Like many, I was dispirited but not surprised when we lost. The rights of minorities (gays especially) generally don’t do well when put to a popular vote. And the opposition’s central message—that gays want to influence schoolchildren—remains as effective as it is sinister.

The message conjures up the image of gays as child molesters—a myth debunked but never fully extinguished.

A slightly less sinister (but still false) version portrays us as anti-family and anti-morality. Still another falsehood is that we’re trying to “recruit.”

Then there’s the underlying truth that sustains the myth as plausible. Yes, of course marriage equality will affect what children are taught in schools, because if same-sex marriage is legal, they will naturally be taught that it’s legal. That it’s an option for consenting adults who want it. That women sometimes fall in love with women, and men with men, and live happily ever after.

We should not shrink from saying these things, but we do. No doubt, the ugliness of the sinister versions—not to mention our opponents’ penchant for quoting us out of context—makes us nervous about discussing the truthful version. And that’s surely one lesson of this loss: the closet is still powerful, and our opponents use it to their advantage.

But we will not go back in the closet again.

We will keep telling our stories. We will keep showing our faces. We will keep getting married, even if—for now—Maine doesn’t legally recognize our relationships. We will not go back in the closet again.

And though we’ve lost this particular battle, we will continue to win the war.

On the same day that Maine voters took away marriage equality, Detroit (where I live) elected an openly gay city council president. This, in a city that’s 84% African-American and where churches exert considerable political influence. The rest of the country hardly noticed, but Detroit defied several stereotypes on Tuesday.

His name is Charles Pugh. A popular newscaster before running for City Council, Pugh was actually endorsed by both the Council of Baptist Pastors and the AME Ministerial Alliance. They knew he was gay and they endorsed him anyway.

One could argue that Pugh was endorsed—and won—because of name recognition. Detroit elects all nine councilmembers-at-large, and the top vote getter automatically becomes council president. It’s a dumb system in several ways, and in the past it has resulted in famous but incompetent councilmembers—Martha Reeves, of Martha and the Vandellas, leaps to mind. (Incidentally, in this year’s primary Reeves was voted out, and in the general election voters overwhelming approved a referendum for council-by-district.)

But even if Pugh’s landslide can be attributed to sheer popularity, it sends an encouraging message about the way the world is changing. Being openly gay is no longer an absolute bar to getting public support. And even those who regularly oppose us will sometimes let other factors trump whatever makes us scary otherwise.

Meanwhile, the more they know us, the less scary we become.

It’s unfair and unfortunate that we need to work harder than our opponents to win. They win by exploiting fear, which is easy to do when you’re in the majority. We win by building relationships—by letting voters know who we really are. That takes time.

So our opponents have a soundbite edge, but we have a long-term advantage. The closet is crumbling.

In the wake of the Maine loss, we will catch our breath and press on. We will continue to live our lives; we will keep speaking our truth. We will stand up in the firm conviction that our love is real, and valuable, and worthy of equal treatment under the law.

Because whatever legal roadblocks they may put in our way, we will never go back in the closet again.

***********

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.

His upcoming speaking appearances include:

November 10: Central Washington University (debate with Glenn Stanton)

November 11: Colorado State University, Pueblo (debate with Glenn Stanton)

November 12: Miami University of Ohio

November 16: Bergen Community College (NJ)

Check school websites for rooms and times.

She is a board member for the Equal Justice Society and the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

NCLR is an organization that advocates civil rights for the LGBT community through public policy and public education.

Kendall received her law degree from the University of Utah College of Law in 1988.

She began practicing corporate law but diverted to civil rights advocacy.

Kate and her partner live in San Franciso, CA.

(Las Vegas) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is supporting the National Equality March (NEM) saying in a letter addressed to steering committee members, “I write to join in your commitment to ensure equality under the law.”  The letter was delivered on September 30.
 
“We are honored that Senator Reid has endorsed the National Equality March and our fight for full equality,” said Derek Washington, Clark County Nevada Democratic Black Caucus director and director of diversity outreach for NEM.  “Senator Reid is a man of his word and I believe he supports the LGBT community and our struggle for full federal equality.”
 
