometimes included, and the ‘T’ arguably includes all trans* people (e.g., transgender, gender non-conforming, transsexual, genderqueer, intersex, etc.); and, some use the longer LGBTQQIA to include queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual identified people.  Still, others remain unnamed, though assumed.

To reflect this vast diversity in sexual identity, gender identity, and gender expression, a London-based therapy group for sexual and gender minorities, Pink Therapy, has proposed the term “gender and sexual diversities” (GSD).  Initially, I would take no issue with a broader, more inclusive term to speak about such diversity.  But, the proposal to replace LGBT with GSD — which, ironically, sounds like a mental illness (like PTSD) — put me on the defensive.  I thought, “who are these people to make such a proposal?”

As I watched the interview to hear more about their proposed GSD umbrella term, I became more concerned about their intentions, and how their suggestion is given legitimate consideration — even a poll at the bottom of the HuffingtonPost Gay Voices article on the proposed name-change.

PollI agree that LGBT is not inclusive enough.  But, the tired joke about the “alphabet soup” to name every gender and sexual identity is where we land when trying to move beyond exclusivity.

But, within their explanation, I noticed that their vision was broader even than sexual and gender minorities; in fact, their initial proposal of “Gender and Sexual Minorities” (GSM) was shot down because some they include are not necessarily minorities in the same sense that LGBT individuals are.  In particular, the therapists name asexuals, members of kink and BDSM communities, and those in non-traditional relationships (e.g., swingers, those in polyamorous relationships) as individuals to be included in the broader “GSD” label.

To include swingers, who are largely conservative middle-class white heterosexual married couples, as well as similarly privileged people who are polyamorous or into kink or BDSM alongside sexual and gender minorities moves the discussion beyond the denial of rights and protections and exposure to prejudice, discrimination, and violence.

Self-Definition

Indeed, the sexual practices and relationship structures of cisgender heterosexuals who engage in swinging, kink, or who are poly are stigmatized.  But, this is a different matter than the stigmatization LGBT and queer people face because of their sexual and/or gender identities — who they are, not merely what they do.

At a minimum, I am suspicious of this proposal.  LGBT people across the US are being asked to consider adopting the name “GSD” following the proposal of a small group of therapist in London that was elevated via HuffingtonPost.  How did these people even pique the interest of the online newspaper?  Just who are these people to come along with such a major proposal?

But, I think it is safe to say that I oppose this change for three reasons.  First, it is proposed by some external source, rather as an act of self-definition.  Second, likely related to the first, they advocate to include privileged people in our minority community.  It is not for lack of sympathy or even awareness of the invisibility and stigmatization that poly, kinky, and swinging folks experience; rather, these are matters distinct from the marginalized status of LGBT and queer people.  Third, also related to the first, is that the term seems silly as a name for a group.  For example, Black people, whether self-identified as “Black,” “African-American,” “Caribbean Black,” and so on, do not identify as “racial diversity” or “diversities”; even racial and ethnic minorities, collectively as “people of color,” do not use such a label.

I ask, before this proposal goes any further, why?  With such effort that has gone into recognition as LGBT communities, why abruptly shift to a new label that would include individuals who are not gender and/or sexual minorities?

A Note About Boundary Work

I know that I am walking the fine line of boundary work — that is, drawing the boundaries of who is included in LGBT and who is not.  Like every group, whether privileged or oppressed, we have had a long history of drawing and redrawing the bounds of LGBT.  Even today, bisexual and trans* people must ask why ‘B’ and ‘T’ are often reflected only in name.

But, I stress here that this proposal instigates these questions.  I am sure that I am not alone in having the knee-jerk reaction to become defensive at the proposed inclusion of individuals who are not socially and politically marginalized in society.  I also emphasize that we question who determines those boundaries.  What authority do these two therapists have to rename an entire segment of the population?  Who grants that authority, and how is it reinforced?  These questions are at the core of Collins’s discussion of self-definition: interrogating who has the power to define us, if not ourselves, and why.

I recognize and celebrate the great complexity and diversity of genders and sexualities.  But, we must hone the power to name ourselves for ourselves as a part of our path to true liberation.





In Defense Of Femininities — All Of Them

1 03 2013

Happy Women’s, Womyn’s, Womanist Herstory Month!  Yep, it is March already.  A time the US has set aside for obligatory celebration of girls and women and their contributions to the world.  Sadly, there is a sense of obligation, with the whisperings of “do we still need this?”

