You are here: Home » Views & Voices

Category: Views & Voices

Allowing gay marriage might reduce divorce rates

Science Duck • Sunday, August 8, 2010 • Filed under: Views & Voices • Comments (1)

Traditional marriage ‘defenders’ are in a tizzy after a federal judge overturned Proposition 8. Newt Gingrich issued a statement explaining how this ‘notorious’ ruling shows ‘disrespect’ for the Constitution and the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. He should know about marriage sanctity; Newt’s been married no less than three times, with a few extramarital affairs to boot.

Divorce is a hot topic for conservatives worried about preserving the institution of marriage, so there is a silver lining in Proposition 8 for them: allowing gay marriage appears to reduce the divorce rate. Here’s a case study from the country with the longest history of allowing same-sex marriage: The Netherlands.

Methods: divorce rates for The Netherlands were taken from the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) website; the official Dutch census/demography agency. Divorce rates per 1,000 people were downloaded from a 16 year period spanning 1992 through 2008.

Results: as can be seen in the above plot, the legalization of gay marriage in the Netherlands in 2001 appears to have led to a reduction in divorce rates. A comparison of mean divorce rates from the periods 1992 through 2000 and 2001 through 2008 shows significantly lower divorce rates after gay marriage was introduced.

The Duck Says: if conservative folks can somehow get past the ‘one-man-one-woman’ hurdle, and find it in their hearts to allow loving couples of any sexual orientation to marry, then perhaps the institution of marriage in California (and the rest of the US) will be strengthened… despite Newt’s best efforts to sully it through affairs and multiple divorces.

*Duck disclaimer: this informal study has certainly not managed to examine all the factors involved in Dutch divorce rates, and there is no reason to assume that correlation equals causation in this case. See more about potential problems here. Also, the average marriage in The Netherlands lasts about 14 years, so perhaps once the first gay marriages from 2001 start reaching the 14 year mark, divorce rates will shoot back up to ‘one-woman-one-man’ rates. Time will tell.

Previously from LGBTQ Nation:

Saving LGBTQ youth should be our top priority

Kelvin Lynch • Monday, July 19, 2010 • Filed under: Education, Family and Parenting, Views & Voices • Comments (0)

LGBTQ youth are more prone to depression and suicide due to bullying and discrimination in school

As we fight for equal rights – rights to which every citizen of this nation is entitled – we should be careful not to become so engrossed in these issues that we forget where we came from, the place that shaped us into who we are and motivates us even now to defeat bigotry and hate and make this nation truly great.

It’s a reasonable argument that our collective experiences in school during our most formative years made us the fighters and advocates we are today. So many of us remember the hostility, ridicule, discrimination, and maybe even the beatings we had to endure beginning around middle school and following us throughout high school. The sort of horrors no young person should have to endure, at the hands of bigots and bullies who were our peers and teachers alike. How many times did we have to walk down the hall to threats of physical violence, while school personnel just stood by watching and listening, doing nothing to come to our aid? Continue reading…

Previously from LGBTQ Nation:

Republicans more likely to be involved in (gay) sex scandals

Science Duck • Sunday, July 11, 2010 • Filed under: Views & Voices • Comments (0)

Science Duck

Do you remember the 1996 film version of The Birdcage when Senator Kevin Keeley’s partner in the Coalition for Moral Order was found dead in the bed of an underage black prostitute? His last words were “your money’s on the dresser, chocolate.”

It’s funny because watching politicians take a spectacular fall off their moral high-horse is immensely satisfying. Wouldn’t it be just as satisfying to learn that politicians who categorize themselves as guardians of morality are in fact more prone to sex scandal?

Well, prepare to meet some satisfying numbers:

Methods: the number of sex scandals for politicians (both state/local and national) for the past 10 years was tallied from the list of political scandals provided on Wikipedia. Each scandal was scored as to if it involved a Republican or Democrat, if it involved a gay or straight affair, and whether or not the victim/participant was underage.

Results: Republicans were involved in 61% of sex scandals in the past 10 years, whereas Democrats were involved in just 39%. Moreover, 34% of the total number of scandals were gay scandals (i.e, involving an ostensibly straight politician and a same-sex partner), with Republicans accounting for 78.5% of all gay scandals. Republicans were also involved in 66% of the underage scandals.

Conclusion: If a sex scandal is going on in Washington, there is a 2 in 3 chance it will involve a Republican. And If it’s a gay scandal, it’s almost a sure bet that it involves a Republican.