The full text of the letter follows.

Dear Members of the National March for Equality Steering Committee:
 
As you prepare to come to Washington, DC, for the National Equality March, I write to join in your commitment to ensure equality under the law.  As Senate Majority Leader, I will continue to work tirelessly to pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, as well as to repeal the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.  I will also continue to advocate for funding of HIV/AIDS prevention treatment research and housing programs.
 
I believe that every American should be treated equally under the law regardless of religion, sexual orientation, gender, race or other forms if identity.  I see your struggle for equality as part of a larger movement for peace and social justice.
 
My best wishes to you.
 
Sincerely,
 
Harry Reid
United States Senator
Nevada
 
A PDF copy of the letter can be seen here: http://equalityacrossamerica.org/blog/?p=5265

NBJC is a civil rights organization dedicated to empowering black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to end racism and homophobia.

Lettman previously served as vice president for leadership programs and external affairs at People for the American Way.

At NBJC, she will succeed Alexander Robinson and Dr. Sylvia Rhue who served as interim director throughout the summer.

According to the release Lettman said:

“We must bring our families together.

“Gay and transgender people are our children, our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, parents, co-workers and friends. They are a vital part of the black community, and it is time for everyone to recognize the real issues we all face when our brothers and sisters are denied full participation in the life of our community.

“In my new role at NBJC, that means lifting the voices of our community, building bridges so that all who experience discrimination can understand the common ground we share, and walking across those bridges together in greater and greater numbers toward equal rights for all.”

The National Black Justice Coalition is headquartered in Washington, DC and it is the only black gay civil rights organization.

This will earn me no love, but I’m too old to care for best buds. While I will be in Washington DC for the National Equality March, I would rather stay home that weekend.

There are the standard reasons, all silly and selfish. A weekend lost, disdain for crowds (yes I know that makes no sense considering my present address), budget issues, et., etc. The main reason for my indifference is a distrust that large political rallies are effective.

Yes, I know. I know. March on Washington, 1963, “I Have A Dream,” tears of joy, the power of the people will never be defeated, blah, blah, and blah again. Many of you will point to that historical moment with pangs of misty nostalgia. Fair point, but most don’t know the history. Rallying at the nation’s seat of power had been an idea since 1941 and not everyone agreed it was worth the effort. The keyboard revolutionaries who hold up Malcolm X as a model should know he called the 1963 march “the farce on Washington.” Looking forward to how our keyboard Trotskyites wrap their heads around that one

I’m not convinced what a mass rally gets “the community”, a group of people divided by race, class, geography, and politics. Sure there will be much talk of all the energy surrounding the Mall that weekend, but all that nebulous energy does not translate into political power. Might make you feel good but it won’t get a bill passed.

These concerns are academic though. I’ll be there. If you see me, however, please don’t be shocked if I look like I want to be somewhere else. You’ll be right.

Whatever its logical shortcomings, the “always and everywhere” argument is rhetorically effective. Even gay-rights advocates concede that marriage equality seemed unthinkable just a decade or two ago. Imagine how novel it appears to those who, unlike us, have no direct stake in the issue. 

It’s tempting to respond that lots of things that seemed unthinkable a few decades ago – iPhones, Facebook, Sarah Palin–are, for better or worse, now familiar. But the reluctance to tinker with marriage is deep-seated. The “always and everywhere” argument demands a response that is not only logically sound but also rhetorically compelling.  

Several responses are worth pondering. I’ve given them each names for convenience: 

(1) False premise: The claim that marriage has always been exclusively heterosexual suffers from what should be a fatal flaw: it is simply not true. Same-sex marriages have been documented in a number of cultures, notably some African and Pacific Island cultures. 

Marriage-equality opponents retort that these marriages are not quite the same as modern same-sex marriages, since they typically involve a kind of gender transformation of one of the partners. But this response is a red herring. Sure, homosexual marriages in these cultures look different from ours in various respects – but so do their heterosexual marriages.

More important, it is doubtful that opponents would abandon their objection to contemporary same-sex marriages as long as one partner agreed to be the “wife” and the other the “husband.” 