Comprehensive Gender Equality

Yes, we do still need these 31 days — barely 10 percent of the entire year — to reflect on girls, women, feminism, sexism and patriarchy, and gender.  By no means have we achieved gender equality.  And, we are overdue for broadening our vision of gender and equality.

Some time ago, I blogged about the narrow definition of “gender equality.”  In this limited, traditional sense, we are referring to the the equal status and treatment of women and men, still recognized by their gender and presumed sex.  This is certainly the dominant vision of mainstream feminism, or was at least in the days of second wave feminism.

There are at least three aspects of gender inequality that remain in this limited view of gender and gender equality.  First, this vision reinforces the treatment of “woman” as a singular status and “women” as a monolithic group.  The unique experiences and needs of women who are also of color, poor, disabled, lesbian, bisexual, queer, older, immigrant, and so on are overlooked.  Second, this focus fails to address the marginalization of transwomen, and transgender and gender non-conforming people in general.  Finally, while aiming to free women from oppression, certain gender identities and expressions — namely femininities — remain stigmatized and invisible.

Gender Diversity

There is a great deal of gender diversity that is too often overlooked within our society that continues to treat sex and gender as binaries: females and males, women and men.

Women, as a group, come from diverse backgrounds: race, ethnicity, social class, sexual identity, nativity, body size and shape, religion, region, and ability.  It is unsurprising, then, that various branches of feminism — or, more accurately, various feminisms — emerged to counter the exclusive focus of mainstream (second wave) feminism to the lives of US-born white middle-class heterosexual cisgender women.  Some of the prominent feminisms in both activism and academia include Black feminism, Womanism, Chicana feminism, multiracial feminism, Third World feminism, lesbian feminism, and working-class feminism.  Today, feminist advocacy and organizations are now more inclusive, but there is still a strong tendency to slip into “single issue” politics.

Related to this diversity among women is the variation within the category of “woman.”  Just as thinking of gender in binary terms, women and men, a singular view of women misses the existence of trans* and gender non-conforming people, particularly transwomen.  Unfortunately, feminist advocacy and organizations have even excluded transwomen in the past, and many wrestle today with deciding how far their inclusivity should extend (e.g., should women’s organizations serve transmen?).

Beyond diversity in terms of gender identity is the recognition of diverse gender expressions.  In reality, there is no universal femininity.  Rather, there are multiple femininities.  Because of the conflation of sex and gender, we tend to assume that femininity = woman; so the reality that femininity can be expressed through any body, regardless of sex and gender identity, is actively resisted and suppressed.  This means we also overlook the hierarchy of femininities, wherein hyperfemininity in female-bodied individuals is rewarded and valued over other expressions of femininity and its expression in other bodies.

Just to make sure the above discussion is clear, I stress that there is a great deal of gender diversity that is too often ignored or erased.  “Woman” does not imply white, US-born, able-bodied, heterosexual (or even sexual), cisgender, feminine, middle-class, Christian, and thin.  There is no singular status or identity of woman.  As a consequence of overlooking this gender diversity, we also miss the inequality that persists among women and among femininities.

In Defense Of Femininities

Despite the many gains that (cis)women have made, and increasing attention to the lives of transwomen, femininity itself remains stigmatized and devalued.  In fact, I would argue that some of the gains made toward gender equality have come at the expense of femininity.  Indeed, early on, some feminists expressed concern that the elevation of women’s status to that of men’s would largely men that women become men.  You can join the old boys club on the condition that you become a boy.

My discipline (sociology) recently tipped over the threshold of gender parity to become a predominantly-female field.  Though the “glass ceiling” has been cracked, if not completely shattered, in some of the field’s top-departments and leadership positions, feminist sociologists continue to struggle to gain legitimacy in mainstream sociology.

Further, we continue to prioritize and reward masculine (or even masculinist) presentations of self.  On two occasions, I witnessed a woman professor scold women students (in front of a mixed-audience) for appearing to lack confidence and aggressiveness: “don’t do that, that’s girly!”  I, too, was discouraged by a (man) professor from being a “shy guy” during an upcoming talk, which, upon comparing notes with another student, realized was the softened version of “man up!”  (I suppose I was assumed too sensitive or critical for the more direct assault on my gendered presentation of self.)

