This series of posts is a long time coming. One that has taken over a year of blogging and four years of post-college/post-thesis work for me to come to a place where I was read to share in such a open space. As trivial as it may sound, putting forth these stories are not without reservation. Many of you who read this blog, I know personally, but some may come to hate. Many of you may know how strongly I feel about these issues, some may be reading these sentiments here for the first time.

For those of you who know me well — and especially from earlier years — you know that the issue of equal rights is a central principle I apply in the way I think, act, advocate and support.

One of my first real, visceral experiences with this concept came in 1994 — I was 12 at the time, having just moved to Oregon from Northern California — and the Oregon Citizens Alliance was campaigning for Measure 13, which was against what they claimed were “special rights” for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. This wasn’t their first go at it — just two years earlier they had but forth with Measure 9; six years later they would come at it again with yet another Measure 9.

“Special rights,” by the way, was a consecrated “talking point” (or, in a pre-Frank Luntz sort of way, a phrase that would be considered on of those “words that work”) used by the radical, religious right to create fear, confusion and an excuse for discrimination. ‘Special?! why should they get something special?!’ it would go.

There was nothing “special” about the rights that were in question; it was a veiled attempt to not include discussion of homosexuality in schools. But what the OCA wanted to wrap into the discussion of basic rights — sex education, presentation of a queer life narrative and same partner benefits, for example — included things like pedophilia and “perverse activities” (which is itself subjective in many ways for those non sexually enlightened and empowered; beyond the scope of this post, suffice it to say, I am happy to take this up later if need be).

It does not get much more agenda-driven than that. Why fold in the good with the bad; why conflate a way of life (homosexuality), with a set of practices (S&M) and a completely illegal act (pedophilia)?

One need not read further than the paragraph below (from the 1992 Ballot Measure No. 9) to realize what was going on: The OCA was trying to get away with marginalizing and pathologizing homosexuality — as it has been for years in the church, the medical field, Hitler’s Germany and the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s — by piecing it together with (1) a lifetstyle, (2) a legally and morally wrong act and (3) perfectly acceptable sexual practices by consenting adults.

“All governments in Oregon may not use their monies or properties to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. All levels of government, including public education systems, must assist in setting a standard for Oregon’s youth which recognizes that these behaviors are abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse and they are to be discouraged and avoided.”

- Oregon Ballot Measure 9 (1992)

Whoa.

That’s a little too much for my libertarian tendencies, not to mention my humanity. In 1992, Measure 9 was defeated 56 to 44 percent; two years later, 52 to 48 percent; source - Campaigns & Elections 1995. This was far too close for comfort.

Final, personal thoughts for now:

  • As early as 6th and 7th grade, I remember speaking out against social, religious, racial, legal, and sex and/or gender-based prejudices. In fact, to an audience of slightly uncomfortable parents and my peers, I delivered a “persuasive speech” (the category/assignment( in 7th grade was given as a rebuttal to the work furthered by the OCA; Equal Rights for All. I opened with the Lockian-inspired, Declaration of Independence codifying: ‘Inalienable rights of man are those of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’
  • To break this down some: Ones life and ones pursuit of happiness are often linked to life partnership, aka: marriage. Ones life is also lived/understood through a personal and cultural language and lens provided by outside “norms” — it is hard to see a real life trajectory and sustained happiness when you are relegated to second class treatment.
  • That doesn’t mean 3/5ths rights. That means equal rights.
  • That doesn’t mean separate is equal. Separate is inherently unequal.
  • Q.E.D. Marriage and Civil Unions are not equal.
  • Q.E.D. Sex education that — over and over again — reifies coupledom as One Man, One Woman… IS. NOT. Equal. I spent a great deal of time in college examining this very issue and will be posting excerpts from my BA Thesis here on this blog starting tonight.

Final, political thoughts for now:

To Sen. Barack Obama: Your stance on gay rights, while progressive in some ways, falls short of what I want you to be for the real Hope and Change I have waited for since I was in middle school. It looks like I am going to have to wait for at least four more years (but hopefully not longer, perhaps maybe sooner). Your comments at Saddleback were what they needed to be for you to be politically viable:

“I am not someone who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions”

You think this is the equality that was fought for during the Civil Rights Era? You think this is equal? Although this is not an issue of race, it is still a matter of personhood and being fully recognized in the eyes of the law. I hope you can see beyond the present day construct of marriage and think expansively, yet equally/appoint those who do, while you are in office (see esp. UChicago Historian George Chauncey’s book Why Marriage?).

If you think gay marriage, gay rights and the issue of a viable life trajectory for non-hetersexual indivudals is trivial, just wait. My next post will further illustrate how high I see these stakes.

To Sen. John McCain: In my research, which didn’t need to take me much past Wikipedia, I found that you spoke at a fundraiser for the OCA in 1993; source - Oregonian 1991. And while you were careful to stay “on message” regarding tolerance, you helped raise $3,000 that night. Your staff was quoted as saying this was the “invitation from hell,” which is somehow suppose to excuse the difficult position you were put in. It doesn’t. The OCA could not be further from the true Christian spirit in their discrimination, persecution and Levitical exegesis. I am hoping I have yet to come across the article that admonishes your support of this group. I also hope that you would never accept “invitations from hell” when other such prejudicial and fear-driven groups approach you in office. I am also very concerned about the kind of administrative and judicial appointments you may make during your tenure, causing temporary funding issues in areas like sex education at best (as with the Bush Administration), and, at worst, tipping the scales of the balanced Supreme Court while a decision on issues of gay rights and gay marriage are imminent.

To Sen. Joe Biden: I look forward to reading and researching more about you on this topic. I honestly have not spent enough time on researching this and will return to this topic once I have more from which to draw a conclusion.

To Gov. Sarah Palin: I also look forward to reading and researching more about you on this topic. The one piece of news circulating does point out that your adherence to the letter and semantics of Alaskan Law: “I disagree with the recent court decision because I feel as though Alaskans spoke on this issue with its overwhelming support for a Constitutional Amendment in 1998 which defined marriage as between a man and woman. But the Supreme Court has spoken and the state will abide.” (The cache shows that this was once up on the official Gov site, but now seems to be a 404). And while I normally appreciate certain Federalist/States’ Rights jurisdictions, on the issue of equal treatment, opportunity — and marriage rights — for gays and lesbians, the right is too fundamental, too inalienable to not be treated as a Federal Law. I am concerned that you will veil your personal and religious beliefs in the name of States’ Rights. I urge you to realize that this issue is bigger than that. It is not about regional preferences, it is about universal equality.

In closing, I understood it when I was 12 and feel just as convicted to this day.

At the dawn of a historic presidential race — less than 60 days away — this issue remains one of the most paramount as I go to cast my ballot for the 44th president (my favorite #, btw). Its not pressing like our economy, its life or death like equality and freedom.

What have you read? Sources/articles to add? Please do share. I want to keep this discussion open, respectful and productive. Thank you for allowing me to share so openly. More to come.