Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Maybe Not!

In class yesterday, my professor spoke about how hard it is to be dishonorably discharged from the military, but he is wrong. He said that someone needs to be a drunk or experimenting with drugs, or even have an anger problem and be physically violent in order to be discharged dishonorably from the military. This is not the case. One way that a person could have been dishonorably discharged, before November 2010, was by being a homosexual. According to the article “Student Degree Program and Attitudes Toward Gays and Lesbians in the Military: Is There a Connection?” there were over 13,000 military personnel discharged under the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy since its implementation in 1993. Over 13,000 Americans who are putting their life at risk for their country to serve and protect are discharged solely based on their sexual orientation. What is wrong with having a homosexual protecting the United States? Does homosexuality have any affect on somebody's ability to hold a weapon, become a piloit, or provide security to a country?  I do not believe so. The military will accept heterosexuals who have dropped out of high school, but they wouldn't admit college educated homosexuals?  This is absolutely preposterous.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was a policy implemented by President Bill Clinton in 1993 as a compromise to the ban of homosexuals in the military (Washington Post). Previous to 1993 legislation, policy was that people would be asked if they were homosexuals when they applied to get into the military. If somebody answered yes, they were not allowed to serve in the military. In order for someone to serve in the military and be homosexual, they had to hide who they were. This is unfair to those who want to be themselves, and makes it impossible to be who they are because they constantly have to hide it. President Clinton, believing he was compromising, signed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. This new legislation would allow homosexuals to serve in the military, as long as they did not tell anyone they were homosexual. The military would not ask a person of their sexual orientation when applying to the military, but would discharge homosexuals if they flaunted their sexuality, were seen intimately with another of the same sex, or even spoke of being homosexual. President Clinton believed he was doing a favor to the LGTB community, but this policy was harmful. He made it possible for homosexuals to serve, but made them closeted about their lives and who they are. When the policy was repealled, the LGTB community felt a liberating sense of justice.

I wanted to look further into why people do not like homosexuals and how this could affect their position on homosexuals in the military. One of the biggest reasons preventing people from acceptting homosexuality is because of the attribution theory. According to the article “Sacred Rites and Civil Rights: Religion's Effect on Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Unions and the Perceived Cause of Homosexuality” attribution theory “… holds that individuals work to predict and control their environment by attributing others' behaviors as the result of internal or external factors. The idea that behavior can be viewed as either controllable or uncontrollable was added to attribution theory by Weiner.” It is easier for people to believe that homosexuality is a choice. If they believe that it is a choice they are able to hold homosexuals responsible for choosing to be gay. If it is not a choice to be homosexual, then they do not have any control and that scares those who are afraid of difference in our society. As I have stated in previous blogs, homosexuality is not a choice. This aspect of a person’s life is how they were born, and this can be proven by looking at the brains of homosexuals, which I have previously discussed. If being homosexual is not a choice, this makes attribution theory ineffective.

According to the article “Feedback”, the victory of the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will be a victory for the Obama Administration. In December of 2011, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed. This is a great victory for not just the Obama Administration, but for the LGTB community. This shows that equality for the LGTB community can be reached, and this is a small stepping stone towards that equality. It is important to look how this will affect those in the military. Will those who are opposed to homosexuals be forced to change their beliefs? No. The repeal of this hateful legislation is not meant to change anyone’s beliefs, only to allow those who want to serve and be open about who they are be able to do so. “We're not asking anybody to change their beliefs. We're not asking anybody to change their feelings” says Mr. Stanley in the article “Pentagon: 'Don't ask, don't tell' could be gone by September.” It is important to note that by allowing homosexuals in the military there are no rights being taken away from or limiting heterosexuals; fundamental rights being given to a class of people who have been discriminated against for decades. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, even though originally implemented as a way to compromise with the LGTB community, was a harmful policy that affected many people. The repeal of the policy in December of 2010 was one of the greatest victories in the LGTB community, and will hopefully mirror what is to come for equality of homosexuals.