Of course Barney Frank is an openly gay Congressman, so it wouldn’t really be considered ’scandalous’ if he were to be involved in a same-sex relationship. The true ’scandal’ in these numbers is that many of the Republicans involved have gone on record as being anti-gay rights, and voted against gay-rights legislation. And of course the GOP is the party of ‘family values’ so whenever a scandal crops up (gay or otherwise), they get smacked with the hypocrisy stick a bit harder than their Democratic rivals.

Science Duck says: if you are looking for scandalous gay sex in Washington, be sure to run as a Republican.

Previously from LGBTQ Nation:

Brian: Please don’t let Proposition 8 take away my dreams

Kelvin Lynch • Sunday, July 11, 2010 • Filed under: Proposition 8 Trial, Views & Voices • Comments (0)

As we await Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I’ve decided to republish some op-ed pieces from 2009, when the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8.

Image: Equality California (eqca.org)

My name is Brian and I was born and raised in a suburb of Hartford, Connecticut. I am currently a senior in college where I am obtaining my bachelors degree in Information Systems.
I was born into the Roman Catholic religion and attended 8 years of Catholic school from grades K through 8. I was baptized and confirmed by the Catholic Church. I currently live in California and have resided here since 2001. I am still Catholic but am not practicing my religion. I am single and have never been married. I do not have any children and currently do not have a boyfriend.
Regarding Proposition 8, there is so much to say. Continue reading…

Previously from LGBTQ Nation:

Why Shelly supported Proposition 8

Kelvin Lynch • Sunday, July 11, 2010 • Filed under: Proposition 8 Trial, Views & Voices • Comments (0)

As we await Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I’ve decided to republish pieces from 2009, when the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8.

Shelly has some very strong opinions about Prop 8. She says she voted in favor of the initiative because, “sexual relationships, once considered a private matter between consenting adults, can no longer be viewed as such. Private choices have public consequences. There are implications for individuals, for marriages and even for the redefinition of family life, particularly for children.”

Image: protectmarriage.com

“Over three decades,” Shelly explains, “scientists have decisively shown that two-parent families are preferable for children to single-parent families or stepfamilies. The studies clearly demonstrate that gender-linked differences in child-rearing are protective for children. Men and women contribute differently to the healthy development of children. These evidences are also directly related to same-sex marriage dynamics in raising children.”

Shelly continues:

Children learn about male-female relationships through the modeling of their parents. Dual gender relationships provide children with a model of marriage – the most meaningful relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lifetimes.
These gender differences in raising children appear critical for early and later healthy development. Men stress justice, fairness and duty based on rules. Women stress understanding, sympathy, care and assistance, based on relationships. Men who are father-deprived in life are more likely to engage in rigid, over compensatory, masculine, aggressive behavior later. Children living with a mother and grandmother fare worse as teenagers than those adolescents living with just a single parent.

Shelly says, “current scientific literature attempts to blur the lines between the genders and claims that neither mothers nor fathers are essential to the healthy development of children. However, almost all these studies have been done using animal observations. They seem to forget that ducks don’t date and pigs don’t fall in love.”

“In the end,”, Shelly concludes, “it is generations to come that we should concern ourselves with. Not just in the homosexual community, but the traditional family as well. We should not be experimenting with the sacred procreative powers. Whether one believes in a creator’s divine design, the theory of evolution, or the secular argument for the survival of the species, homosexuality is maladaptive, and with maladaptations come risk factors for physical disease, mental illness, and unhealthy child development. We should embrace all truth, whether it comes from the scientific laboratory or the revealed word of God.”

Previously from LGBTQ Nation:

Meet a Mormon who opposed Proposition 8

Kelvin Lynch • Sunday, July 11, 2010 • Filed under: Proposition 8 Trial, Views & Voices • Comments (0)

As we await Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I’ve decided to republish some op-ed pieces from 2009, when the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8.

Blame the Mormons for the passage of Prop 8? Consider this perspective from a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, living in Utah, who asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Salt Lake City, Utah