These interpersonal constraints are compounded by those at the institutional level.  In particular, academic institutions continue to evaluate scholars, particularly for tenure, using standards of the days where (white) male scholars had stay-at-home wives to take care of house and home.  Women who become parents face great professional costs, while women who forgo parenthood are rewarded.  Of course, an ironic twist to this aspect of sexism is that fathers receive a slight boost.

Liberating Femininities

As an optimist, I see liberating girls, women, as well as femininity as beneficial to all members of society, no matter their sex, gender identity, and gender expression.  As a critical scholar, I see this liberation as inherently tied to the liberation of all oppressed groups. Sexism is linked to transphobia is linked to heterosexism is linked to classism is linked to racism is linked to xenophobia is linked to ableism is linked to ageism and so on.

For example, two groups of oppressed men — Black men and trans, bisexual, and gay men — stand to benefit from the liberation of femininity.  Just as a hierarchy exists for femininities, one exists for the diverse expressions of masculinity, with that of US-born white middle-class able-bodied heterosexual men as the most valued.  Thus, Black masculinity and queer masculinity are devalued, stereotyped, and simultaneously threatened and treated as a threat.  As a result, many queer and Black men devalue femininity in society and particularly among themselves.  (Some rationalize this by asking, “why would you want to be further stigmatized?”)  True racial and sexual equality cannot exist if these men’s gender expressions remain constrained and policed.

It is time, then, to update our feminist vision of the future.  Feminism cannot be limited to the goal of liberating (a “narrow” category of) women.  We must liberate all women, regardless of their sex assigned at birth, race, age, ethnicity, ability, nativity, religion, body size and shape, and social class.  And, we must liberate all expressions of gender, particularly femininities.  For women will never be truly free in a society that oppresses femininity.





Sexual (Orientation) Equality: Equality For Whom? Or What?

25 12 2011

What is sexual equality?  To be clearer, I am referring to equality that exists on the basis of sexual orientation/sexual identity.  In a recent post, I sought to complicate, yet further clarify what is meant by “gender equality.”  Indeed, the questions I raised regarding equality on the basis of gender parallel relevant questions that can be asked regarding sexual equality.

The Components Of Sexuality

Sexuality is complex and multidimensional.  Within the individual, it entails sexual and romantic attractions, sexual and romantic behaviors, and a specific sexual identity (and, for some, an associated community affiliation).  Thus, sexuality also necessarily encompasses interactions and behaviors among individuals: sexual behaviors and practices, relationships, affiliation between like community members (e.g., members of queer communities).  Finally, as any good sociologists should point out, there is a third, macro level of sexuality, including social norms and values regarding various sexual behaviors, identities, relationships, communities, and so forth.  For example, many sexuality scholars write about heterosexism, the societal system that privileges heterosexual people, relationships, and practices over everything else.

Equality For Whom?  Or What?

As many might ask, isn’t sexual equality simply granting equal rights and status to all people, regardless of their sexual identity?  In recent years, the biggest push for such equality is the granting of marital recognition, rights, and benefits to same-gender couples — those same 1,000 rights that are currently afforded to all heterosexual couples.  Yet, as some critics have warned, it is dangerous to simply grant lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people access into spaces, both physical and virtual, that are fully accessible to to heterosexuals.  This path, becoming “Good As You” (GAY), means equality can be achieved by becoming more like heterosexuals: marrying, having kids; leading the same types of lives, differing only in sexual identity.

Similar to the concerns I raised in my post on gender equality, gaining greater acceptance for queer people may leave other components of sexual equality unequal.  Indeed, some research on Americans’ attitudes has shown how acceptance can progress for some aspects of sexuality while remaining stagnant in others.  For example, most Americans support protecting queer people from unfair treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.  However, Americans are much slower to shift away from viewing same-sex sexual behaviors as immoral.  We can see a similar disjuncture between attitudes toward queer people and queer relationships, though more and more, the US is moving towards a majority acceptance of legal recognition of same-gender marriages.  Arguably, this shift may be the product of the success of messages that focus on love between same-gender partners, diverting attention away from what queer people do in the bedroom.

Thus, at a minimum, it is important to note that sexual equality necessarily includes equal status, rights, and celebration of all individuals regardless of sexual identity, all sexual behaviors and practices, all sexual desires, all relationships, and all sexual communities.  Further, such comprehensive equality would also encompass equal liberty to privately and publicly express one’s sexuality: public displays of affection, various expressions of gender, commitment ceremonies, and so forth.