References:
Feedback. (2011). Advocate, 12.
Frank: Gender equality in my lifetime. (2011). Contemporary Sexuality, 45(4), 8.
Mulrine, A. (2011). Pentagon: 'don't ask, don't tell' could be gone by September. Christian Science Monitor, N.PAG.
O’Keefe, Ed. (2010, December 19). 'Don't ask, don't tell' is repealed by Senate; bill awaits Obama's signing. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121801729.html
Wallenberg, J. , Anspach, A. , & Leon, A. (2011). Student degree program and attitudes toward gays and lesbians in the military: Is there a connection?. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(4), 476-496.

The Fight for a Family

The fight for the LGTB community doesn't just center around the debate for same-sex marriage, but also encompasses the struggle for homosexual couples to adopt children. Thousands of people are affected by anti-gay adoptions laws which are implemented around the country. There are laws that allow married gay and lesbian couples, and couples joined by “civil unions”, to adopt children. There are also laws that will allow a gay or lesbian person to adopt a child by themselves, even if they are living with a "partner", but only by themselves, not as a couple adopting the child together as a family. This type of discrimination is harmful to both parents who want to adopt children, as well as to children who could have a loving family, but is unable to because of hateful laws implemented throughout the country.

                After a close look at the opposition to gay and lesbian adoption, I have not found concrete reasons for gay and lesbian couples to be unable to adopt children. Much of the opposition comes from religious groups, and those in the Republican Party. In the article Texas Faces, Fights Anti-Gay Parenting Legislative Efforts by Ellen Wright, a Republican from Stephenville, stated “I believe strongly in the preservation of the traditional family, and I do not believe homosexuals should be allowed to continue adopting children in Texas. By allowing two people of the same sex to adopt children, the state of Texas has been sending a signal that it condones and approves of homosexual activity. I believe homosexuality is immoral, and the state of Texas should not endorse their alternative lifestyle by allowing homosexuals to adopt children.” This argument was used as a reason to create the “Defense of Families Act”, a bill that would stop gay and lesbian couples from being able to adopt in Texas. The article also reports that the state was trying to prevent gay and lesbian couples from being foster parents; such legislation would cost the state $50 million.

                In 2005, many states were coming up with amendments to recognize same-sex marriage. Although, we know now that not all of them passed. At least six states came up with anti-gay legislation against adoption by homosexual couples. In the article by Ellen Wright, Six States Face Anti-Gay Foster Care, Adoption Bills, Ellen discuses the six states that were possible adopting anti-gay legislation; Arkansas, Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, Indiana, and Virginia. Some bills that were looked at by Congress were bills that limited adoption to heterosexual couples, and other bills stopped gay and lesbian people from becoming foster parents. Why shouldn’t gay and lesbian couples be able to adopt? Some arguments in the article Homosexual Rights and the Placement of Children, by Elizabeth Patterson, discusses arguments made for those opposing gay and lesbian adoptions. Those arguments include notions that children are better with heterosexual married couples; that children will be teased by peers if they are placed in homosexual households. Our society has a problem with bullying already, to lay extra blame on the homosexual community is immoral and unjust. Children are being teased all of the time, for many different reasons. The argument that children are better with married couples is an excuse. It seems that this argument is only used when it comes to homosexuals. If a single heterosexual person wanted to adopt a child would there be the same opposition to that adoption? In my research, I have never read about someone getting upset about a single heterosexual person trying to adopt. I believe this is an excuse, and it lacks foundation.

                In some states, laws go so far as to say  children should only be adopted by married heterosexual couples. In the article My Two Dads? Not in Florida, the author talks about the cases of five homosexual men who were trying to adopt children in Florida in 2004. The lawsuit was struck down by the 11^th US Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judges upheld Florida’s laws banning both homosexual couples as well as homosexual individuals from adopting children. Florida is the only state that will not allow homosexual individuals to adopt children. Most of the other states do not allow homosexual couples to be able to adopt children, but will allow an individual homosexual person who is not married to adopt a child. However, the article does point out that there are many other states where adoption by homosexual couples is acceptable. The article also reports that around 60 % of adoption agencies around the country accept applications from homosexuals, and those that are resistant seem to be the religious institutions.

