Adieu to 2008, a wretched year for gays. Voters banned same-sex marriage in Florida, Arizona and - most painfully - California, one of the few states where gays could legally wed. Arkansas banned adoptions by gay couples.
In every state where the populace has been able to vote on the issue of marriage equality, they've rejected it.
But fear not; our LGBT national political organizations weren't lazy. They put endless effort into raising funds and donating labor to get out the vote for Obama. That this meant an historically high turnout by minority voters who overwhelmingly voted to strip gay people of legal equality is no matter - we have the chosen one!!! Clap your hands and dance for joy!!!
And for our electoral defeat in California, blame the Mormons, a politically correct protest target. (And for gosh sake, never mention the pro Prop 8 robocall quoting Obama stating his faith-based opposition to letting gays marry.)
Only weeks away from the chosen one's inauguration, he's proved his mettle by putting repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" on indefinite hold and honoring an evangelical champion of rolling back of our right to equality. Not reason to celebrate, you claim? Party pooper!
As for 2009, we may see a (thankfully) toothless federal hate crimes bill, but the long awaited Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is sure to be impaled by activists' demands that it include cross dressing at work. Only in fantasyland are newly elected purple state Democrats in Congress going to go for that.
But hey, several LGBT Democratic activists have been or soon will be rewarded with mid-level administrative positions in one or another of Washington's rapidly expanding alphabet bureaucracies. Deliverance is nigh!
And a happy and joyous New Year to all!
19 Comments for “Farewell to a Dismal Year”
posted by Tony on
Hmmmm…
My husband always tells me — don’t just complain; offer solutions.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here. Sure, Obama disappointed us with Warren, and he will disappoint us again when he does not or cannot deliver everything we want, but what is the message I’m supposed to take away from this?
That I should have voted for McCain? That I should have abstained from the election because neither candidate would or could deliver me a basketful of the changes I want?
No matter how many ways you slice it, Obama will be a big improvement over McCain when it comes to gay rights. I’m sticking by my vote, despite the disappointments.
posted by TS on
You exaggerate, Mr. Miller. Governmentally, things are bad, but that’s not news. That contemporary American government is a study in absurdity shouldn’t surprise anyone. And the marriage/rights votes are just a simple illustration of a well-known principle: democracy in general is bad for minorities.
Culturally, things are good. The world is now full of places (Western Europe, Massachusets) where LGBT people are equal under the law. In most environments across the Western world, people like us are treated fairly by most people and institutions, and can build satisfactory lives for themselves if they work hard and take personal responsibility. Almost nowhere in this country is a dollar of virulently anti-gay rhetoric worth a dime of political capital. I know it’s not fair to say this to older LGBT people, but the people of my age group, 18-25, are overwhelmingly against unfair treatment in all Westernized parts of the world.
Anyone who says 2008 was a bad year staked too much of their definitions of good times and bad times in government, and not enough in themselves and their peers.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Setting aside Steve’s usual petty sniping, I will focus on this phrase regarding the desire for a transgender-inclusive ENDA bill: “cross dressing at work.” Are you really that ignorant on the subject? I wrote multiple columns last year criticizing gay movement leaders for their all-or-nothing stance on ENDA, which was deeply foolish and many of the defenses for which were amazingly ill-informed and dishonest. But that does not require opposition to transgender inclusion in principle (when the advocacy and organizing for it have ripened), nor a statement as snidely ignorant and dismissive as Steve’s comment above. Ugh.
posted by Bobby on
“And a happy and joyous New Year to all!”
2008, 2009, what’s the difference? It’s just a freaking number. Why do we celebrate something that doesn’t exist? Time is a human invention. Why would 2009 be better than 2008? It’s all the same shit year after year. Nothing ever changes.
posted by Pat on
True, Bobby. But some years are shittier than others. 🙂
posted by Bobby on
“True, Bobby. But some years are shittier than others. :-)”
—When I was a kid, I used to believe that even years where luckier than odd years. When that fateful day, 06/06/2006 came (666), I was hoping for some major catastrophe, the rapture, anything that would make things interesting. The aztechs think the world will end in 2012. But now I see it as just a number. So unless you have a good personal trainer, I don’t think you’ll see much change throughout the years. I used to think that if you work hard and go to college, you get rewarded. But that’s not the reality for most people. And every year I have hoped that this would be the year I would find a boyfriend, but that never happens. So I’ll wish you a happy new year because I assume you believe in those things, but I don’t.