The real problem with the “false premise” response is rhetorical: The response depends on anthropological data unfamiliar to most people, and it appeals to “exotic” cultures whose practices most Americans find irrelevant. 

(2) Heteronormativity: Rhetorical considerations would also weigh against using words like “heteronormativity” when responding to people’s basic fears about marriage. But it’s nonetheless true that the “always and everywhere” argument begs the question against those who argue – quite rightly – that the heterosexual majority tends to oppress the homosexual minority always and everywhere.

Because of that oppression, recorded history often ignores or erases our lives and commitments.  

Keep in mind that just a few decades ago, gays and lesbians were still considered mentally ill in much of the West; even today, gays are stoned to death in parts of the world. Against that backdrop, it’s not surprising that same-sex marriage seems newfangled.

The marriage-equality movement owes as much to an improved understanding of sexuality as it does to changing views about marriage. 

(3) Not Mandatory: Even granting the (false) premise that marriage has been heterosexual “always and everywhere,” so what? No one is proposing that same-sex marriage be made mandatory. Heterosexual marriage will continue to exist “always and everywhere” for those who seek it, even while society recognizes that it’s not appropriate for everyone. The opponents’ argument seems to play on the irrational notion that giving marriage to gays somehow means taking it away from straights. 

(4) Non-Sequitur: Let’s concede to marriage-equality opponents that history and tradition are important, and that we should be cautious about changes to major social institutions. Yet even if (contrary to fact) marriage were heterosexual “always and everywhere,” it does not follow that marriage cannot expand and evolve. One should never confuse a reasonable caution with a stubborn complacency. 

Increasingly, that complacency is more than stubborn–it’s unconscionable. Marriage-equality opponents can no longer ignore the fact that we fall in love, just like they do; that our relationships have positive effects in our lives and the lives of those around us, and that we reasonably seek to protect and nurture these relationships. If not marriage for us, then what?  

Ultimately, the problem with the “always and everywhere” argument is that each new same-sex marriage is a living counterexample to it. Whatever happened in the past, we have marriage equality now–in a small but growing number of places. These same-sex marriages are by and large bearing good fruit.

If ignoring tradition is “arrogant and foolish,” ignoring the evidence unfolding before us is exponentially so. 
 

********************

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com. 

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a leader in building grassroots lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) political power, endorses the National Equality March, which will be held in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 10–11. Thousands of people from across the country will march and rally in front of the U.S. Capitol demanding equal protection under the law for LGBT people and their families in all 50 states. At the march, the Task Force will engage new activists, support fair minded clergy and other people of faith, and mobilize volunteer activists to return home engaged and energized.

“For the past 30 years, LGBT people and our allies have come together in Washington to be inspired, to engage in political action, and to go home geared up to create change. The National Equality March will bring together those of us who have never marched, those who want to renew their passion for action, and those who demand their voices be heard. When we mobilize for LGBT equality, for racial and economic justice, for a transformed society, and to make our love and lives visible, the Task Force is there. The Task Force will be there at the march to support the voices of new activists, LGBT people and our allies who push and push for the end to hatred, discrimination and unjust laws,” says National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey.

As part of its commitment to support march participants in fighting for local, state and federal change, the Task Force will:

Utilize technology to connect people to concrete actions they can take on the local, state and national levels.

Lend its faith organizing expertise in helping to plan an interfaith worship service

Work to connect state equality organizations and community centers with march participants the Task Force identifies from their states so they can further engage them to be active at home

Engage march participants in ballot campaigns under way in Maine, Washington state and Kalamazoo, Mich

Engage and support new activists in honing their talents and grassroots skills after the weekend of the march

Consistent with the march goal of seeking equality in all 50 states, the Task Force will maintain its longstanding commitment to provide organizers, expertise and money for key ballot measure fights under way in Maine, Washington state and Kalamazoo, Mich. The Task Force will reach out to march participants from these states to channel their energy to create change back home.

March attendees who want to further develop their skills and strategize with other activists will be encouraged to attend the National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change just a few months later in Dallas, Texas.