I’m a Mormon, and I think It is ridiculous to think that allowing a broader realm of people to marry would somehow weaken families or marriage. I think just the opposite would be true. I have a tough time understanding the arguments against allowing people who are gay to marry.
It sickens me that the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS spent thousands of dollars on a political campaign that is based on hate and discrimination. Typically, the Mormon Church spends money to help people, not to hurt them. My understanding of the beliefs of the foundations of this church do not support this action. The bottom line of the Mormon church from my perspective as a person born and raised in the LDS is that we are to love our fellow man and not judge anyone. The fight about marriage rights for people who identify as LGBT seems in direct opposition to loving and not judging others.
I do not understand the fear that I assume must be behind this fight. There isn’t another explanation besides possibly hate, and I refuse to believe that hate is at the base of the fight the Mormon church and people who are LDS are putting up around the Prop 8 issue. Most LDS people I know (and living in Utah, that is a lot of people) are loving, kind, good hearted people, but many are also very sheltered and naïve. Fearing people that are different is something that is fed to us by our culture and media.
There may be hate involved for some small percentage of LDS people and other groups who are opposing Prop 8, and those people are then selfishly creating and spreading propaganda that preys on people’s fears. But I think for the most part, there is a lot of fear. Of all of the things to be spending money on, this seems absurd. Basic social services for vulnerable children and adults are being cut in states across our country, education is being cut, and yet hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on this argument!

Previously from LGBTQ Nation:

Ryan on Prop 8: A letter of love from a brokenhearted man on the eve of a historic day

Kelvin Lynch • Sunday, July 11, 2010 • Filed under: Proposition 8 Trial, Views & Voices • Comments (1)

As we await Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I’ve decided to republish some op-ed pieces from 2009, when the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8.

This piece is by Ryan Kendall, who served as a fact witness in the case. Ryan is a 27-year-old man who has truly suffered in life — early rejection from his family for being gay, enduring years of pointless religious “reparative therapy”, and homelessness — only to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes to become an outspoken advocate for gay rights.

Ryan Kendall

It is hard for me to describe, or even let myself fully feel, the pain and hurt caused by the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8. I have been dreading the Day of Decision. Never before in my life have I felt such a mix of sorrow, solitude, pain, anxiety, and fear. Never before have I walked around holding in a flood of tears before something actually occurred.
I have been searching my soul for a way to handle the excruciating pain that will rip through my heart and soul on Tuesday morning, and I fear I still do not know what to do. It is a stunning thing to hear a court declare the validity of a measure that reduces the humanity of GLBT people to that of a lesser degree than the slim majority that voted “Yes”. So often we get caught up in this dispute and are blinded by the arguments–we relate to the issue of Marriage Equality solely through the lens of our religion or life, and in doing so we fail to see the people, the human faces, that are impacted in this emotionally violent war.
I was born in Colorado Springs, Colorado–a hub of fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity. I went to private, Christian school most of my life, and was privileged to grow up in a family that resembled what so many Americans hope for. My parents were deeply concerned and loving–always acting in the best interest of their children. Always, that is, until shortly before my fourteenth birthday.
I had known from an early age that I like other boys, but it wasn’t till I hit 11 or 12 that I realized that this fact made me different from the other kids I grew up with. At the time, I belonged to a religious denomination that harshly condemned homosexuality, and for the next several years I struggled in the fear that I was an evil person because I was attracted to other boys, and that I would burn in Hell because of this. It was a very difficult time in my life, and unfortunately, things got progressively worse.
Shortly before I turned 14, my parents discovered my journal, and some pictures I had downloaded from the Internet (God Bless AOL). In my journal, I had finally come out to myself, using the word “gay” for the first time to describe myself. Knowing this about myself and that I would be rejected by my community, I had been living in utter terror. Needless to say, girls were mighty scarce in the pictures my parents found. What followed next was beyond the worst of the worst scenarios I had envisioned.
Overnight, my parents ceased to be the loving, supportive people they had been, and instead became extremely emotionally, verbally, and at times, physically, abusive. My family disintegrated before me, and I lost most of my friends. During the next several years, I went from one horror to another, all of them damaging. I was shuttled from one therapist to the next, eventually winding up at an organization called the National Association for Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH – http://www.narth.com – they have since changed Reparative Therapy to Research and Therapy). Here, I was to be taught how to “suppress” my “homosexual tendencies” so that I could be normal. My parents were told that I would never be genuinely attracted to women, but that I could force myself into a heterosexual lifestyle. Suppression is unbelievably damaging, and adds to the pain suffered by many GLBT youth.
Image: noh8campaign.com
I found myself at the young age of 15 having to choose between extensive, willful psychological damage, or being who I was. I had long ago realized that being gay was a fundamental part of who I am, like my height or skin tone, and not a changeable aspect. I had been suffering in a horrifically abusive environment (trust me, having your very Christian mother declare that she wishes she had aborted you, among other things, does some irrevocable harm to a kid). I also came to terms with how I felt about my homosexuality. Misunderstood by many, being gay isn’t about sex or choice, it’s about who you are attracted to, physically, emotionally, romantically, and spiritually. We all seek out love-relationships, because, “loving deeply in one direction, allows us to love more deeply in all directions”. In this quest for Love, the most noble of all human acts, I understood that if God would condemn two people for loving each other, than I would willfully disobey Him. A God who condemns love, however it is found, is not a God that I will serve. I hold Love (God is Love) above any human idea of what God is.
I chose Love–to be who I am and to stand for my Right to Freedom. What followed next were traumatizing periods in my life: drawn out legal battles, homelessness, drug addiction, struggling, major depression, suicidal thoughts, and pain upon pain. Little by little, over the next 12 years, I picked up the pieces of Ryan, melted them down, and forged a new self. This experience was by far the most trying I expect to personally live through, but it has had a permanent, lasting impact in every area of my life. I survived because of sheer determination, luck, friends, and God’s protection. The Ryan you know now could easily have died many times in many ways in the past decade, and it is a testament to the miraculous nature of God that I’m still alive, let alone somewhat functional.
Why am I telling you this? So that you can help me work for a world where this does not happen to children, to people. Tomorrow, when the California Supreme Court upholds legal inequality, it is not me who will be directly affected – I have no one to marry. The harm caused will be in the lives of millions of other GLBT people who have already had to suffer as I have, and who continue to suffer because of society’s struggle to understand that we are just people, as they are, seeking out relationships that fulfill us not as a choice, but a necessity. Without legal equality, it is others, not me, who will suffer, and when I speak it is for them–so that they will have a voice championing their right to freedom.
In singling out this community for disparate treatment, we are all declared less deserving of legal protections than the heterosexual majority–and people will suffer because of this. People will be denied access to their partners in emergency and medical situations, people will die alone while their partners sit in waiting rooms, people will lose homes because of invalidated wills, people will be denied basic protections that you, as a heterosexual, don’t even know you have, and if you do, take for granted.
Whether or not your religious beliefs teach you that being gay is a “choice” (trust me, I live this every day, it is not), or that Marriage Equality will destroy marriage or undermine society, I urge you to think about the hurt that people such as myself, and millions of others, have suffered, and ask yourself, “Is this what Jesus would do?”. We have no desire to change your beliefs, but to live our lives in our own Freedom. God’s Love for us, and our mission to reflect it in our actions to others should allow us all to agree to a legal/political system that protects people of differing faiths, colors, and sexualities.
Marriage is a voluntary legal association, and there is no reason to deny it to someone just because the person they Love is the same gender. Let us abandon the fear-mongering arguments of polygamous marriage and others, and focus on reality. The lives of your fellow citizens depend on it.
I am praying for the California GLBT Community. Marriage Equality is important to me, but this is about them. I am with them with all my heart, soul, sweat, tears, and toil. I will not stop until they achieve the equality we all deserve.
Let us agree to Love one another, and to allow each other to live in our own Liberty. Please, join me, Stand For Love – Stop the H8.

