Jason Cianciotto at Box Turtle Bulletin diagnoses the problem of bullying, finding support from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s language in the Colorado Amendment 2 case. Anti-discrimination laws that don’t specifically enumerate sexual orientation do, in fact, send the message that government approves — or at least doesn’t disapprove — of those who think heterosexuals are superior to lesbians and gay men. The government’s neutrality about anti-gay discrimination is clearly a contrast to its explicit position on race and gender discrimination. Cianciotto urges government to be more explicit in prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, particularly in schools.
But this diagnosis misses the disease. After the upheaval of the civil rights movement — and by that, I include feminism — our laws are now overwhelmingly consistent in being race and gender neutral. Law is the government speaking at its loudest, and it is clear to anyone who listens that our laws may not discriminate in those areas.
In prominent contrast, our laws are entirely schizophrenic when it comes to sexual orientation. Two areas of law — marriage and the military — expressly demand discrimination against open lesbians and gay men. Unlike the silence of many anti-discrimination laws, this is active inequality.
Does anyone think bullies don’t notice this? Whatever else they may or may not know about the law, they certainly know that lesbians and gay men are fighting hard and loudly for marriage equality, and are having a hell of a time getting laws changed. Even in states like California where the law is quite clear that some measure of equality is required for same-sex couples, marriage is still out of reach. Our laws prohibiting other kinds of anti-gay discrimination — including bullying — send a message that is directly contradicted by other laws.
That’s how Carl Paladino of New York, and Barack Obama of the White House can both say, apparently without irony or shame, that they are 100% for gay equality, except for marriage. I can’t speak for others, but the equality that matters most to me is equality under the law. That’s the guarantee that’s promised so publicly above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court. Laws that prohibit heterosexuals from discriminating against lesbians and gay men don’t mean anything until laws that, themselves, discriminate against lesbians and gay men are removed from our books. Until that happens, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike will get the same, consistent message from government — that it’s all right to be a little suspicious of the faggots and the dykes.
What anyone does with that, of course, is not the government’s fault. How could it be?
23 Comments for “Schizo”
posted by John Howard on
But tying bullying directly to marriage is a really bad idea if there is a rational public purpose to denying same-sex marriage, which there is. Allowing same-sex marriage means allowing same-sex procreation, which would have a huge risk of birth defects and use too much energy and resources and cost too much, and allowing the genetic engineering required would be a threat to natural procreation rights. And if same-sex procreation is prohibited, then same-sex marriage would strip procreation rights from all marriages.
So I suggest not making the case that lack of marriage justifies bullying, or lack of equal rights justifies bullying. Bullying might decrease significantly if there was a clear superiority to heterosexuality, because gays wouldn’t be threatening everyone’s rights and society any more.
posted by Jorge on
The Box Turtle Bulletin link offers absolutely no concrete evidence one way or another that bullying laws that do not identify sexual orientation are more or less effective at protecting gays than laws that specifically identify sexual orientation.
In fact I believe that anti-discrimination laws carry significant risks of failing to protect individuals from conduct we would like to believe is unacceptable. With workplace anti-discrimination legislation for example, often employers have no legal obligation to protect workers from harassment or being subject to a hostile work environment, as long as it is not discriminatory. All persons must be protected, regardless of why they are targeted. Now, craft a law that offers both a blanket prohibition and a laundry list, and I can’t say I’d object.
posted by BobN on
That’s how Carl Paladino of New York, and Barack Obama of the White House can both say, apparently without irony or shame, that they are 100% for gay equality, except for marriage.
This little trick involves Paladino hiding the fact that he also opposes CUs and DPs — even at the local, city level — and supports a constitutional amendment to enforce his views.
And keep in mind, this guy is running for gov of a state witch already interprets its constitution and legal code to recognize out-of-state SSM.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
What is consistently frustrating is too many of the general public, insist that being gay is a choice and also isn’t an obvious trait like color or gender, the person at the receiving end of bullying (or discrimination) has the option of privacy, so therefore can avoid any judgment, scrutiny or attack.
