Heartland Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, Bisexual News - ACCESSlineAMERICA.com

12% more than the previous year. While the initial reaction is “Why?” the better question is “How do we turn this into an advantage?” What the GOP needs from the gay community more than votes are candidates. Gay Republicans need to come out of the closet and run for office. It is time to put to rest the idea that the platform of the Republican Party has to be anti-gay; has to be socially conservative; has to be based in religious zealotry. In fact, it may actually be the case that gays can save the Republican Party.

On December 16th, 2009 Rwanda’s legislative body announced that they were considering legislation similar to what was proposed by David Bahati, a member of Uganda’s parliament. The proposed Bill 18 in Uganda would make homosexuality—which is already illegal in Uganda—punishable by life imprisonment or death by hanging. The proposed law criminalizes attempted gay acts, requires the immediate reporting of suspected homosexuals, and would censor or fine any Ugandan agency that publicly supported gay rights. The reach of the proposed law also extends beyond Africa by demanding the extradition of homosexual Ugandans living abroad.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; this rule is something by which we are all bound regardless of our knowledge or perception of it. The purpose of this column is to explore the actions and reactions we have to the decisions and questions raised in our ever-adapting world. The reactions here are intended to stimulate debate in the hope that through it, we can better see what unites us in the face of our differences.

On January 27^th, 2010 President Obama called for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (“DADT”) by the end of the year. Following this, numerous high ranking officials and officers, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commanding General of US forces in Iraq, have come out in opposition of the policy. How should we react to this issue becoming a priority in the face of so many problems our nation is facing and why is it still controversial to repeal a policy that even its architects like Gen Powell now oppose? Furthermore, to say that openly gay men have not served in the military is inaccurate. In January of 1993, Justin Elzie outed himself to Peter Jennings and continued to serve openly until his honor­able discharge in 1997.

Yet in the 17 years since DADT was passed, more than 13,000 men and women have been voluntarily or forcibly discharged. This number includes decelerated pilots like LtCol Fehrenbach, war heroes like Eric Alva, human intelligence collectors like Alex Nich­olson, and linguists like Lt Dan Choi. There are those like RADM Steinman who, for the 25 years until he retired, suffered silently, and those like Joseph Rocha whose careers and pride were silenced by those the policy empowered to humiliate and degrade them. Make no mistake, even today gay service­men fill every billet, are in every branch, and occupy every rank. As Senator McCaskill put it, “the issue isn’t whether or not gay and lesbian Americans are serving in the military; it’s whether or not we talk about it.”

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; this rule is something by which we are all bound regardless of our knowledge or perception of it. The purpose of this column is to explore the actions and reactions we have to the decisions and questions raised in our ever-adapting world. The reactions here are intended to stimulate debate in the hope that through it, we can better see what unites us in the face of our differences.

On February 4th, 2010, Juin Baize walked into Itawamba Agricultural High School (IAHS) and in less than 4 hours was suspended and sent home. Those 4 hours would be the only ones that Juin would be a student at IAHS. A month later, a story exploded in the media as another IAHS student, Constance McMillen, attempted to bring her girlfriend to prom resulting in the school canceling the official prom and holding a secret (and private) prom that Constance was not invited to. Soon after this, in nearby Georgia, Derrick Martin was thrown out of his home by his parents when he won the fight to bring his boyfriend to his prom. And, as the 2010 school year came to a close, Ceara Sturgis, an honor student in Jackson, Mississippi opened her year book to discover that every trace of her had been deleted because she chose to wear a tuxedo in her senior portrait.

This certainly wasn’t the first time a gay or lesbian student tried to bring their partner to prom. This also wasn’t the first time a trans student attended class dressed as they felt comfortable nor was it the first time a lesbian student didn’t wear a dress in her yearbook photo. In 1980, Aaron Fricke and his same-sex date attended prom in Rhode Island. Despite external predictions of violence and fire from the heavens, the couple remembers the prom as being as uneventful as most proms are.

The following is in response to the standard "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" form letter sent from Senator Chuck Grassley to Marine Corps Veteran Brett Edward Stout; Mr. Stout received the form letter in response to his appeal for Senator Grassley's support of S. 3065, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010.

---

Dear Senator Grassley:

Thank you for responding to me. I appreciate hearing your objection to S. 3065, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, which would enable gays and lesbians serving in the military to do so openly. I request that you reconsider.

I was taken aback by your reference to Elaine Donnelly’s “Flag and General Officers for the Military” list of 1,100 retired high ranking military officers. A review of this list has revealed that many of the generals and admirals have denied ever signing this list, that many others have asked that their names be removed, and that several more were deceased at the time it is claimed they signed it. Additionally, very few of those on the list served under the current policy.

