RA-news

---

Newsletter of the Rainbow Alliance at the University of Florida December 2003, Vol. 2, No. 3 Next Rainbow Alliance Dinner Meeting, Thursday, December 11, 2003, 6:30 pm, at Leonardo's 706 on University Avenue. Other Dates to Remember: January 24, 2004 - Gay Marriage/Unions, Gay Adoption, and Military Policy: An Interdisciplinary Symposium hosted by the Lambda Legal Alliance Program at UF Law School. See story below. The Rainbow Alliance is the staff and faculty organization at the University of Florida concerned with matters related to sexual orientation and gender identity. RA welcomes all members of the University community who share its goals to join.

---

Contents First Words Paradox Indefensible Language Features Update on the Dignity for All Students Act The Equal Rights Amendment, 1791, and Same-Sex Marriage Looking Back on the Transgender Day of Remembrance Mass. Supreme Court Says State Cannot Deny Same-Sex Marriage Departments Update on RA Projects Contributing to the Rainbow Alliance Fund Resources How To Join Rainbow Alliance Contributors to This Issue of RA-News

---

First Words Paradox Soviet Communism gave the world its primary images of Socialism. Socialist states were centralized, inefficient and yet ruthlessly focussed on world domination. Socialist states were not populated by citizens but by comrades. In socialist states, everyone was equal. There was no high or low, rich or poor, men or women. All were dressed in the same drab gray outfits and focussed on productivity for the state and on spreading the worker's revolution to every corner of the globe. Everything about the USSR stood in direct opposition to the US. Like matter and antimatter, they were identically opposite, mirror images of one another. We were free, they were not. We were capitalist, they were not. We were individualists, they were not. We were religious, they were not. Our women were pretty, theirs were not. These beliefs became cultural axioms that helped to define who we were. Through a certain kind of logic we could have said that capitalism was based on having pretty women. Let's go further -- our women have to be pretty for capitalism to succeed. Perhaps this helps readers to understand why making men and women equal is so incredibly dangerous. It threatens our very Way of Life. It's not about whether a few men will be replaced in their jobs, it's about whether Life As We Know It (LAWKI) will continue. You can't attack one of these axioms without attacking them all. With this information, let's consider the Equal Rights Amendment... and same-sex marriage. In the minds of some, these issues threaten to erase completely the difference beween men and women, to overturn the carefully constructed social roles which some people believe have made our society what it is. While it seems ridiculous on its face to say that capitalism depends on a patriarchal and heterosexual society, that is fundamentally what some people believe. If it seems crass to talk in economic terms, perhaps we should allow that people who fear the Equal Rights Amendment tend to translate the issue into cultural or religious realms. They are fierce defenders of the stay-at-home mom. In fact, for many of these people, everyone stays at home. Mom stays at home, the kids are home-schooled, and Dad works happily at his home-based business, leaving the house only when he must sally forth into the world to make an economic conquest. Church, home and work alike are all intersecting pyramid schemes with similar belief systems and similar payoffs. Of course, this description is somewhat facetious, nonetheless, there are a lot of people who have fundamental beliefs about How Life Should Be, and those beliefs include the cultural and legal inequality of women and men. It would be less fashionable even in these circles to say that it also includes economic inequality, but that is what these beliefs boil down to. It hasn't been long since unequal education or unequal citizenship were also parts of this belief. Every move toward greater equality has been greeted with the most dire predicitons and irrational resistance. The paradox is that the Equal Rights Amendment and same-sex marriage don't make everyone the same, they allow everyone to be different, to be who they are. Opposition to these priniciples is a way of imposing uniformity. Indefensible Language DOMA stands for the "Defense of Marriage Act," a measure passed by Congress in 1996 which makes it illegal for the federal government to recognize same-sex couples and allows states to reject same-sex marriage rights granted by other states. In the battle for hearts and minds among U.S. voters, this kind of Orwellian labelling has become a staple. From the "Death" tax to the "U.S. P.A.T.R.I.O.T." act, conservatives have sought leverage by careful labelling of measures that undermine what they purport to strengthen. Under the Bush administration's Healthy Forests Initiative, wholesale logging will reduce the chances of wildfire. It will also give lumber companies unprecedented access to log on federal lands, increase their profits, and increase the fees paid to the government. Apparently the main problem with forests is that there are too many trees. "Defense" of marriage is an equally topsy-turvy label. Defense makes marriage a victim of something, and we must protect the rights of victims. Right? The convoluted who-is-doing-what-to-whom-and-with-what logic of the "defenders" may obscure for some the simple fact that the D in DOMA stands for Denial. Maybe Restriction of Marriage Act would be a better label (ROMA) (...or Defense of Discrimination Ordinance?). Opinions in the LGBT community about same-sex marriage vary. If same-sex marriage becomes an option, the LGBT people will have a new factor to consider. But what this argument is boiling down to is a simple question of fundamental human rights. The Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment should be labeled and consistently referred to in such a way that it is clear that they deny rights to a select group of Americans and create a second class of citizenship. [top]