                Homosexuals have been the target of discrimination for a long time, and will continue to be for an unknown period of time. The LGTB community has overcome many obstacles, including the right to publish magazines, the right to be homosexual, and the right to serve in the military freely. One battle that is still going on, affecting thousands of people, is the fight for the right of adoption. If there is a loving couple who wants to have children, but for whatever reason is not able to bear children, shouldn’t they be allowed to adopt even if they are homosexual? What a child needs most is a stable and loving family, and the family’s sexual orientation shouldn’t matter. I believe that as long as the person, or family, is able to show that they have a loving, supportive, and nurturing environment, they should be able to adopt children and start a family of their own.

References:

Kennedy, John. "My Two Dads? Not in Florida." Christianity Today, 48.4 (2004): 23.

Patterson, Elizabeth. "Homosexual Rights and the Placement of Children." Policy & Practice (19426828), 62.1 (2004): 28.

Wright, Ellen. "Six States Face Anti-Gay Foster Care, Adoption Bills." Lesbian News, 30.8 (2005): 14.

Wright, Ellen. "Texas Faces, Fights Anti-Gay Parenting Legislative Efforts." Lesbian News, 28.9 (2003): 16.

Seperate but Equal?

In school, teachers show students the horrific treatment of the African American people, and their struggle for equality. There were some parts of history where they were segregated in their schools, busses, and many of their day to day activities. The courts finally saw the discrimination for what it was. In 1954, in the well known case of Brown V. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal was discrimination which overruled the previous precedent set forth by the case of Plessey V. Ferguson. The same type of discrimination is being implemented today, but just on a different class of people. On November 4, 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8 which put an amendment in the constitution stating “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” (protectmarriage.com). Proponents of Prop 8 argue that it would not affect the rights given to gay and lesbian partners, (protectmarriage.com)   Others would argue that Proposition 8 has many parallels to the segregation that was projected upon the African American community in the earlier decade of the 21^st century.

What is most disconcerting about this action is that it only took a simple majority of people to take away rights of a specific class. In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, which paved the way for legal, gay marriage in California. Between the months of May and November, 18,000 gay men and women were married (HRC.org). 18,000 is a lot of people in such a short amount of time. There were many people affected by the vote on proposition 8,the 18,000 people included. Although the California Supreme Court ruled that those who were married during that time period would retain their valid marriages, is that really true? If the words of proposition 8 are looked at more closely, it says that only a marriage between a man and women is VALID or RECOGNIZED in California. This could be interpreted that NO gay marriage would be recognized in California, including those who were married in the couple months when gay marriage was legal.

Although the proposition was passed, there have been lawsuits brought about to challenge the proposition. After the proposition passed, challenges were made to the State Supreme court challenging that the proposition was a revision of the constitution, in which case the procedure was not done correctly. The State Supreme Court struck this down and upheld proposition 8. Recently there has been a fight over the proposition in the federal court system in which the proposition was challenged on its constitutionality. In April of 2010 a federal court judge ruled that the proposition was unconstitutional because it unfairly targeted gay men and women (New York Times).  This was a temporary win for those in favor of gay marriage, however it was short lived due to the stay placed until the challenge reaches higher courts.

Even though there was a stay, some people believe that it should be lifted. Attorney General Kamala Harris is one of the supporters of equality who believes the stay should be lifted (Washington Post). These people believe that the stay should be lifted because the gay community has been through enough discrimination as it is. Supporters of the proposition believe that the wishes of the people should be granted until the Federal Supreme Court has decided on the case. I think that both sides have a great point, but I have to agree that the stay should continue. Although I do believe that proposition 8 should be struck down, I think if gay people were to be married and proposition 8 was found to be constitutional and stay in place, the marriages that took place while the decision was litigated in federal district court could later be questioned. Proposition 8 should be abolished because not only does it target a specific class of people, but it is justifying a separate but equal attitude. This type of attitude is unacceptable, and has plagued the existence of man for a long time. The fight for equality for the gay community still exists, and will exist until hatred depletes in the hearts of all. 