I don’t think gay marriage will be legalized in 2009, nor ENDA will pass. Maybe the the ban on gays in the military will be debated, but it’s a longshot for the military to end their precious ban.
YOu got any predictions for next year?
posted by Pat on
Bobby, I don’t put any special significance with days, like New Years, or whatever. If things are going one way, it’s not going to automatically change, because the calendar changes. Of course, I don’t believe in end of the world dates, but I might have to have a kickass party in Dec. 2012, just in case.
No predictions for 2009 yet. I had some hope for “change” regarding the election of Obama, but as time goes on, I’m finding it less likely that 2009 will see DADT ending or ENDA passing in any form. And I don’t think Obama will be pushing for federal civil unions as he promised he would. We’ll see.
As for finding a boyfriend, all I can tell you is that it took me all of 20 years an adult before I had my first boyfriend.
I wish you a Happy New Year. If that doesn’t work, well, wait until 09/09/2009. Maybe something good will happen that day.
posted by TS on
Eheheh! Bobby, I love your comment. I am unable to form an opinion on how much of it is true, valid or useful… but I love it just the same.
posted by TS on
And good point, Rosendall. “Crossdressing at work…” he sound’s like he’s related to Archie Bunker. Oh the strange things in this world.
posted by avee on
Richard and TS, Steve is right, politically speaking. Demanding that ENDA also prohibit employers from discrimination against transgendered people is absolutely GOING TO BE PRESENTED as defending cross dressing at work. And in truth, the language of the proposed transgender non-discrimination is so vague that it opens itself to such interpretations. Finally, opponents will be able to point to lawsuits against employers over (wait for it) their refusal to let them cross dress at work.
Are you really so politically tone deaf?
posted by avee on
Under the proposed transgender-inclusive ENDA language, employers can enforce dress codes. But an employee can abide by the code of the gender to which he/she is “transitioning.”
The proposed lanuage: “adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.” But the statute doesn’t spell out what qualifies as “transitioning.” Again, it seems Steve’s critique is valid.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Avee, please pay attention. I specifically pointed out that I had written multiple pieces critical of the all-or-nothing strategy on ENDA. Here are links:
ENDAgate (October 18, 2007)
Red October (October 25, 2007)
ENDA: a step forward (November 15, 2007)
Transgender Movement at a Crossroads (January 16, 2008)
As to fears that will be stirred up about crossdressing in the workplace, etc., that is simply an illustration of the work that the transgender rights movement has ahead of it. Katharine Hepburn and Marlene Dietrich were accused of cross-dressing seventy years ago, but somehow their careers continued and the republic did not fall. There is no reason to surrender to other people’s ignorance. The struggle for transgender rights has a long way to go, but neither the difficulty of it nor the differences between gender identity and sexual orientation require belittling trasngenders or tossing them overboard.
posted by avee on
Richard, what on earth are you trying to say? You condemn Miller for his remark that purple state Democrats won’t support cross dressing at work, calling Miller "snidely ignorant and dismissive." Yet the vague language of the transgender proposal gives employees the right to dress as the gender to which they are transitioning but doesn’t say what "transitioning" means. Clearly, it seems, Miller has a point. So, how do you defend your ugly comment that he’s "snidely ignorant"? Or do you just enjoy talking out of both sides of your mouth at once?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Avee, why be so determined to miss the point? The alleged concern about “cross-dressing at work” is a huge red herring. The very term “cross-dressing” is prejudicial, in that it denies the gender identity of the people we are talking about. Who or what exactly is harmed by transgender people being permitted to dress in conformity with their gender identity? Why heap scorn and ridicule upon them, and make their lives miserable? Many transgender women are driven into prostitution because they are unable to find other employment. Do you really think they would bring all this upon themselves to indulge a mere fetish, which is what the term “cross-dressing” implies? What would it cost to be more compassionate and understanding?
posted by TS on
avee, I side with Rosendall because the world is full of bad arguments that go like “but if we allow that then this and this and DOOM”. Exposing and disarming crappy slippery slope arguments is precisely the strategy I think makes our own John Corvino so convincing. Don’t list a few problems and say “see, it’s a bad idea.” List a few problems and solve them. No doubt more will emerge; solve them too. We don’t abandon the quest for what is morally right because of problems.
