ROLE MODELS FOR ALL OF US

Two times this week I heard gay men talking about the lack of role models when they were growing up in a closeted society.  Their desire to see others like themselves living their lives and solving their problems is so natural.  We all look to those around us for clues on behavior, ethics and, well, role modeling.

What stuck me, too, is that by keeping themselves secreted, it wasn't only other LGBT people who lost the opportunity to learn and grow by their example, it was all of us.  After all, it has been proven that prejudice and negativity fall away when people are exposed to those who are different.  As more LGBT people live their lives in the open, raise families and participate in the community; the community has, in turn, embraced them and supported them.

My son educated me to the fact that the reason gay men, in particular, were thought to be promiscuous had more to do with the fact that society didn't accept them coupled up, so their option was to have secretive sexual encounters. The secrecy and lacking the option for open, intimate relationships led to lives where promiscuity was just the way it was done.  Ultimately and unfortunately, it also led to the spread of HIV/AIDS.  Bringing those issues, rights and lives into the light has resulted in our society becoming educated and accepting of our differences and aware of our similarities.  With that acceptance, the spread of the virus has decreased.

I can't say how I formed my attitudes about the LGBT community.  I don't recall my parents discussing it.  None of the gay kids or teachers in my high school were open - but that was 40 years ago!

One of the first times I actually became aware of my feelings were when my kids asked me about 2 men holding hands.  I said there was nothing wrong with people loving each other - no matter what kind of couple they were.  I was proud of the way I answered that question then and really proud of my continued growth and education since. I guess I managed to grow up along with society though I am sometimes saddened by how far we still have to go to become equals.

YOUR FIST IS HITTING MY FACE

rep·re·sent·a·tive   /ˌrɛprɪˈzɛntətɪv/ Show Spelled[rep-ri-zen-tuh-tiv]
noun
1. a person or thing that represents another or others.
2. an agent or deputy: a legal representative.
3. a person who represents a constituency or community in a legislative body, especially a member of the U.S. House of Representatives or a lower house in certain state legislatures.

I have had a bee in my bonnet on this issue for a long time.  It seems like it is coming up more and more frequently, and not just because it is an election year.

When we elect someone to office, it is their responsibility to then represent us.  I know that each election has a winner and a loser and that the losing side deserves some consideration when it comes to their point of view.  The concept of "majority rules" is meant to keep both sides working to have their points of view debated and weighed during elections and the "side" that wins is the one which gets the most consideration when positions are taken.

What I see developing more and more is elected representitives making decisions based on their own religious beliefs, on what is politically expedient or what they think will make them electable in the future.  So when I see these polls indicating that 67% of Catholics and 64% of other voters think the President's birth control coverage requirement should stand, why are we still talking about this?  What leverage should there be when the will of the people, the desire of the voters is to support the President?

Why are the elected officials of this country even meeting with the Catholic Bishops Council?  Beyond their individual vote and the sway they may hold over their church members, what other say should they have in the governing of our country?  None.  If they want to become a political force, then they should give up their non-profit status, pay their way and join in the fray.  Otherwise, their constituency is their own membership - which is certainly not the entire country.

When John F. Kennedy was running for President there were a lot of people against him because of his Catholic religion.  They said they didn't want the country run by the Pope.  Yet just these few years later we are being forced to fight off  religious intolerance, whim, mandate, threat and  prejudice at every turn.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, 'The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.' Rights must be limited to claims of freedom to do anything which does not violate the freedoms of others.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.  If you don't believe in using birth control, don't use it.  If you believe homosexuality is a sin, don't have sex with someone of the same sex.  If you don't believe in evolution, teach your children what you do believe and let the science teachers teach what they know.  Your right to believe in what you believe and practice your beliefs doesn't bother me until you try to foist it on me, my family, schools and the rights of others in this country.

WORDLESS WEDNESDAY

MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY

In my new job one of the things I am getting accustomed to is all the different terms for things.  The software we use for adding new files refers to the people as the client and the pet as the patient.  When we refer to the pets and the people in person we tend to refer to them in terms of family - the people are the parents of the pet.  We will say "Fluffy's mom is here to pick her up."  No one seems to mind this label.

So it is not surprising that 30% of Americans actually count pets as part of the family when polled.  The very sad thing is that only 40% of Americans think a gay couple are a family.

New research on the topic how a family is defined is contained in a book-length study, "Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans' Definition of Family" and in a separate 2010 survey overseen by the book's lead author, Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell.

Only about one-third of those surveyed said they considered same-sex couples without children to be a family. And in 2006, when asked if gay couples and pets count as family, 30 percent said pets count but not gay couples.

"The sheer idea that gay couples are given less status than pets should give us pause," Powell said in an interview.  (At least the gays have come up in the polls by 10%  since 2006 - good job America...)

In the 2010 survey, 83 percent of the respondents said they perceived unmarried heterosexual couples with children as a family; only 40 percent extended that recognition to unmarried straight couples without children.

The problems with this isn't really just about bigotry - there are real life altering issues for people which flow from attitudes about what makes a family.  Among other matters, it affects  income tax filings, adoption and foster care practices, employee benefits and inheritance rights. 

I think of all those kids out there waiting for a good foster home; waiting for an adoptive mom or dad and the attitudes of people stuck in "Ozzie and Harriet"  mindsets which are denying them the warmth and safety of those family bonds. 

We really need to get over ourselves and let everyone open up their homes and hearts to the kids out there, just as we encourage people to open their homes and hearts to all the little animals out there.  There are all kinds of families and all kinds of family members.

THIS FAMILY DOES NOT HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS

The California State Supreme Court is taking their sweet time to rule on the same sex marriage ban created by Proposition 8. They have until June 3 to present their ruling. In the meantime, Iowa and Vermont have ruled in favor of same sex marriages. Will it have any impact on California - probably not.

For those who argue that domestic partnerships are the legally "same" as marriage in California - take a look at the case of Shirley Tan and her partner of 23 years, Jay Mercado. They are the parents of 12 year old twin sons. Federal authorities plan to deport Tan to her native Philippines on April 22. The federal government does not recognise their domestic partnership - as grounds for legal immigration. As their attorney says "They being discriminated against because they are lesbians." Mercado says "If I were a man, none of this would be happening."

Federal officials can look past immigration violations when heterosexual couple have children according to the attorney. "Congress has always taken the position that maintaining the family unit is so important that a non citizen spouse can be legalized virtually without penalty."

Their have been bills introduced to allow permanent partners of U.S. citizens the same avenue to permanent resident status spouses now have. But this will not happen in time to help Tan and Mercado. If there is not a reversal of the decision, the entire family will relocate to the Philippines later this month.