References:

"California's Proposition 8 (Same-Sex Marriage)." New York Times. 17 Aug. 2010. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/californias_proposition_8_samesex_marriage/index.html?scp=1&sq=california's%20proposition%208&st=cse

 "HRC | Prop 8 Upheld." HRC | Human Rights Campaign | Home. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.hrc.org/10459.htm?gclid=CJ_2kp3M76cCFRphgwod8lTzZA>.

 Press, Associated. "Appeals Court Won’t Allow Gay Marriages in Calif. While Appeal of Prop. 8 Ban Proceeds - The Washington Post." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - Washingtonpost.com. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/appeals-court-wont-allow-gay-marriages-in-calif-while-appeal-of-prop-8-ban-proceeds/2011/03/23/ABtL2EKB_story.html>.

"Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » Ballot Arguments." Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » Home Page.    Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/ballot-arguments>.

 

The Defense of Marriage Act

The Defense of Marriage Act has been a topic of debate since the news hit late Wednesday night, February 23, 2011. President Obama’s Department of Justice decided not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act and in doing so declared their belief that the law is unconstitutional, according to nytimes.com. This development helps the LGTB community in their fight for equality because it could prove to be a step towards the legalization of same-sex marriage. In 1996, a Hawaii court ruled in Baehr vs. Lewin that: “The state's prohibition of same-sex marriages amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex. Under the state's Equal Rights Amendment, the state would have to establish a compelling state interest supporting such a ban, a fairly strict standard” (Findlaw). This one case lead to an uprising, and the government struck back. Although President Bill Clinton reached out to the gay community when he was campaigning to be president, he signed several bills that discriminated against the gay community during his presidency. One of those acts was the Defense of Marriage Act.

According to domawatch.org, “ (DOMA) defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex”. When the law was implemented, its consequences had a horrendous impact on the gay community. This meant that the federal government would not consider any same-sex couple to be legally “married” even if that couple is legally married in their state.  When Hawaii opened the door to the possibility of same-sex marriage, they unintentionally set back the LGTB community by at least 15 years. 15 years after President Bill Clinton Signed the act that discriminated against the LGTB community, President Obama’s Department of Justice has determined that DOMA is unconstitutional. After looking at the Full Faith and Credit Clause, I have also come to the same conclusion.

DOMA is a clear violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, provided in Article IV of the US constitution. This clause “requires states to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the other states” (Findlaw Legal Dictionary). The clause in DOMA that allows states not to recognize marriages from other states if it’s between persons of the same sex is a clear violation of this clause. If in the clause all public acts are required to be recognized in other states, then same-sex marriage should be recognized in other states outside of the state the marriage took place. Also, it is clearly discrimination by a person based on sexual orientation. Before this decision was made by Obama’s Department of Justice, the LGTB community was not considered a protected class. However, this decision will help to give precedent for the LGTB community to be considered a protected class, and possibly open the door for many rulings that favor the LGTB community.

The implications of Obama’s decision are not really clear. Right now, there are two cases going on in the second Circuit Court of Appeals that are dealing with the constitutionality of DOMA (scpr.org). If the Attorney General is not going to defend the cases, it makes it questionable whether someone else will defend the case. This is a giant leap forward for the LGTB community. The fact that Obama’s Justice Department is taking a stand on this issue shows the country is heading in a different direction with regards to the rights of the LGTB community. If respected public figures continue to show their acceptance of the LGTB community, the hop for equality may someday not just be a dream for many, but reality.

References

"1993: The Hawaii Case of Baehr v. Lewin - Divorce & Family Law Center." Divorce, Child Custody, Child Support, Marriage, Adoption - FindLaw Family Law Center. Web. 25 Feb. 2011. <http://family.findlaw.com/same-sex-couples/case-of-baehr-v-lewin.html>.

"Constitutional Principles behind Obama's DOMA Decision | 89.3 KPCC." Home | 89.3 KPCC. Web. 25 Feb. 2011. <http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/02/24/legal-aspects-of-doma/?c=58968>.

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Legal Resources and Information. Web. 25 Feb. 2011. <http://www.domawatch.org/index.php>.