A patently dishonest and narrow interpretation of reality. There NEVER is the option of privacy. As Tyler Clementi found out.
As thousands of military service people have found out. And millions of other gay men and women have found out.
Even as there are complaints that gay people are too visible, and loud, there are suspicions, inquiries, investigations and surveillance of gay people all the time.
The contradictions in terms pretty much explodes the insistence that if gay people kept themselves in the closet, everyone would be happier.
Those that want to dilute or use riders that don’t specify sexual orientation, have to presume that those with other distinct characteristics, are federally and locally discriminated against because of them.
When they are not.
What is bullying in the world of children, is assault and battery and attempted murder anywhere else.
And is actionable by criminal arrest and jail time.
If we are to teach children anything, it has to go to their parents as well that arrest, and community service and some other form of restitution is required.
Depending on the severity of the assault.
The President really isn’t the one to be addressing this. But local law enforcement. The bullies and their parents need to be subject to the gravity of what they do.
Notice that the two humps who outed Clementi, weren’t even EXPELLED.
And the bullies who tormented Jaheem Herrera to his death, are now doing it to his sister (already traumatized by the death of her brother). If those kids had been expelled, never to return, they aren’t around to continue it. Especially on someone who already suffered from the SAME PEOPLE, before.
This is a sure sign that the bullies are emboldened to do it another day.
The schools need to grow a pair. Of most criminal activity, school bullying is the easiest in which to IDENTIFY an assailant (s) and commit the power of the law against them.
That would work a lot better than doing NOTHING.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I love it when the racist hypocrite Regan DuCasse shows up and starts whining.
You want to know what happens when children are punished and expelled for bullying?
Regan and her fellow racist bigots show up and start screaming.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh, and it gets better.
Regan and her fellow racist bigots screamed that it was wrong to expel black students for bullying and beating a white student because that white student had allegedly used a racial slur.
Turns out that was just another lie from Regan and her fellow racist bigots.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
After the upheaval of the civil rights movement — and by that, I include feminism — our laws are now overwhelmingly consistent in being race and gender neutral. Law is the government speaking at its loudest, and it is clear to anyone who listens that our laws may not discriminate in those areas.?
Wrong, Link.
It is perfectly acceptable to discriminate on the base of race and gender. It’s called “affirmative action”.
Furthermore, marriage laws do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. The fact that you are not sexually attracted to a woman does not mean that disallowing you to marry to whatever you are sexually attracted constitutes “discrimination” — unless you are willing to state that pedophiles should be allowed to marry children because that’s what sexually attracts them the most.
Futhermore, Link, your insistence on “gender neutrality” is paradoxical. If your view is truly “gender neutral”, then you should be able to marry a woman as equally well as you can a man. Clearly you discriminate based on gender. Why should the law not be able to do the same?
posted by Infovoyeur on
At bottom of it all, remains “queer-fear,” A.K.A. homophobia, irrational fear but also “bedrock disdain and disgust.” How much innate in humans (was gender-role-identity hard-wired in in earlier eons?) But anyhow…
Now Adm. Mullen, judges, others, intone so dignified about “equality, equal rights,” etc. This sardonically amuses me. They’re quite unaware that they did not think toward this out of the Box themselves forthrightly. They are merely puppets dancing to the current tune of the Puppetmaster of the norms-mores-folkways.
Evaporating is the zeitgeist that saw GL folk as (1) dangerous to society, (2) sexually a deviation not simply variation, (3) able to choose and change, (4) all about sex not Love also and mainly, (5) and somehow Lesser, not Complete Citizens but Partial People (as Blacks, women, etc., earlier).