There has never been any empirical evidence suggesting that gays serving openly harms good order and discipline, unit cohesion, morale, or recruitment and retention.  Gregory M. Harek Ph.D. testified in 1993 that “The research data shows that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters.”

The current Department of Defense policy is based on a long-standing presupposition. An assumption, even a traditional one, is not good foundation for policy. Currently gays and lesbians serve in every branch, at every rank, and in every billet; many of them are serving openly. Knowing a servicemember is gay in no way negates the service they are already providing. While there are civilian behaviors that are not allowed under UCMJ, those behaviors are only disallowed specifically because they impede a unit’s efficacy. Being gay does not correlate to the other dischargeable offenses like murder, drug abuse, or desertion.

It is cause for concern that the military continues to actively recruit convicted felons, drug abusers, high school dropouts and individuals as old as 42, while simultaneously discharging highly competent men and women from our armed services who are gay or lesbian despite their intelligence, physical abilities, and leadership skills.

You aptly point out that our national security trumps popular opinion and issues of fairness. This current divisive law’s code of silence stands in direct conflict with the principles of honor and integrity the uniform stands for. This policy was the reason I did not reenlist. I could not ethically serve under a policy that stands in opposition to the ideals of the nation I pledged myself to defend. As a result, our military is without my mission-critical skills as a Russian linguist, weapons marksmanship instructor, and warrior in a critical time of war.

I look forward to your further comments on this matter.

Semper Fidelis

Brett Edward Stout

On March 12th, 2010 the Texas Board of Education ruled 10-4 (with one opposing member storming out in protest) to enact new social studies textbook guidelines. Final approval of the decision will come in May. The Board is entrusted with doing so every 10 years and that the vote occurred was not in and of itself abnormal. However, the decision they made that day is considered by some to be the most terrifying power play the Religious Right has ever perpetrated. But why should the actions of the Texas Board of Education deserve a national reaction? What do the content of textbooks matter in an Internet age where print media seems ever more obsolete?

Attacks on school curriculum by the Religious Right are not new and have had questionable success. In 1954 “Under God” was successfully legislated as an addition to the Pledge of Allegiance, but then in the 1960s school prayer was successfully halted. Most recently, in the 2005 case of Kitzmiller v. Dover, public schools were barred from religious challenges in science classrooms but the battle over history has just begun. The following year, David Barton started to gain notoriety for “educating” religious institutions with his theory that the United States was created as a “Christian experiment.”

His work was soon heavily criticized, most notably in Chris Rodda’s book Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternative Version of American History.

On February 14th, 2010, Justin Elzie and three others were arrested for chaining themselves to the New York City Marriage Bureau.  Three weeks later Cynthia Nixon made a militant public declaration for FightbackPAC.com to expel every Democrat or Republican who voted against gay marriage in New York. Eight days later, Dan Choi and another uniformed servicemember were both arrested for handcuffing themselves to the White House gates. The high profile nature of these actions and their participants demark a shift by the gay rights activists to the offense. How should we react if the gay rights movement transitions from the Human Rights Campaign’s strategy of diplomatic civility to a grass roots campaign of civil disobedience? Won’t this induce fear, and do we lose credibility by associating ourselves with criminal actions?

As always, it’s important to look for a precedent. Progress in the gay rights struggle has deep roots in acts of civil disobedience. The tribal beats of the gay revolution go back further than many young gay Americans know, first appearing as an organized movement with the creation of the first gay rights group, the Mattachine Society, in 1950. But Mattachine’s slow political action accomplished little more than the postal reform of 1963, which ruled that homosexual references sent through the mail were not unto themselves obscene. However, things picked up when in 1966 the group staged a “sip-in” at Julius Tavern in New York City. The “sip-in” was an act of civil disobedience to challenge a New York liquor law that made the sale of alcohol to known homosexuals illegal. The ensuing legal battle resulted in gays having both the right to be served alcohol and the right to assemble freely in public spaces. This was a result which led to the opening of the Stonewall Inn a block away, and to yet another pivotal act of civil disobedience: Local police conducted a brutal yet routine bust of the West Village drag club, and the drag queens fought back. The fight spilled out of the bar and into the streets, and rioting continued for several days. The 1969 Stonewall Riots created a spark that lit the kindling of the gay rights movement ablaze nationwide.

We have become unfortunately accustomed to government math that doesn’t work, but it is our duty as Americans to confront that math when it is absurd. The New York Times has reported that the US Armed Forces plans to recruit 1,000 immigrants on temporary visas into the US Military. This initiative, while noble, is not only incongruous with the current policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, it is the highest level of insult to patriotic gay and lesbian servicemen, veterans, and potential recruits.