"Full Faith and Credit Clause: Definition of Full Faith and Credit Clause. Define Full Faith and Credit Clause." Dictionary of Law. Define Legal Terms at FindLaw. Web. 25 Feb. 2011. <http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/full-faith-and-credit-clause.html>.

Shear, Michael D. "Obama Decision on Marriage Act Has 2012 Implications - NYTimes.com." Politics and Government - 2012 Presidential Watch - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com. Web. 25 Feb. 2011. <http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/obama-decision-on-marriage-act-has-2012-implications/?scp=1&sq=DOMA&st=cse>.

The Fight throughout Time

Struggling for equality has been an issue for many different minority groups throughout history in America. African Americans struggled with slavery and women struggled to be equal. These were public struggles, and are taught to children as they grow up. One minority group, which encompasses millions of people, has been struggling for equality for years, but has been under the radar of most people until the early 70’s. Rights for gays and lesbians finally surfaced after the stonewall riots in 1969, and it was the start of a revolution for this minority group to fight for equality.  Throughout time, people have used religion as an excuse to discriminate against people who are different from themselves. When there were miscegenation laws, there excuse was that God put the different races on different continents, and therefore people were not supposed to marry outside their race. This same logical thought has been used to discriminate against the Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, and Bisexual community, or the LGTB community. This discrimination is not just in America, but throughout the world. There are 11 countries in the world countries in the world where homosexuality is punishable by death (Professor Disario). In fact, several of the countries where homosexuality is punishable by death are countries where the Islamic people are a majority. Discrimination like this is unnecessary.

Homosexuality has sometimes been seen as a choice, someone chooses to be homosexual. If homosexuality was a choice, there would not be a high correlation between homosexuality and suicide. “Studies of human sexuality have noted high rates of suicidality [sic] among homosexual youth…” (AAP).  If someone’s choice was to be homosexual, they would probably not want to commit suicide for being homosexual. At the same time, why would homosexuality be a world-wide issue if it was a choice? Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. In ancient Greece, homosexuality was not just accepted as a part of nature, but in was encouraged. “ For many in Greek society, the highest form of love affair was considered to be that between two males, one an adult and the other a young boy before puberty” (Sex Crimes). It is important to note this was before the rise of Christianity, and homosexuality was common. It seems that if homosexuality was a choice, it would not have been around for this many centuries.

Another factor that shows that homosexuality is not a choice are studies that have proven that a homosexual man’s brain’s is similar to a woman’s brain and a homosexual woman’s brain is similar to a male’s brain. “MRI scanning revealed that the two hemispheres of homosexual men’s brains are equal in volume, like those of heterosexual women. Similarly, the right hemisphere of homosexual women is slightly larger than the left hemisphere, as is the case for heterosexual men” (Scanning Sexuality). This study is scientific proof that being homosexual is not a choice, but is a quality someone is born with. It is still not known whether environmental factors play a role in homosexuality, but seems that it would only help to encourage, or discourage, a person to be the sexuality they are born. 

Homosexuality is a highly diverse topic, one that touches millions of people. When looking at how many people are gay in America, I found a study by AVERT (Averting HIV and AIDS) who found “This can be interpreted as there being nearly 1.2 million gay people living with a same sex partner in America. This is a huge increase from the 1990 census, which identified only 145,000 same sex unmarried households.” If more than 1 million people in America alone are homosexual, it can be concluded that millions of people all around the world are homosexual, and are affected by discrimination. This is a serious issue, and one that needs to be looked at intelligently and without bias.  

References:

Gary Remafedi, James A. Farrow, and Robert W. Deisher (1991)
Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth
Pediatrics, 87, 869 - 875.

Holmes, S. T., & Holmes, R. M. (2009). Sex Crimes (3rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Safe Publications Inc.

How Many Gay People are there? (2011). Retrieved February 9, 2011, from http://www.avert.org/gay-people.htm

Nicholson, C. (2008). Scanning sexuality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(8), 582.

Professor Disarrio (Writer). (2010). Current State of Gay Rights. [PowerPiont]