I’m pretty sure ENDA and all statutes of its kind are limited to affecting federally entangled businesses. The law should make it easier for businesses to be federally nonentangled if they so choose (currently, it is not really practical). Such private businesses could set whatever policies they like, even discriminatory ones, for their own premises and activities.
No doubt some private companies, concerned with tradition, appearances, or their particular clientele, will not welcome unconventionally dressed or gender identifying people. Others with a different set of values will welcome people no matter their gender identity and expression. And as for governmental and governmentally entangled employers, it is immoral for them to set criteria biased against LGBT people that are irrelevant to the work done. Government activity is for everyone and paid for by everyone.
And as for the problem of excessive lawsuits, it is a separate issue pertaining to a lot more than ENDA, and needs separate solutions. An argument that ENDA is bad because it provides another reason for frivolous lawsuits is vacuous because frivolous lawsuits are out of control no matter what legal routes they take.
posted by Bobby on
Hey TS, thanks for your kind words.
Pat, just so you know, 09/09/2009 is 666 written from right to left. I’ve been researching demonology and it turns that demonic spirits love to write evil messages from right to left.
Waiting 20 years for a boyfriend is too long for me. Then again, I’ve waited 13 years so far… Thank God for promiscuity.
posted by Pat on
Pat, just so you know, 09/09/2009 is 666 written from right to left. I’ve been researching demonology and it turns that demonic spirits love to write evil messages from right to left.
Bobby, I may be missing something here. 999 backwards is 999. Do you mean “upside down” or “upside down and right to left”? Of course, whatever it is, I don’t believe demonology, or any other numerology.
Waiting 20 years for a boyfriend is too long for me. Then again, I’ve waited 13 years so far… Thank God for promiscuity.
Yeah, 20 years was a long time. Part of the problem was for about 15 of those years, I wasn’t ready for a romantic relationship of ANY type, i.e., I wasn’t promiscuous at all, even after the fifteen years. But by then, I was happy enough to comfortable in a relationship or not. So that’s the key.
If you live in NJ, you can apparently try eHarmony now. 🙂
Avee, I get what you are saying, but Stephen Miller’s language did seem flippant regarding “cross dressing at work.” Perhaps he himself can explain exactly what he meant, since there are differences regarding that. There’s no reason why the language of any ENDA law regarding transgender persons cannot prohibit persons from dressing the way they want on a whim, any more than a man cannot wear a t-shirt and jeans to work where the dress code is either business appropriate or even business casual.
We have anti-discrimination laws for transgender persons in NJ.* My brother had a colleague at work, and frequently biked with, who told him that he was transitioning to a woman. Keep in mind that my brother had some trouble with the gay thing for a while too. But after the initial shock, he was able to accept and even understand it. But he also realized that even if he didn’t, it was the law, and he would have to abide by it at work, or he would be at risk of losing his job. My understanding is that the colleague went to management with documentation of what was happening. So when it got to the point that she was then living her life as a woman, she was able to wear clothing appropriate for women at work. Apparently, management did have to have a meeting with those who would be in contact with her at work, to be explained the law. For the most part, it worked out okay. My brother said that another colleague had to go to counselling, because he couldn’t handle it. Yeesh! Go figure.
*Like what may happen at the federal level, in NJ, anti-discrimination laws first did not cover transgendered persons initially. It was added on a couple of years ago. So while it would be fair and just to include transgendered persons for ENDA, it would be better to get the ball rolling first, and cover transgendered at a time in the near future.
For those who are against ENDA, as either unnecessary or the government overstepping its bounds, that’s fine. As long as these persons push for the end of ALL anti-discrimination laws with the same fervor. Kind of like the hate crime bills.
posted by DCPoster on
Miller is interested only in sniping at gay Democrats. He will turn any disappointment into an argument that gay people should turn away from the sole major party that supports them most of the time. Miller seemingly expects absolute political purity on LGBT issues, yet he advocates for a party that is ridiculously far from it. That makes him nonsensical and not serious.
posted by avee on
TS writes: “I’m pretty sure ENDA and all statutes of its kind are limited to affecting federally entangled businesses.”
No, you’re absolutely wrong. ENDA applies to private businesses whether or not they are government contractors.
As for transgenered inclusion in ENDA, whether or not it’s a positive step, politically it makes no sense to insist that both sexual orientation and sexual identity workplace nondiscrimination pass at the same time. On that (and that alone), Rosendall has a point.