Letter to Newt

“I think, for those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support, and I accept that that’s a reality. On the other hand, for those for whom it’s not the central issue in their life, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I’ll get their support.” Newt Gingrich to gay Iowan Scott Arnold on December 20, 2011

Dear Newt -

For the past week I have been writing and rewriting a letter to you regarding this exchange you had with Mr. Arnold. It has so infuriated me that I find I can barely put a word on paper without splintering off into the myriad ways you are wrong - and I'd be remiss if I didn't point out laughably hypocritical - on the issue of gay rights and on equality in general.

In the above quote not only do you make it clear that you believe equality to be a stand alone issue, you make clear your belief that it is an issue having only to do with gay people and, most disturbingly, an issue at odds with the obviously more pressing concerns of other, "real" Americans - job creation, national security and "a better future for the country at large."

Newt, only in your funhouse-mirror-view of this country are any of these subtle - or maybe not so subtle - implications true. You can white-knuckle yesterday's hatred in an attempt to burnish your credibility with the Religious Right (and considering your own run-ins with the morality police, it is understandable, albeit disgusting) all you want. You can peddle fear in exchange for a few votes. You can pit citizen against citizen by painting those who seek equality as doing so in a selfish vacuum while characterizing others as having more magnanimous, altruistic worries like the betterment of the country "at large.” You can, you have and you will again. But it doesn't make you right and it doesn't make you anything more than a greasy, dime store politician.

Newt, those of us for whom marriage equality is a central issue are, in fact, fighting for a better future for our country - for every citizen. We understand, as you, apparently, do not, that discrimination against one is discrimination against all.

You mention national security as an issue more pressing than equality. You have said that you would reinstate DADT. As you attempt to bundle our equality neatly into a pile off to the side of American politics, might I remind you about the tens of thousands of military personnel hunted down and discharged under that abhorrent policy. And might I ask you if you can say for certain that no contributions were lost to the witch-hunt of institutionalized bigotry? Can you say without a doubt that nothing was lost when some of our finest Arab linguists were unceremoniously fired, not for their performance on the job, but solely for being, or thought to be, gay? Can you say that not one life would have been saved by a discharged medic? Not one code intercepted? Not one IED dismantled? You cannot, Newt. And yet it is you who thinks that national security comes before, rather than next to, equality.

You mention job creation as an issue of vital importance the voters of this country. On that point we agree. I’m sure you’re aware that in 29 states it is perfectly legal to fire someone solely for being gay. Now I ask you, when someone is fired for being gay, is that person’s need for equality more important or less important than their need to find another job. Is that person an unemployed homo or an out of work American? Gay or American, Newt? You tell me.

Those of us fortunate enough to have jobs find that marriage equality is another issue which reaches into every aspect of our lives. I’ll spare you the horror stories of couples split apart at the hospital in times of crisis – of the message we send to our gay children by showing them that they will be unable to participate fully in this country when they grow up. I’ll spare you the issues of the heart and humanity and stick to a language you understand - money. When an unmarried person has their partner on their health insurance, those premiums come from money that has already been taxed. If that couple were married, that money would be taken out of their check pre-tax, which means that gay couples have less money to spend than they would if they were in a federally recognized marriage. That is money we could spend - money that would help to stimulate the economy and grow jobs, no? Now I ask you, is this money that we could be spending plain old-fashioned money or is it gay money? Again Newt, gay or American? Please advise.

For us, civil rights are not an either/or issue. Either equality or national security. Either equality or the ecomony. They cannot be separated, no matter how hard you might try. They are not part of a pie chart of issues that we face. They are, in fact, the entire chart. These laws reach into our wallets and our workplaces, our homes and our families, and characterizing them as singular shows your unsettlingly simple view of the roadblocks facing gay people every single day of our lives. Our civil rights are an umbrella under which we live. They affect every issue. They are all encompassing.

For your part, it seems clear that you would like to see the chasm between LGBT Americans and “real” Americans widened and cemented in your proposed policies – you would see DADT reinstated; you would stop gays from adopting; you would propose a constitutional amendment barring us from getting married. How this country is made better by blocking an entire segment of the population from fully participating and investing in it is thoroughly beyond me. Please Newt, elaborate.