Previously from LGBTQ Nation:

Hawaii veto fallout: The fight for equal rights in the Aloha state is far from over

Kelvin Lynch • Wednesday, July 7, 2010 • Filed under: Hawaii, Views & Voices • Comments (0)

By Kelvin Lynch

The once-progressive Aloha state seems doomed for Republican takeover, following lame duck Governor Linda Lingle’s veto yesterday of a same-sex civil unions bill passed last month by the state legislature.

Lingle was certain to make the pending veto as agonizing as possible for LGBT couples in the state, who anxiously waited weeks for her to “carefully consider” the bill, then put it on a list of potential vetoes, then slam down the hammer last night.

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed the state's same-sex civil unions bill

Many were hopeful Lingle would simply ignore the bill, making it become law by default. But she took a different approach altogether, calling her decision “well-reasoned,” and seizing the opportunity to use typical GOP speak, blaming the mostly Democratic legislature for passing the bill without giving the people of Hawaii a chance to vote on it. Sorry, Lingle, but in a Republic like the United States, the civil rights of a minority are not a matter for the tyranny of the democratic majority to decide. That’s what our elected representatives in the legislature are there to prevent, and a true Republican should know better.

Just look at what’s happening right now in California following the disastrous 2008 passage of Proposition 8 – it’s left 18,000 married couples in the state in legal limbo, and is the subject of a landmark federal case, Perry v. Schwarzeneggger, which is expected to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Connecticut School of Law professor John C. Britain wrote a rather compelling article regarding the use of ballot initiatives to decide civil rights. In it, he notes that “the [Supreme] Court, in a truly Madisonian fashion, guards the interests of the minority against the will of the majority” when considering the use of “direct democracy”, which is espoused by so many conservative Republicans today.