A Case: Mean Girls – Accepted Queer People, Invisible Queer Sexuality and Relationships

I am not ashamed to acknowledge that I love and own the film, Mean Girls.  It’s a good laugh.  And, arguably, it is a good source to spark conversation about friendships, relationships, sexuality, conflict, peer groups, and so forth among adolescent girls.  Also, the film is one of the first to portray a young gay man, as a primary character even, in a positive light.  But, upon watching the film for, let’s say, the fourth time, I noticed something about the film that put me off.

The lone gay character, Damian, was comfortably out at the school.  The movie portrays him as a healthy, happy, and active member of the school community.  Without spoiling the ending too much for my readers who have not (yet) seen the film, I can note that the film ends with many of the characters finding love — except for Damian.  He and his best friend, Janice, hesitantly kiss, then gasp in disgust as they realize their pairing would not work.  For Damian, this is because he is gay, presumably not attracted to women.  This scene gives some room for the continued question, is sexual orientation — that is, same-sex orientation — changeable, and is homosexuality a phase?  Then, Janice unexpectedly finds love elsewhere, while Damian excuses himself.  So, though he was accepted as a queer person, the film never demonstrates acceptance of his sexual desires, practices, or relationships.  Aside from his known gay sexual identity, the film portrays him as asexual.

Why is Damian acceptable as a gay person in the absence of his gay sexuality and love life?  It may be safe to assume that the creators of the film knew they were pushing Americans’ limits with the mere inclusion and positive portrayal of a gay youth.  To also portray him as a sexual homosexual might be too much in the current social climate regarding sexuality.  Is it simply that queer people are now less threatening, yet queer sexuality still is?  Are gay people okay “as long as they don’t come up on me,” as one person said in a group interview I was a part of when asked about his comfort level with working in a diverse group?

My Point

The concern that I am driving at is the danger of pushing forward acceptance of queer people — a form of nominal acceptance — while leaving invisible queer relationships.  Or, as things seem today, accepting queer people and relationships, while keeping invisible the yucky stuff they do behind closed doors.  Still yet, there is great cause to be concerned about the acceptance of queer people so long as they lead otherwise heterosexual (i.e., heteronormative) lives.  Such a reality means that America’s “good gays,” those queer people who settle down, marry, and have kids, making little of their sexuality outside of the bedroom, will be embraced as equals, while its “bad gays” (everyone else) is left behind, scolded for failing to conform.  This would mean leaving in place heteronormativity — the social system that would continue to devalue single people, childless couples, polyamory, open relationships, transgender people, gender non-conforming people, and “out and proud” queers.  For sexual equality can only be fully realized when queer individuals, relationships, sexual practices and desires, and communities are equally protected, liberated, and valued.





It Does Get Better — We Can And Have To Make It Better

3 10 2010

I am not certain why the mainstream media have shown interest in the recent tragic losses of five queer youths, but this national attention is long overdue.  One suicide is too many suicides.  These that have occurred in just three weeks have been instrumental in reminding the country of the hostility young people face for being different.  While the focus on making changes in state-level and national marriage, family, non-discrimination, employment, and hate crimes laws has been important, we need not forget that we have, still, so far to go in improving the lives of everyday queer people.  Fortunately, that insight has been shared by others, including Dan Savage with his “It Gets Better” campaign, Ellen DeGeneres, and many celebrities via MTV.

I appreciate the many messages from everyday people and celebrities alike that it gets better, and I have added my own message “we have to make it better”:

We can see that change occurs year by year, even day by day.  But, it is in our efforts and the efforts of our allies that change comes about.  It does not magically happen; we cannot expect change while bigots work just as hard to resist change.  For most of us, as I have noted before, just living our lives out and proud is a form of activism.  We do the work of bigots when we inflict harm on ourselves, or deny who we are, or restrict our actions to avoid discrimination and prejudice.  For laws, hearts, and minds to change, we have to live our lives, stand up to injustice, and continue to fight on.  It does get better!