It appears, Newt, that you would prefer we just go away. Sorry. No matter what you do, no matter what you say, no matter how you may scare people too ignorant to know better and drive up your polling numbers with easy, reliable hatred towards the gay community, we are here. We are not separate. We are content to neither go away nor be silent. And as much as you would like to “otherize” us, we are your sisters (in your case, literally), your brothers, your fathers, mothers, cousins, friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. We are everywhere. And we contribute to and take from this country in the exact same ways as heterosexual Americans - at least insofar as the current laws will allow. Believe it or not, we are here, affected by the economy, joblessness and national security just like everyone else. In many cases, due to the uneven playing field, more.

Sincerely, Ian Rosen

Dear Governor Christie

Dear Governor Christie -

Thank you for the statement you made on 770 WABC Radio denouncing Viki Knox's homophobic statements on Facebook and, allegedly, in school. Thank you for supporting an "examination of how that teacher conducts herself in the classroom."

Of her words you said, "I think that kind of example is not a positive one at all to be setting for folks who have such an important and influential position in our society. I'm really concerned about those kinds of statements being made." I couldn't agree more. I am concerned as well. You are the governor of our state and you hold an "important and influential position in our society" as well. This is why I'd like to point out that while your words are more subtle than Ms. Knox's, your opposition to marriage equality sends the same message. It is a message that says we, New Jersey's LGBT citizens, are different. It is a message that says that based solely on who we are, we will be barred from participating in society in the same way as our straight friends, parents, co-workers, brother and sisters. It is a message of inequality. We are not the only ones who get that message. To me, the most disturbing aspect of Viki Knox's Facebook tirade is that the law in our state, rather than rebuking her bigotry, confirms it.

Governor Christie, I urge you to reconsider your position on marriage equality. I urge you to consider the example you are setting.

Sincerely,

Roger I. Rosen

Frank Kameny - American Hero

Frank Kameny, a hero of mine since I discovered him in college, passed away yesterday. Fittingly, Frank Kameny died on National Coming Out Day. A day, it can be argued, that Frank Kameny helped to make possible. While I never met Frank Kameny, I can’t help but feel connected to him. I can’t help but feel a direct link between Frank Kameny’s life and work and the fact that yesterday I had the opportunity to speak on behalf of HRC at a National Coming Out Day event sponsored by an astounding young man in a library in the middle of New Jersey. It was a remarkable event for two reasons – because it was remarkable to those who attended and because it was not remarkable to those who didn’t. The fact that a GLBT group can meet openly in a public library in the middle of New Jersey without so much as a raised eyebrow from passersby can be traced directly to a handful of notable people whose strength, courage, fortitude, fearlessness, vision and certitude launched a movement. Frank Kameny is – was - one of those people.

It is not without thought that I used Frank Kameny’s name repeatedly in the previous paragraph instead of surrendering to smoother-sounding pronouns. The least I can do is sacrifice the pace of a paragraph so that Frank Kameny’s name can be read and re-read - and hopefully remembered.

Sometimes the people who change the world aren't treated to a collective mourning when they die - a Facebook hand-wringing and cyber-competition for the title of Most Affected and Grief-Stricken. Sometimes they get neither a bowed head from the media nor impromptu pop-up memorials. It seems that Mr. Kameny’s passing has registered barely a blip on the media radar.

I fear that no one knows who Frank Kameny is. I fear that while we enjoy the fruits of his legacy everyday, he himself is already largely forgotten.

This was a man who did the unthinkable - he protested his discharge from the army – a discharge based solely on the fact that he was gay - and appealed his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court declined to hear the case and a lower court's ruling against him was upheld, but to dwell on the outcome would be missing the point entirely. He did this in the '50s!!! On his own. He was a gay activist when there were few gay activists. His anger predated Stonewall by a decade. He taught us that “gay is good” when gay was considered not only not good, but sick.

He had no apology in him.

He said, out loud, what no one was saying – what no one was even thinking. He marched when marching was truly dangerous. He laid a path where there had been no path. His courage made my own life easier and better. His courage made the lives of all GLBT people easier and better.

I am sad that he is gone, although at his age it can hardly be described as surprising.

I am profoundly sad that he seems to be largely forgotten.

Dear Rachel

In an interview she gave to the Hollywood Reporter, Rachel Maddow voiced her opinion on marriage equality:

"'I feel that gay people not being able to get married for generations, forever, meant that we came up with alternative ways of recognizing relationships,' she explains. 'And I worry that if everybody has access to the same institutions that we lose the creativity of subcultures having to make it on their own. And I like gay culture.'"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Rachel -

I am a 39 year old gay man. I am a huge fan of yours and while I agree with you on almost every issue, I have to tell you that I found your views on marriage equality short-sighted at best.