---

Features

Dignity for All Students Act By Phillip Perry, Treasurer, Pride Student Union The typical high school student hears anti-gay slurs an average of 25 times a day, and 25 percent of these slurs can be traced to teachers or school employees. Eighty-two percent of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) students report verbal, physical or sexual harassment. Almost one in three GLBT students skipped school in the last four weeks because they felt unsafe. The culmination of these events can cause GLBT youth to participate in high-risk activities such as dropping out of school, drug use, homelessness, unsafe sex and, most unfortunately, suicide, according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The recent Dignity for All Students Act, which was introduced to the Florida Senate and House of Representatives this spring by Senator Gwen Margolis and Representative Kenneth Gottlieb, will grant protection to sexual minority students if enacted into law. The bill seeks to amend Florida state law to include sexual orientation in its prohibition of discrimination and harassment in public schools. Additionally, it will provide training for teachers as well as record keeping, ensuring the program is effective. The bill met opposition from right wing groups and several senators, particularly Senator Anna Cowin. Senator Cowin used a "stealth amendment" strategy to halt any possible debate on the bill by adding 35 amendments, including references to sex with corpses and animals. The bill was tabled until the next legislative session due to the large number of amendments. The bill is supported by Equality Florida, a statewide education and advocacy organization that has been working to end discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender expression and identity as well as race, gender and class. One of Equality Florida's main focuses is the elimination of Anti-GLBT harassment, violence and discrimination in public schools. Currently, Equality Florida is attempting to start a Senate Interim study; however, approval of funding is required by Senate President Jim King. It is critical that members of the community show support for this bill by contacting their local senator or representative. Equality Florida has an Adopt-A-Legislator program in which they train citizens how to lobby to local government officials. Community members can write or call their representatives to show support for equal rights for all students so they can learn in a safe and comfortable environment. For more information on this topic, visit Equality Florida at <http://www.equalityflorida.org/> [top]