These evaporated, hence some leaders can say “equal rights is the issue” (and never questioning why they can be Pro now when their predecessors were so Anti. )
But for too many people, that ole devil emotional unease, visceral disdain, remains. And propels continuing injustice…
My how times change, but not via keen thinking, just because. “What, Blacks equal in intellect? What, women getting the vote? What, the races intermarrying, the military integrating Blacks? What, equal rights and marriage for, er, ah, the, ah…?”
My heavens, if this tsunami of Egalitarianism continues, X decades from now, macho male athletic coaches in small-town high schools will say, when appropriate, “Hold it, guys, you don’t hassle the gay dudes any more than with the Black guys or Hispanic boys…” But will those esteemable teachers have sat down and thought things out themselves? Or just be dancing to the Puppet’s new tunes?
[Justice, if and when she arrives, does just because, not because she should. Same if she stays around…]
posted by Jorge on
I love it when the racist hypocrite Regan DuCasse shows up and starts whining.
Drop the slanderous red herrings and get to the point: is Reagan DuCasse’s post right or wrong?
posted by Regan DuCasse on
ND30,
You don’t get to come in here, and commit libel with my name.
I had nothing to do with the issue you linked, and I in no way have ever condoned or supported ANY assault on someone based on their race, white OR black or any other color.
I work in law enforcement, ND30. I don’t commit, nor support crimes on another human being EVER.
If I were a racist bigot, I would not be qualified to volunteer as a facilitator for the Simon Weisenthal Center (they do background checks for such a thing), engaged in PREVENTING the very incidents that happened in Jena. The volunteerism I do, is the business of anti hate, and pro diversity education.
I live in Los Angeles, CA
Jorge asked you a question. And thank you Jorge.
You keep pulling this ND30, without provocation from me, your personal attacks can be construed as cyber bullying.
Reconsider your actions.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You keep pulling this ND30, without provocation from me, your personal attacks can be construed as cyber bullying.
No, Regan. THIS is cyber-bullying.
Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of shit who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a cock-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a shit about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. Fuck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And do you know what, Regan? That example of cyber-bullying was FULLY endorsed and supported by Evan Hurst, Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out, and Ex-Gay Watch, all organizations and people that you fully endorse and support.
Look, y’all. We all know that the writers at GayPatriot are self-loathing, awful people, indeed, embarrassments to LGBT people everywhere. In the past 24 hours, the “Daniel Blatt” one was one of the only wingnuts on the entire internet to have a problem with Obama granting visitation rights to same-sex couples. Indeed, his post on the subject was so grotesque that Tintin at Sadly, No!, usually one of the greatest snark blogs EVER, dispensed with all silliness to throw down one of the most memorable, spot-on smackdowns I’ve seen in recent months. I won’t quote it here because this is a family blog, but suffice it to say that everything he said is true, and then some.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And not only did all of these organizations and people that you fully endorse and support push this example of “cyber-bullying”, Regan, they encouraged and supported more of it.
Evan Hurst said,
April 17, 2010 at 17:48
Bravo, Tintin.
Somebody needed to say it.
Now do the other ones, the “Colorado Patriot” one and the “Bruce” one, and we’ll be done with that site forever.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And last, but certainly not least, Regan DuCasse, I would love to see you try your usual bleating spin of how you “didn’t know” and therefore you can’t be held responsible.
Because you certainly had it pointed out to you the day after it happened.
And that, Jorge, gets to my point. I FULLY endorse and support criminal penalties and civil responsibility for children who bully and their parents. I FULLY support the right of the public schools to expel students who behave in a manner that disrupts the learning process. And I oppose outing in every circumstance.
Regan DuCasse does not. She supports cyber-bullying and refuses to condemn gays and lesbians such as Evan Hurst, Wayne Besen, and others who engage in it. She supports forced outing and violations of privacy by Mike Rogers and others. And as we’ve seen with her attacks on donors for Proposition 8, she fully supports and endorses criminal actions and harassment against people based on her hatred towards their skin color, ethnic origin, and religious beliefs.