Two Steps Forward, And One Step Back For LGBT Rights In The Mid-Atlantic US

7 03 2010

After much hype and some oppositional efforts, Washington, DC finally began issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples.  As a result, to fulfill the promise they made months ago, Catholic Charities has ceased its role in adoption services in the city – a decision it made rather than complying with the new, inclusive marriage law.  Further, rather than granting benefits to same-gender married couples, it has also ceased benefits for employees’ partners all together.  Apparently, in the name of religion, it is better to stop placing children in foster homes and granting benefits to employees’ partners than to recognize same-gender couples as equal.

Right next door, my home state, Maryland, has inched closer to granting equal rights to same-gender couples.  Last week, the state moved to begin recognizing out-of-state same-gender marriages.  Unfortunately, a legal challenge to the state’s ban on same-sex marriage failed in the MD state supreme court in 2007.

DC’s other neighbor, Virginia, seems to be regressing on ensuring equality for all people.  The state’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, has called for state and public colleges in Virginia to nix sexual orientation from its employment nondiscrimination policies because the state does not currently protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and, thus, the schools have no legal authority to do so themselves.  But, besides the thin veil to his homophobic activism of legal authority, the AG is not making any moves to include sexual orientation in the state’s nondiscrimination policies or, in the mean time, to grant state and public colleges to decide for themselves what additional statuses they would like to include in their nondiscrimination policies.  In fact, the necessary state House support to protect state employees from sexual orientation discrimination failed last week, one month after the state Senate passed a similar measure.  For a number of reasons of the past few years, the state of Virginia has appeared to vie for the title of most homophobic state, sometimes winning out places like Texas on certain issues.





Legal Progress is Good, But Don’t Forget About Cultural Progress

3 09 2009

I can relate to some of the disappointment with either the inaction, slow action, or counteraction of the Obama administration regarding sexual and gender equality.  Over a year ago, then-candidate Barack Obama made a number of promises that he, now as President, has either backed down from, disregarded, or moved in the opposite direction (like on the Defense of Marriage Act).  While it’s nice to have a friend in the White House, we need not forget that much of the work it will take to realize full equality in a legal, social, and cultural sense will be our own doing.  Though my generation was not around for the Stonewall riots and gay liberation, and was too young to understand any of the emergence of AIDS and the mobilization for better treatment and prevention options, we have to remember the power we hold as people to create change for ourselves.

My concern is that we’ve become increasingly obsessed with making changes to laws and policies, thus depending upon politicians and fellow voters, and have forgotten about the importance of cultural change.  For example, the government may recognize our marriages and families as real and equal, but the majority of the country will still view these as immoral or, at best, alternative.  This is reflected in voting patterns – we lose too often to continue to cross our fingers and hope that a future Prop 8 won’t happen.  (Heck, the fact that it happened in 2000 and then in 2008 in California of all places says that we need to rethink our game plan.)

I cite, for example, the removal of laws that prohibited people of different races from marrying by the 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision.  Within the context of the law, interracial relationships were no longer treated any differently from intraracial relationships.  But, in my quick skim of the 2002 General Social Survey, a nationally-representative sample of adults in the United States, I see that nearly 10% of respondents still thought that there should be a law prohibiting interracial marriage.  That was in 2002!  That was 35 years after the law changed!    The General Social Survey’s 2006 survey revealed that 55% of their respondents for that year viewed homosexual sex as “always wrong” compared to 33% that said that it’s “not wrong at all”.  What good is legal marriage equality if more than half of the country thinks that our sexual and romantic relationships are immoral and abnormal?

Often times, when keeping up with my favorite blogs, I skim over posts about kiss-ins, sit-ins, and other forms of protest for the sexual equality.  But, it recently hit me that these political actions are just as important, if not more, as new bills that are introduced in congress, new decisions handed down from the courts, and new orders coming out of the White House.  The most recent I came across was the formation of “A Day in Hand”, a group in the UK encouraging same-gender couples to hold hands in public.  I’ve also seen a number of posts about the nation-wide kiss-in that was planned.  I guess a part of me shrugged because I do not currently have a honey to hold hands with and kiss, either publicly or privately.  But, I’m all for promoting others to do so.  It is these forms of actions that send a reminder to the world that we exist, we’re happy, and we’re healthy.  I’ve come across a number of studies that found that attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people are much more positive when they actually know such people.  I know that this sort of advice comes with the potential of fear of harassment and violence, and the potential for being victimized, but we have to start somewhere.  Sometimes the greatest force keeping us from being out and proud is the fear that we’ve internalized.