“The Task Force is excited to support a new wave of activists and advocates. Whether you come to D.C. to march or stay at home to create change in your city, town, school or place of worship, the Task Force has the tools and know-how to help. Let’s march in Washington and step it up at home,” says Carey.

Bob McDonnell’s research paper, first reported Sunday by The Washington Post, shakes up what had been a smooth campaign. McDonnell has maintained a clear lead over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds in statewide polling.

In his first public comment on the 93-page conservative manifesto he wrote at the close of the Reagan presidency in 1989, McDonnell dismissed the paper as a long-ago academic exercise. He said life had moderated views he held then that government should “prefer married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.” Working women and feminists were also a detriment to families, he wrote.

The treatise, titled “The Republican Party’s Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of the Decade,” singled out the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling legalizing abortion and a ruling the previous year that legalized contraceptives for unmarried people. McDonnell, a Roman Catholic, has said abortions should be performed only to save the life of the mother.

Deeds’ campaign adviser Mo Elleithee said McDonnell was 34 and on the verge of running for the Virginia House of Delegates when he wrote the paper, and can’t shrug it off as misguided youth.

However, McDonnell complained that Deeds’ campaign was exploiting the thesis to suggest he supported workplace discrimination against women. He noted that his daughters have master’s degrees and that the oldest had served with the Army in Iraq.

McDonnell described himself as a “college student at the time, albeit a little older college student, within an academic environment and completely not restrained by the real policy world at the time.”

McDonnell wrote the thesis as a course requirement for his master’s and law degrees from Regent University, the Christian college founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson. In it, he wrote that “If the government at all levels has a duty to uphold the family, then it follows that it has the authority to legitimately discriminate in support of this goal.”

Asked if the statement still reflects his philosophy, he said it would be written much differently today.

“I don’t think the government’s got much business when it comes to cohabitation or any other living arrangements whatsoever,” he said.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, would prohibit workplace discrimination – including decisions about hiring, firing and wages – based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It would exempt religious organizations, the military and businesses with less than 15 workers.

The driving force behind the bill has been Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the longest-serving of the three openly gay members of Congress. He expects hearings on the measure to be held this fall.

Frank pushed ENDA in 2007, but it foundered because of insufficient backing in the Senate and a split within the gay and transgender communities. Many activists were irate because Frank – seeking support from wavering colleagues – was open to covering sexual orientation but not gender identity, excluding transgender people from protection.

This time around, several factors have changed:

-Barack Obama is now president, and is on record supporting ENDA. A veto was considered possible if the 2007 bill had reached then-President George W. Bush.

-ENDA’s core supporters, including Frank, have agreed they will push only for a bill that includes gender identity.

-The bill has picked up key support in the Senate, where it was introduced earlier this month by Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley and Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Even without other GOP senators, Merkley believes it has a good chance of obtaining the 60 votes that likely will be needed to pass the Senate.

The main Senate champion of ENDA in the past had been Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who died Tuesday. That role was passed on to Merkley earlier this year.

There is another difference from 2007. Frank now has a policy adviser who is a female-to-male transsexual. Diego Sanchez is the first transgender person hired for a senior congressional staff position on Capitol Hill.

Sanchez has done extensive face-to-face lobbying for ENDA, and Frank says that’s enabled some members of Congress to get to know a transsexual for the first time.

“He interacts with a lot of people,” Frank said. “Prejudice is literally ignorance.”

Frank says he now doubts votes will be cast against ENDA solely because it extends to transgender people.

Sanchez is a longtime activist who worked for the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts and was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention last year before joining Frank’s staff. Back in 2007, he was among a minority of transgender activists who accepted Frank’s tactical decision to drop gender identity from that version of ENDA.

“He’s called on the entire community since then to lobby, work – and the community has said, ‘OK, we’ve got one game plan, and it’s Barney,’” Sanchez said. “There’s broader support this time.”

Opponents of ENDA – led by several national conservative groups – concede that the bill has enough support to clear the House, and expect a closely fought battle in the Senate.