In short, Jorge, what Regan is proposing sounds good — until you realize that it will be administered through her prism of racial hatred and antireligious bigotry, and in a way that best facilitates punishing “whitey” and Christians, with little regard towards actual bullying or conditions on the ground.
posted by Jorge on
In short, Jorge, what Regan is proposing sounds good — until you realize
Thank you. It makes sense now. And for the record, Reagan, I am sympathetic to some arguments that begin that way.
However, ND30, if are going to attack a person on their record, it is best to use the one presently at hand, else people won’t believe you. You can create a record by asking them a trick question to prove they’re a hypocrite, but you only get to spring that trap in the present.
Otherwise, the only recourse you have is to attack the apparent ideology. But my experience on this site from having some posters on try that on me is that is a very weak attack. It is very likely the person will deny having that ideology and call you an uneducated fool.
You don’t get to attack someone on their morality. That’s just not an option. All this gibberish about she supports cyber-bullying and the Jena six is just ridiculous. A sincere conviction by a human being is by definition flawed and hypocritical, and it is only the strength of that person’s character that determines whether or not their actions will demonstrate something true or not.
posted by Jorge on
Perhaps that was too nice of me. Well, let me point out that it took three more posts and five paragraphs in for him to get to the point.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
ND30, apparently you’re trolling sites I also VISIT, but you have no way of attributing any direct support or cheer leading from me, such comments from whoever this Dan person is.
I should be able to read, even leave a comment or two on these sites. But unless you can attribute specific AGREEMENT from ME for this comment, show one of similar content that I wrote, or could produce ONE bit of evidence to prove your accusations, then go ahead.
Nothing is stopping you, except that you don’t have any evidence of anything you’re saying.
Mores the point, plenty of people here are familiar with me, and go to the same sites.
What makes you think they SHOULD believe you just on your say so?
I don’t think anyone cares ND30, you’re pretty much a vicious, contrarian yawner.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, let me point out that it took three more posts and five paragraphs in for him to get to the point.
Sorry about the extra posts; seems the filter captures anything with more than one link in it. Hence the multiples.
Meanwhile, if you want to see what sort of behavior Regan DuCasse supports and endorses, here you go.
For starters, here’s Regan DuCasse bullying and belittling a gay man who disagrees with her and her tactics.
If you’re a gay man, perhaps you’re one of those that hasn’t REALLY had to be in the trenches or didn’t care to be.
Maybe YOUR issues have been silent and without challenging anyone whose agenda is to see you disappeared or without any legal protections.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meanwhile, let’s show what else Regan supports and endorses.
Particular quotes:
Hey, hey, ho, ho, Marjorie has got to go!
But the anger was apparent as the few customers of the evening walked in, including a lesbian couple. They were met with angry chanting of “Shame on you, shame on you, shame on you!”
Which, as I pointed out in that reference, Regan DuCasse lied about. She tried to pretend this was “peaceful”, when in fact she and her screaming “allies” were out blockading the parking lot and verbally assaulting anyone who dared come near this restaurant.
Her attack on the lesbian couple really demonstrates the point. She claims to be “sympathetic”, but she’s out there screaming at and trying to publicly shame any gay or lesbian person who dares to disagree with her or doesn’t do what she demands.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Then this really hit the high entertainment quotient for one of Regan DuCasse’s whinefests.
But unless you can attribute specific AGREEMENT from ME for this comment, show one of similar content that I wrote, or could produce ONE bit of evidence to prove your accusations, then go ahead.
Oh no, Regan. You have to play by the same rules you impose on others.
For example:
Worse things have happened from the other side.
Indeed, a lesbian woman up in SF was gang raped, and two Ecuadoran brothers were attacked by a carful of thugs who thought they were gay.
One of the brothers was beaten with a baseball bat and stabbed to death.
These two acts of horrific violence cannot and never will compare to whatever happened since Nov. 4th and those upset by the passage of Prop. 8
And NONE of these was repudiated by ANYONE from the opposition.