Of course, Lingle’s veto has been applauded by her conservative supporters and counterparts. Hawaii News Now reports that the two Republican gubernatorial candidates – Lt. Governor James “Duke” Aiona and Honolulu mayor Muffi Hanneman – support Lingle’s decision. Both agree with Lingle that the people of Hawaii should have the opportunity to vote on the issue.

Abercrombie

However, Democratic candidate Neil Abercrombie, who left Congress to run for Hawaii Governor, issued a statement saying:

“Civil unions respect our diversity, protect people’s privacy, and reinforce our core values of equality and aloha. It will be up to the next governor and legislature to ensure that all people of Hawaii receive equal treatment.”

The ACLU and Lambda Legal are already preparing lawsuits. Staff attorney Laurie Temple of the ACLU told the AP, “We’re obviously disappointed that Governor Lingle has, once again, used her power to deny the people of Hawaii their civil rights. Luckily for the people of Hawaii, however, our constitution prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation. If the Governor won’t honor her oath to uphold the constitution, the courts will.”

But it’s going to be a long, uphill battle. The state legislature has already indicated it will not attempt to override Lingle’s veto, and Aiona, the front-runner in the Governor’s race, came to Lingle’s defense, saying, “To put that kind of pressure on one person, especially during an election year, and knowing how this issue is falling, that’s just totally unfair.”

The San Francisco Chronicle is wondering if gay and lesbian (or all) travelers should boycott the state. But contributor Jeanne Cooper noted, “Recently I wrote about wedding sites and package providers in Hawaii, and all but one of the representatives I interviewed said they welcomed same-sex couples for commitment ceremonies, and would do the same for same-sex marriages, as soon as those became legal (the other made referrals to a specialist in same-sex ceremonies.)”

Would a boycott of Hawaii really help the LGBT couples who live there and are affected by this decision? Most of them work in the hospitality industry, which depends heavily on tourism. A boycott would simply cause them to lose their jobs on top of keeping them second-class citizens in the eyes of the state. They are the ones we should be thinking about, because they have the most at stake in Hawaii’s already-ailing economy and political environment.

Stay tuned for more as this story develops.

Previously from LGBTQ Nation:

Gay marriage irony: 13 states still have no laws against bestiality

LGBTQ Nation • Thursday, July 1, 2010 • Filed under: Around the Nation, Views & Voices • Comments (0)

While the battle continues in the fight for gay marriage, Mother Jones reports there are still 13 states that haven’t criminalized bestiality. That’s correct, two same-sex individuals in a committed, loving relationship cannot get married in most of these states, but bestiality is just fine.

Source: Mother Jones

From Mac McClelland, MJ‘s Human Rights Reporter:

I don’t know about you, but as you may know, when I get moody about the ridiculous discriminatory laws against homos here, I make maps of weird stuff I can legally bone or marry….
There are, you’ll probably not be surprised to learn, three times as many states with no direct prohibitions against the sexual assault of an animal (according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund) as there are states that allow gay marriage.

Source: Mother Jones.

Previously from LGBTQ Nation:

Why Ricky Martin matters — to me… and maybe a few other boys

LGBTQ Nation • Tuesday, March 30, 2010 • Filed under: Celebrities, Coming Out, Music, Views & Voices • Comments (2)

By Lorenzo Herrera y Lozano
hairspray & fideo

There’s been a lot of commotion regarding Ricky Martin’s recent coming out statement on his official website. As with most things in life these days, I learned about the news on Facebook.

So, I immediately posted about the news as well and quickly joined in the jubilee of queerness and pranced about the office like a middle school-aged boy who accidently touched hands with his classroom crush. I even committed the blasphemy of comparing the news to that of Health Care Reform and the release of Apple’s iPad (insert sound of angel choir here).

And then, of course, there was the storm of cattiness that followed the news. As a queer Xicano, I admit that sarcasm is built into my genetic code. The survivor of four Christian-themed religions and 500+ years of white supremacist occupation, I find humor, irony and disbelief in most things. Still, yesterday I just wanted to celebrate.

I agree that the fact that Ricky is gay is not all that shocking. Queer men and not long speculated or asserted that he shook his bon bon far too well to be straight. Plus, for us jotos/maricones/patos, there was the added benefit of dreaming him up queer, which somehow put us that much closer to his arms.

Still, as the catty remarks continue, as people boast about how they knew and think he should have done this 10 years ago, or sassy queens dismiss the news as inconsequential, I say, look beyond our borders (geographic, cultural, and age-based) and take a minute to honor the fact that for many, Ricky’s coming out is groundbreaking, perhaps even life-saving. Continue reading…