---

The Equal Rights Amendment, 1791, and Same-Sex Marriage On the evening of November 25, the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" was introduced in the U.S. Senate by five senators: Wayne Allard, R-Colo.; Sam Brownback, R-Kan.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. A similar amendment was introduced on May 21, 2003 in the House by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the House version currently has 108 sponsors. The bill is a long way from becoming a part of the constitution. First, committees of the House and Senate must work together to produce a joint resolution and then the full House and Senate must pass it by a two-thirds – or supermajority – vote. It must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. The barriers to passage are high, but once the measure has been submitted to the states, there is no time limit on passage. For example the 27th Amendment to the Constitution was passed by Congress on December 15, 1791 – almost 212 years ago – however, it was ratified by the states on May 7, 1992, when the Michigan legislature approved it. At the opposite extreme is the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) which was passed by Congress on December 18, 1917 and ratified January 16, 1919.The Prohibition Amendment was repealed on an even faster timetable – Passed: February 20, 1933; Ratified: December 5, 1933. (Note: The Prohibition Amendment included a requirement that it be ratified within seven years, or it would be void. By tradition, every Amendment passed by Congress since, except the 19th, has included this requirement.) Another Amendment waiting in the wings is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which states "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." The Amendment was first proposed and introduced in Congress in 1923. It did not pass. It was re-introduced in 1924 and every following year until 1972, when it was passed and sent to the states for ratification. By the end of 1973, 22 states had ratified the Amendment. After the inital wave of acceptance, ratification by the states slowed down considerably. In 1977, Indiana became the 35th and last state to ratify the ERA. Opposition to the ERA came from political conservatives, some of whom were concerned with the social implications of the Amendment and other who felt that the proposed Amendment infirnged on State's rights. The Amendment was also opposed by fundamentalists and the rapidly growing evangelical movement. ERA opoonents claimed that the Amendment would deny woman's right to be supported by her husband, overturn privacy rights, admit women into combat roles, establish abortion rights... and uphold homosexual marriages. With the 1979 deadline for ratification approaching, the ERA did not have enough state ratifications. In June 1878, the National Organization for Women (NOW) organized a demonstration of 100,000 persons in Washington, D.C. Congress was persuaded to extend the deadline for ratification to 1982. Nevertheless, no more states ratified the amendment. The amendment has been reintroduced in every subsequent Congress. This brings us to 1992 and the passage of the 27th Amendment, ratified by Michigan. The amendement was passed in 1791, as one of 12 propsed amendments to the Constitution. Ten of these amendments were ratified and became what we now call the Bill of Rights. The two proposed amendments that were not ratified concerned congressional pay and the number of representatives. After languishing for over 200 years the the first of these two amendments became part of the U.S. Constitution. The 27th Amendment states: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened." Passage of the 27th Amendment suggested the legal argument that Congress could change the time limit for ratification of the ERA at any time, and that if the necessary three additional states ratified, Congress could accept them along with the 35 that had already ratified. The Congressional Research Office has concluded that the passage of the 27th Amendment has implications for the ERA. Currently, promoters are working in all 15 states which have not yet ratifed to introduce and pass the ERA. If 38 states ratify the ERA, Congress will be in a difficult position. With overwhelming support for the amendment, the full responisbility for voting yea or nay will be up to Congress. The precedent of the 27th Amendment will add legal pressure to political pressure. In the current political environment, which is probably the most conservative in 50 years, it will still be difficult to get the necessary ratifications. If the ERA becomes part of the Constitution, it will have significant implications for same-sex marriage. A major barrier to same-sex couples is the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996. DOMA makes it illegal for the federal government to recognize same-sex couples and allows states to reject same-sex marriage rights granted by other states. So, if a same-sex couple has a civil union in Vermont, they are entitled to nay rights of marriage granted in Vermont, but their relationship is not acknowledged under federal law and no other state need recognize their relationship as legal. Another important barrier to same-sex couples are the numerous state laws and state consitutional amendments that define marriage as an opposite-sex relationship. If the ERA is passed, it will be just a question of time until these laws and amendments are struck down. Learn more about the ERA: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/ Send a fax to your representative about the ERA with one click: http://www.aclu.org/WomensRights/WomensRights.cfm?ID=9966&c=33 Read about the unratified "Twelfth" Amendment: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution/Unratified_Amendment_Twelve [top]