Even that UCC church shooting in Knoxville that was targeted for it’s inclusion of gay people was NEVER repudiated by anyone in the press, even though the shooter in part was motivated by the liberal/gay bashing literature of Mike Savage, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.
NONE of them said a thing about such an outrage, although their names were on it.
So let’s see, Regan; you have stated that, unless these people REPUDIATE these actions, they endorse them. Never mind producing evidence about AGREEING; instead, the rule is that, if you fail to repudiate and condemn it, you support it.
Therefore, by your own rules, you must repudiate these actions, or you automatically agree with them.
Unless you would like to demonstrate your complete and total hypocrisy by stating that you hold others to standards that you won’t follow yourself.
You’re a bully, a liar, and a bigot, Regan. Also a coward, given that you deliberately use gay and lesbian people to cover up your own hatemongering and bigotry — and then attack and bully them with shrieks of “Shame on you, shame on you, shame on you” and other belittling remarks when they disagree with you.
Does the Wiesenthal Center support your statements of anti-Christian bigotry such as this, too?
BTW, Christians never ‘started’ taking revenge. They ALWAYS take it.
Very tolerant. Very typical. And, it seems, fully endorsed and supported by the Wiesenthal Center as an example of “tolerance”.
posted by Jorge on
For starters, here’s Regan DuCasse bullying and belittling a gay man who disagrees with her and her tactics.
I am not impressed. In fact you’re convincing me the other way.
Since I’d rather not rehash old fights with people are sometime allies, I’ll leave it at that.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
ND30, you have no evidence that I shouted at anyone. None.
In fact, quite the opposite happened (at least for me).
You’re inferring guilt by being present, you don’t have any idea what I was doing, you just assumed.
Do you accuse the reporters, police officers and photographers of doing so too, just because they happen to be there?
It’s possible I was an observer, and didn’t react at all. But, you need an enemy, so you picked me.
Even if what you said was true, all this tattling is supposed to do what?
The fact that you’re a LYING tattler, says something about you.
The rally in front of the restaurant, happened TWO YEARS ago, and neither IT, nor it’s owner/manager suffered any ill effects commiserate to the damage Prop. 8 did.
SO. GET. OVER. IT.
Give it up, ND30.
You’re blowing up the wrong skirt. Get a life.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
I’m troubled, Regan, by the use of your playground boy-will-b-boys taunt in smearing NDXXX as a “tattler”. I’ve watched boys at my son’s grammar school use that very same taunt as a mechanism to coerce silence from other children who have a right to report bullying or abuse to school admin.
And, if you actually are in law enforcement as you claim above, I doubt you’d engage this tattle tale taunt because most intelligence about criminal activity comes directly from people “telling” on others. If you are really a law enforcer –and I don’t mean a Weights & Measure cop sitting in a toll booth– you’d likely not use that particular taunt to bully others.
No offense, but something isn’t quite right with your defensiveness and evasion. Your justification that bullying conduct is somehow defensible because it involves opposing those who supported Prop 8 seems very suspect –as in the above comments. No harm in your eyes, so no foul if things get a little heated and some bullying happens? If you were part of that kind of bullying, it seems bizarre to now lecture others on cyber-bullying.
Box Turtle Bulletin (cited at the start of this article) is one of those blogs that tolerated –for far too long– radical, violent voices on the gayLeft who advocated bullying, stalking and harassing supporters of AZ/CA marriage props. The voices there went so far as to include street addresses of homes and businesses of marriage prop supporters -complete with google links and tips on approaching the front gate or side gate that led to the garage. It was an attitude of “give em Hell, hit at home” that should have caused shudders for most Americans.
I think the people who need to get a real life are the drama queens who take politics into their guts, hearts and minds to create a passion that has eluded them elsewhere in life, no? Rather than tell others how to act, maybe you should spend some time reflecting in the mirror… and I don’t mean your pocket compact mirror.