Ashley Horne, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family, promised that her conservative Christian ministry would encourage tough opposition.

“It’s definitely a bill we will put a lot of resources toward fighting,” she said. “Our primary concern is the chipping away of religious liberties.”

Twenty-one states already have laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 12 extend those laws to gender identity – California, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Several other states protect public employees who are gay or transgender.

The experience of these states shows that passage a federal law is unlikely to unleash a flood of litigation and conflict, Frank and Merkley say.

Minnesota, for example, has had a non-discrimination law covering transgender people since 1993 that rarely triggers controversies. Oregon passed a comparable bill in 2007.

“There were concerns there’d be a huge number of lawsuits – it simply didn’t materialize,” Merkley said.

However, attorney Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, said ENDA would impose its provisions on more conservative states with more business owners who have religious objections to hiring gays and transgenders.

Campbell also worries that ENDA will serve gay-rights activists’ long-term strategic interests.

“One of the really big problems with enacting ENDA is in the future litigation battles dealing with same-sex marriage,” Campbell said. “It will provide ammunition for homosexual activists in the future to push their agenda in the court system throughout the country.”

Some conservatives say ENDA is unnecessary.

“There is no epidemic of homosexuals being fired; in fact, they are increasingly being courted by major corporations,” contends Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. “It’s religiously devout employees … who face reprisals for opposing homosexuality.”

The National Center for Transgender Equality disagrees. It recently released a survey of 6,500 transgender Americans that said 91 percent had faced bias at work.

Among those claiming harassment was Toni Maviki, a former corrections officer in New Hampshire who said she was pummeled by a fellow guard who learned she was transitioning from being a man to being a woman.

“I carried a badge and I protected all you people and there was no law to protect me from harm,” Maviki testified earlier this year.

Maviki said she filed complaints that led to further harassment, and finally quit her job. Her testimony failed to sway a state Senate committee, which voted against extending anti-bias provisions to transgender people.

National gay-rights groups will be watching ENDA closely this year.

“We’re further than we’ve ever been, but there is certainly still work to be done,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “It is frustrating sometimes, having to explain to the community that there are so many procedural hurdles in our way.”

In his most definitive comments yet on gay rights, Herbert told reporters he doesn’t believe sexual orientation should be a protected class in the way that race, gender and religion are.

“We don’t have to have a rule for everybody to do the right thing. We ought to just do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do and we don’t have to have a law that punishes us if we don’t,” Herbert said in his first monthly KUED news conference.

In Utah, it is legal to fire someone for being gay or transgender. The gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah has been trying to change state law for several years but has always been rebuffed by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

Last year, the group got Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman’s support for extending some rights to gay people, although none of the bills it backed became law.

Huntsman resigned earlier this month to become U.S. ambassador to China, leaving Herbert, who was lieutenant governor, in charge of the state until a special election in 2010.

Will Carlson, Equality Utah’s public policy director, said Herbert’s comments show he doesn’t understand how prevalent discrimination is against gay and transgender people in Utah.

“I agree that we ought to be able to just do the right thing. Unfortunately, the Salt Lake City Human Rights Commission makes it clear that not all employers are doing the right thing,” he said, referencing a city report released earlier this summer that said discrimination was rampant.

Salt Lake City is considering an anti-discrimination ordinance, but conservative state lawmakers already are eyeing passage of a state law that would trump it.

Herbert reserved judgment on the ordinance until he’s had a chance to read it, but said he doesn’t like the idea of protected classes in general.

“Where do you stop? I mean that’s the problem going down that slippery road. Pretty soon we’re going to have a special law for blue-eyed blondes … or people who are losing their hair a little bit,” Herbert said. “There’s some support for about anything we put out there. I’m just saying we end up getting bogged down sometimes with the minutiae of things that government has really no role to be involved in.”

Carlson said he wants to arrange a meeting with Herbert to help him understand the problems gay Utahns face.

“We don’t have an epidemic of blonde-haired, blue-eyed people getting fired or evicted. We do have a situation where gay and transgender people are being evicted and losing their jobs, not for job performance, but because they’re gay or transgender,” he said.