---

Looking Back on the Transgender Day of Remembrance As reported in the last issue of RAnews, on November 20, there were some special events in honor of the Transgender Day of Remembrance. The evening began with a panel discussion in which academics who study trnasgender issues and some members of the transgender community spoke and answered questions of an interested audience. There are so many stereotypes about transgender people that it was revelational to hear these men and women speak for themselves. They're very jeopardized in our society by misunderstanding on one hand and disinterest on the other. Understanding transgender people takes you right to the heart of very important issues about human sexuality, personal security and the law. The panel discussion was very enlightening. Even with a sensitivity to the issues transgender people face, there are still many details to appreciate and complexities to understand. The panel did an excellent job of presenting and explaining these matters. The most difficult part of the panel discussion were the stories of death and injury that transgender people suffer in the course of living their lives. We might associate this kind of danger with living on the edge and with making risky lifestyle choices, but from the many stories that were told it was plain that transgender people face these dangers in the course of tryin to live very normal lives. The panel was followed by a vigil on the Plaza of the Americas. Those in attendance stood in a circle with candles and shared stories about friends and told about what they had learned during the evening. It was an emotional event, the kind of event where what you have just learned strips away some of your defenses and allows you to feel close to the people around you because you realize in that moment what all people share. After the vigil a few people returned to Leigh Hall, Room 207 for a viewing of the movie "Boys Don't Cry." The movie is based on the true story of Brandon Teena, a young woman who lived as a man, and the woman who fell in love with him. From a review on the Internet Movie Database Web site: "You can't help but admire "Boys Don't Cry" for several reasons. For one, it takes on such issues as rape, sexual confusion and murder and manages to explore them with a sense of grace and dignity, without sensationalizing them for one moment. It unfolds a true life story with unflinching realism, no matter how tragic it turns out to be, and that is ultimately what makes it such an overall effective film.... It follows a woman's search for identity, and the harsh realities of the world that prevent her from completely finding it. Beneath the film's starkly realistic tale of cruelty lurking in the heart's of people and the way they vent their destructive ignorance, there is an absorbing and powerful exploration of two people who find love despite the sexual complications that exist between them. It proves that there is so much more to someone besides they're sexuality, and how you can still be able to make a profound connection with them. Hilary Swank gives an extraordinary performance as Teena Brandon, brilliantly illuminating the vulnerability and fear that lies beneath her rough exterior. Chloe Sevigny is absolutely stunning as the woman whose whole life is thrown into chaos after she falls in love with Teena. "Boys Don't Cry" doesn't take the easy way out with it's story, there are no real heroes and villains, and although it's conclusion is brutal and bleak, it's message about looking at life with unprejudiced eyes stays positive throughout. This is the kind of film that needs to be seen, even though it is marred by a few faults, it will no doubt leave an impact on your intellect and emotions." The film was nominated for dozens of awards by a wide array of organizations. For her performance, Hilary Swank won an Oscar for Best Actress in a Leading Role. [top]

---

Mass. Supreme Court Says State Cannot Deny Same-Sex Marriage On November 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in the case of seven LGBT couples who claimed that the Massachusetts ban against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The court decided that the ban was unconstitutional, but they stopped short of issuing licenses to the couples. In their limited decision, they have required that the Massachusetts legislature find a solution within 180 days. The vote was 4-3. The decision states that Massachusetts may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." A very similar situation in Vermont led to the creation of civil unions in that state, but in Massachusetts there is already momentum for a state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as opposite-sex only. However, the decision specifically recommends that same-sex marriage be added to the Massachusetts civl marriage law. According to the Human Rights Campaign Web site, it would take three years for an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution to make it through all the required steps and be voted on by Massachusetts citizens. Quoting from the Court's opinion: "Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples." If the Massachusetts legislature allows same-sex marriage, then the pressure would be on other states to acknowledge these marriages through the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, by which states must honor the laws of other states. As has happened in Ontario, probably numerous gay couple would rush to marry in Massachusetts. Under any circumstances, it seems likely that an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution restricting marriage to oppostie-sex couples will be introduced. It would be voted on in 2006 and at this point, passage seems likely. For more info: Thorough review of the case: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marm.htm Mass. Court Says Gay Marriage Can't Be Denied: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103399,00.html Frequently Asked Questions: Massachusetts Marriage Ruling: http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/background/talkpts_goodridge.asp Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html [top]

---

Departments

December 2003 Update on Rainbow Alliance Plans If you haven't had a chance to attend a dinner, it might be difficult to keep up with the progress of 2003 projects. We'll try to keep you current with a monthly update. 1) Rainbow Alliance Fund at the University of Florida Foundation The Fund (established March 2003) is the only one of its kind at the UF Foundation specifically dedicated to the support of the LGBT community at UF. The Fund needs continuing support if we are to realize our goals. As always, details about contributing to the Rainbow Alliance Fund can be found at the end of the newsletter. Details about payroll deduction will be e-mailed to RA members soon. 2) Work will continue to identify LGBTA alumni. We have working with Pride Student Union on this. 3) Of course, we'll continue our monthly dinners. We hope to see you there! 4) We're working on outreach to LGBT faculty and staff at other universities and junior colleges in Florida. If you have any contacts who would like to be on the Rainbow Alliance mailing list, please send them to cbrown@agen.ufl.edu. We're very interested in what is going on on other campuses. Maybe we can support and help each other. 5) We are in the process of appointing a governing board as described in the bylaws. The governing board will provide oversight and guidance for Rainbow Alliance and the Rainbow Alliance Fund. 6) Rainbow Alliance depends on the efforts of dedicated volunteers. A little of your time could go a long way. Get involved. Make a difference. [top]