In defense of hate speech, or what do you have against lima beans Les?

A recent poll suggests we as a country believe hate is on the rise. Rasmussen Reports’ study suggests the recent shooting at the Holocaust Museum and the assassination of a late term abortion doctor are likely contributors to the general feeling tensions are on the rise.

Public policy seems contradictory to that for the LGBTQ community. Barney Frank has introduced a version of ENDA that includes the Trans community. Seven states have legalized gay marriage. The Obama administration has made a nod towards benefits towards same-sex partners. It would seem that we’re gaining acceptance more and more.

But there always seems some backlash. The two incidents noted above aside, we had our own look at bald-faced bigotry when the Neo-Nazi’s showed up to protest Pride. There protest merely succeeded in making the event a success for the GLO organizers. But the hate-mongers' message was not missed.

Hate is still alive and well.

Attempts to quell the hate abound. Local lawmaker Sara Lampe has worked, so far unsuccessfully, to pass anti-bullying legislation. There are also many who wish to pass laws banning hate speech. The argument is we stop the hate speech before it escalates into violence.

I’m afraid it isn’t that simple. Stopping hate-fueled speech won’t stop the hate. The root cause here is the hate not the speech. That hate is going to exist whether the haters are silent or the loudest bigots on the block.

Let’s pretend for a minute I hate lima beans. Ok, no pretending, I REALLY hate lima beans. And I bitch all the time about what a scourge on the vegetable world lima beans are and how I’d like to burn every field that produces lima beans. Governor Nixon hears my rants and decides I’m a danger to Missouri’s farmers and passes a law that I’m not allowed to even say the word lima bean. That may shut me up, but it certainly won’t make me quit hating lima beans, or avoiding lima beans or even smashing them when I think no one is looking. In fact, it’s liable to make that behavior worse.

Yes those signs and words the Neo-Nazi’s brought to our Pride hurt and were hard to hear. But I’m glad they showed up. I’m glad they showed their faces. I’m glad I was able to look them in the eye. Because like it or not, now they can’t hate in a vacuum where we’re just a bunch of faceless fags.

Further, knowing they are around helps all of us to be vigilant. More importantly, law enforcement knows they are around. There were several of those young men whose FBI portfolio was created or got fatter that day. And at the very least, the speech gives them a vent for the vitriol they feel. While that vent isn’t enough for some, it’s enough for most.

This country has a long-standing tradition of allowing, accepting and even encouraging dissent, even when that dissent is difficult to hear. Dissent is the sincerest form of patriotism because without a flow of ideas, good and bad, this country may as well cease to exist. In a nation that is for the people, of the people and by the people there are going to be a wildly diverse collection of ideas and opinions. And those are surely going to clash from time to time.

Obama's benefits plan misses the mark

President Obama signed an Executive Order last night extending sick leave and long term care benefits to same-sex federal workers but does not go so far as to include health care or retirement benefits. Needless to say, there was much rancor over the slight nod in our direction.

U.S. Rep Jared Polis an openly gay Democrat from Colorado said:

“I am glad the president has decided to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. The exclusion of health care and retirement benefits because of DOMA, however, provides little real benefit to same-sex partners and is a far cry from the equality we seek. I again call on the president to repeal DOMA or work with Congress to end this law.”

Still the order is a step in the right direction. The Gay Rights Movement has suffered setbacks over the last year, but also cleared many hurdles. Seven states now have legalized gay marriage with still others working in that direction. Prop 8 was a stunning setback for California, but many believe the stage is set for a federal case to be made.

Outrage at the Moxie

The movie “Outrage” is coming to the Moxie on June 26. The film by documentary filmmaker Kirby Dick kicks Washington politicians out of the closet. These are the politicians who attempt to hide their sexuality by actively opposing gay rights legislation.

The film talks about Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho who found himself in hot water after “lewd” behavior in an airport and Sen. Edward L. Shrock, of Virginia, who resigned after being outed by The Advocate. The filmmakers also speak with some politicians, such as retired U.S. Representative Jim Kolbe who was out while in office.

Asked if he thought the film would be dismissed in a San Francisco Chronicle article, Dick says, “We spent nearly three years making this film, and we had a team of researchers. We made very sure that our cases were very strongly built. So, I'm 100 percent confident in our position.”

None-the-less the film will be controversial and make lots of folks in Washington uncomfortable if not angry.

Domestic partnership registry in Columbia

Just days after Iowa overturned their ban on same sex marriage, Columbia, MO made a baby step in that direction. The City Council unanimously voted for a Domestic Partnership registry.

The registry, which would allow unmarried couples to register as partners, is open to couples of any sexual orientation for a $25 fee. But most of the people who testified spoke of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community’s need for such a registry.

The registry, administered through the Columbia/Boone County Department of Public Health and Human Services, would not obligate employers to give domestic partner benefits or force hospitals to allow partners access to patients, but it would serve as proof of partnership for institutions that already recognize those relationships.

While this step is a far cry from Iowa's momentous decision, here's hoping our own new City Council members take steps in this same direction.

What marriage do you want?

Probably, I won't say anything new here, and that's okay. Still, I want to rant about the marriage concept the predominant culture seems so inclined to "protect." And if we actually looked at those silly things called "facts", everyone might notice that maybe--just possibly--nobody would want marriage in the first place.

Please understand, before I get started and before you send angry emails to me or to Les Bian, I'm a full advocate of equal rights. It won't be equal until it's 100% equal, as far as I'm concerned. But we're arguing over a term that may not be of interest to any of us, if we really understood it.