This isn't about the preservation of gay culture. This is about equality, and while I will certainly utilize my right to marry the instant I get it, it is ultimately not about my equality or your equality. To me, this about our gay children. Our gay children who should look forward in their lives and see as many choices, options and opportunities as their straight counterparts - who should not have to unlearn all they have been taught about themselves. I couldn't be prouder of my community for building families and defying laws and odds and norms. I look at those who came before me in utter awe - of their strength, their fearlessness, their creativity, their internal fortitude in knowing that there was nothing wrong with them when the world was telling them the exact opposite. But I want those who come after me to read about our history and our struggles - I don't want them to know firsthand. It is my most fervent wish that they not fully understand what it was to be gay way back when we could not get married; when we could not adopt and create families which received full protection under the law; when we could be fired from our jobs or evicted from our homes simply for being gay. Let there be a great, wide generational chasm! I wish for them an easier path than yours or mine. That's why, to me, marriage matters. It is the same reason that the repeal of DADT mattered. So that our children can look forward and see no difference.

I have heard from friends and now read your views that this lack of difference is worrisome. That it will lead to the end of gay culture. To that I say this:

I would gladly give away my sense of humor as I know it to not have felt tortured as a child when I knew I was gay and I "knew" it was "bad." I would gladly give away any creativity I have to never have been taught that parts of this world were closed off to me simply because of who I am. I am not worried about the loss of gay culture. I am worried about the loss of gay children at their own hands because they are being tortured at school and on the omnipresent internet. I am worried about the loss of gay adults at the hands of ignorant, angry people who see in the media their own hate dressed up as a difference of opinion; who see in our laws not a condemnation of their own fears and prejudices, but a reflection of them. I am not worried about the loss of the next great gay game changer if the reason that they are a game changer stems from their hesitation at holding their boyfriend's or girlfriend's hand in public, from their fear of kissing their significant other goodbye at an airport, from the loss of a natural sexual coming of age. If that is what creates gay culture, then I would just as soon give it all away so that our next generation can grow up average. Perhaps fewer of us will be special. Perhaps more of us will be happy.

Sincerely,

Roger Rosen

What Do We Want? Anarchy! How Do We Want It? Through Marriage!

Last week, former football player David Tyree came out against marriage equality. In a videotaped interview he did with NOM, he went on the record spouting all the hate-filled, manipulative lies we've heard time and time again - protect the children, one man/one woman, family, mother/father, God. Same old, same old. But then he said something new. Something I hadn't heard before. And noteworthy in its sheer, brash illogic. He actually went so far as to say that “If they pass this gay marriage bill...this will be the beginning of our country sliding toward, you know, it's a strong word, but anarchy.”

Anarchy.

Anarchy!

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines anarchy as:

1 a: absence of government; b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority; c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order; b : absence of order : disorder anarchy of nature

Marriage equality will lead to anarchy - an astounding leap! Absence of government? State of lawlessness? Absence or denial of any authority or established order? Those of us who seek marriage wish to be MORE a part of society. We wish to follow MORE rules. We want MORE responsibility. We are not looking to destroy anything. Indeed, we want the structure of this country whole and healthy. WE WANT TO BE INCLUDED IN IT! We are looking to gain access to a contract that will enmesh us further into the machinations and fabric of society. We wish to become more stable and more committed to each other and to the institutions that bind us. What we are looking for is the opposite of anarchy. WE ARE LOOKING FOR BANALITY! Marriage - the squarest, most non-rebellious, middle America institution that exists - leading to anarchy?

At the moment I heard these words come out of David Tyree's mouth, I began to understand that people such as he, people who work at NOM and people who spend their time and their money traveling the country with the goal of ensuring that gay people remain in the shadows of society are deranged. Deranged.

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines deranged as:

1 to disturb the operation or functions of; 2 disarrange deranged — G. W. Stonier> 3 to make insane

They have been made insane by hate. By ignorance. By a lifetime of lies told first to them, then by them.

And now it seems that David Tyree is going to take his lies - his melodramatic, hate tinged, manipulative lies - to Albany, where the Senate is but one vote away from granting marriage equality to the Empire State. He will likely be listened to and taken seriously, this deranged man who spouts nonsense and calls it love.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

Adolf Hitler