Let's say, for the poor sake of argument, we wish to fight for marriage equal to that indicated in Scripture. I don't think any of us who want marriage rights for the LGBT community really want that for ourselves. And if we do, our partners may disagree with the option on other grounds! Let's start at the very beginning, because if Julie Andrews taught good gay boys and lesbian girls anything, the beginning is a very good place to start!

Adam and Eve. The only reason they ended up together is because otherwise Adam would've resorted to beastiality. I somehow doubt that'll fly for most of the LGBT community.

Abram (Abraham) and Sarai (Sarah). Okay. That'd be all right, if we totally ignore how Abraham had sex with Sarai's servant girl in order to have an heir. By the way, that's what eventually led to the split between the Israelites and the much-later followers of Islam. Do we really want that in our mix? I'm thinking no.

Samson and Delilah. Okay. Bad example from the outset. She tricks him so she can cut off his masculinity...in the form of his hair. This one's self-explanatory. (Men everywhere just crossed their legs while considering this one.)

Joseph and Mary. I'd probably go for this, but we might want to be a little cautious. According to Catholic lore, Joseph got no nookie. Ever. I'm guessing that won't go over well. (I don't even think heterosexuals would go for that option.)

The Wedding at Cana. Really great party. We know nothing of the marriage that followed. NEXT.

We can't even mention Jesus. According to traditional understanding, Jesus was a loner. Now, there are a few theologians who argued differently...some even positing that Jesus may have been gay. Hence the whole thing about John being a "beloved disciple". Still, that's no concrete example of what marriage is or should be.

If we are to look to Scripture as a guide--and I'm speaking to the men for a moment, here--there's the whole Joshua and David thing. Vaguely, I recall something being mentioned about "closer than a brother." Looking at linguistics, "brother" was often considered WAY more than what we mean now. In addition the option of sharing parents, the term would equally equate the closest male companion of a male (or, in fewer cases, a female). In some cultures, "brother" or "sister" even referred to one's spouse.

So maybe we decide Scripture's not the best source. That's okay, too. Let's go to history and see how marriage looked.

Marriage as a contract. Purely a legal term, we want only to be able to take our partner's property, and be able to have control over their rights. Generally, this aligns pretty closely with what we seem to be arguing for with "civil unions." The only problem with this idea is that is has nothing to do with love or a recognition of commitment. It's purely a legal concept and could be annulled.

Marriage as a relationship. Add to the contract concept that we are a committed couple. Okay, that works. Except that even with marriage identified as a "special relationship", it doesn't say anything about the historical or traditional concepts of marriage. When marriage was seen as a special relationship, men often had additional women for sexual gratification. While this appeals to some, I'm guessing there will be people in an uproar over that.

We can also add to this the ideas of polygamy (or rarer cases of polygyny). That throws a big kink into our hose of marriage. Personally, that doesn't appeal to me--but if it works for other people...I guess they have their own battle to fight.

History shows that Marriage as a sacramental union didn't really happen until sometime between the 11th and 13th Centuries. The argument is over a term that wasn't in existence a LOT longer than it HAS been in exsitence. (You know, if you consider a few hundred thousand years a "long time", that is.)

Let's understand where we are now:

• Marriage is a person-to-person thing...not like it was when it originated as a family-to-family contract.
• States can choose to acknolwedge any contract they so choose.
• The church only acts as an agent of the state in the matter of marriage. They serve merely as a witness.
• We're arguing over a church-based understanding of a term, not a legal understanding.

All this is to say simply: Do we really want marriage, as it's been traditionally defined? Do we want to be equated with people who can get divorced so easily, when we are hoping for a lifetime commitment? Do we want to have a term that carries the baggage of cheaters, abandonment, and the other negative concepts?

As a spiritual/religious person, yeah. I do. I want to be able to look at my partner, know he's mine in both my eyes and God's. That's a personal understanding, between me, my partner, and God.

I want my church to recognize our relationship as special, as blessed, and as fully committed. But that's my argument with my church. Not the state.

I want my family to recognize us as a unit, one pair that is always a pair, not simply two seperate entities who get sexual release from one another. (Though somehow, I kind of doubt my family even wants to think about me having sex. Period. Male or female doesn't matter here. I'm pretty sure they think I'm still chaste, despite having been partnered nearly a year!) And despite all that, that's my argument with my family.

More than anything, I want my state and my country to admit that my partner and I deserve equal rights under the banner of the law. We deserve to be able to visit one another in a hospital without hassles. We deserve to be able to interview for positions without the fear of discrimination based solely on our sexual preferences, just like any other couple.*** We deserve being able to get health coverage for one another through our jobs, just like any other couple.

Maybe it would simply be better if we did go to Switzerland's form of the argument. Take marriage out of legal vocabulary. EVERYONE gets civil unions. That's it. You want a "marriage", something sanctified by your church? Take that part up with your church, and fight with them for that concept. If you want equal rights under the law, fight with your state and your country.

And a note to church leaders who might be reading this--though I doubt that's a likelihood. If you want to get involved in the debate, that's fine by me. But before you do, check your tax-exempt status with the IRS, and start paying taxes like me. You can preach all you want about "saving marriage" then, and be a taxpaying person doing it. Otherwise, keep it to yourself or your after-service coffee & donught hour. Leave my bedroom out of this...I don't come to your church and tell you who you can't sleep with. Don't come to my state and tell me who I can't sleep with.

(I'm a bit bitter today. It's been a rough week.)

***As a total aside...while typing that line, I immediately went to the gutter. If you aren't mad about nondiscrimination policies, consider this. A guy who likes it when his girlfriend uses toys on him doesn't get discriminated against for that, but in some work environments, you can be discriminated against for being a boy who likes boys or a girl who likes girls. Glorious, ain't it?