RA-news

---

Newsletter of the Rainbow Alliance at the University of Florida August 2004, Vol. 2, No. 12 Next Rainbow Alliance Dinner Meeting, Thursday, September 23, 2004, 6:30 pm, at Hops on Archer Road. 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.

---

Contents First Words An Open Letter to Florida's Senators Special Feature 5040 and Counting... Features Campus Tamara Cohen: New LGBT Affairs Director for UF Local Looking Ahead: Pride Celebration of Gainesville National Marriage Update 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 Open Letter to Florida Senators Like many of you, I sent my US senators an email about their vote on the Federal Amrriage Amendment. And like many of you, I received a standard email response from the senators' offices. Below are the responses and an open letter to Senators Nelson and Graham. * * * * E-mail response from the office of Senator Bill Nelson: Dear Mr Brown: Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I am opposed to gay marriage. I firmly believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman, which is why I support Florida's law and states' rights to ban same-sex marriage. But I voted against a procedural motion, along with a majority of the Senate, to end debate, because this change to the U.S. Constitution does more than ban gay marriage. The wording could limit civil rights--including inheritance and hospital visitation, for example--for a whole class of people. And throughout our history, the Constitution has always guaranteed civil rights, not taken them away. I appreciate you being involved in the political process. I will keep your views in mind. * * * * E-mail response from the office of Senator Bob Graham: Thank you for contacting my office with your ideas and opinions. I am pleased to find so many Floridians concerned about our laws, our state, and our country. As your Senator, I am always mindful of the fact that I am here in Washington, D.C. to represent the people of Florida. Therefore, it is vital that I understand the viewpoint of Floridians like you. The Senate will be considering legislation of great importance to Florida and the nation over the coming weeks and months. Your input on this issue is a valuable resource and has been recorded and referred to my staff. I encourage you to continue to monitor legislative developments by visiting my website's weekly update on Senate business at http://graham.senate.gov/weekly_update.html Please be assured that I will have your views in mind as I work with my colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives toward the passage of legislation that reflects our shared priorities. Again, I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughts. If you would like further information on a specific legislative issue, or have additional questions, please contact my office in Washington, D.C. at 202-224-3041, or my office in Tallahassee toll-free at 866-418-9569. * * * * An open letter to Senators Nelson and Graham: Dear Senators Nelson and Graham, Thank you for acknowledging the note I sent to each of you asking you to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. With your help, this amendement has been defeated for the time being, however, its supporters will no doubt be back as long as political gains can be be made by exploiting this divisive issue. Senator Nelson, your response was the more specific, and it states unequivocally that you are opposed to "gay marriage." However, neither your response nor your Web site list any reason for this position. You do state that while you believe the state has the right to ban "gay marriage", you opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment because it might limit civil rights, including inheritence and hospital visitation. Even by conservative estimates, when we are talking about the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) persons, we are talking about a million or more Floridians -- and that is a lot of Floridians. In considering your position, you should remember that your decisions will affect the lives, the fortunes, futures, the families and the happiness of a million of your constituents. These constituents include: same-sex couples that have shared decades of their lives and still cannot guarantee each other financial security; same-sex couples that are fostering some of Florida's most needful and deserving children but whom they can never adopt; men and women who must still keep their lives and relationships in shadow because of workplace and societal discrimination; and Florida's children -- many of whom will grow up to be gay but will have to fight every day of their young lives against their peers, and in some cases even their parents, to overcome every form of abuse from name-calling, labeling and rejection to outright discrimination and physical abuse. It is absolutely normal for a portion of the human population to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. It's as normal as any other minority trait, such as blond hair or blue eyes. All cultures are challenged when it comes to dealing with minorities, but I like to think that in the United States we are more determined to give every citizen a fair chance. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... the struggle for equality is a rich timeline of how the majority has limited these unalienable rights based only on the fear that granting full equality to this group or that will upset the basic fabric of society. When we look back, the fears that caused the State to deprive African-Americans or women, for example, of their unalienable rights seem absurd. The social "fabric" is constantly evolving anyway; it takes great wisdom to know when we are "preserving" and when we are merely resisting. Ultimately, the standard is not someone's utopian ideal, but how people really live, governed by an ethic of mutual respect. Much is made these days of the faith traditions of the "Founding Fathers" of our country. Historians will continue to debate this, but one statement of faith that they made clear for posterity is that the Creator has endowed all of us, individually and equally, with unalienable rights. That gift from the Creator was the foundation of a revolution, it is an appeal to a "law" which is deeper than the laws that people make. In fact, it must be the basis of those laws. Unalienable rights... Can you look Florida's children in the eyes and say "you can never fall in love," "you can never be married," "you can never have children," "you can never be equal," simply because you are lesbian or gay or bisexual or transgendered? If you can, are those rights unalienable? The state of Florida does have the right to define any contract any way it likes, up to the point of unfairness. People use the expression "gay marriage" as a kind of shorthand, and they claim that "acitivists" want to redefine marriage. However, no one wants to redefine marriage. All anyone wants to do is extend the contract of marriage to everyone equally. It is opponents of this fairness who are redefining marriage by creating new institutions such as civil unions, which invariably fall short of the rights obtainable through marriage. Another lesson of history is that there is no such thing as a little equality. It may be painful or scary to let a minority into the club, but it's the fair thing to do. If the club can't handle the fairness, then what is the club really about? We want to believe that in America people can become whatever they want to be, but Americans are as human as any other people when it comes to creating institutions that preserve elites and limit the opportunities of others. "Exclusiveness" is often the only value a club has to offer. But life is not a club, and the only fair thing to do is to find a way to give everyone their unalienable rights. The irony of democracy is that the majority sometimes successfully opposes fairness. As a leader, you have had to face down the majority before and subsitute your informed judgment for the will of the majority. An how might the will of the majority change if leaders such as you took the time to educate your constituents about being fair and overcoming fear? No doubt, both of you have friends, family, colleagues, and employees that are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgendered. Preventing these people from enjoying their unalienable rights is a profound value judgment, making them second class citizens. Knowing your records and respecting you as I do, I cannot believe either of you would sustain any view that had such devastating consequences for so many people. Sincerely, Charles Brown [top]

Special Feature

5,040 and Counting… by Chad R. Maxwell It really goes without saying that language has an inescapable effect in the shaping and understanding of culture. Since the birth of the social sciences, researchers have acknowledged the power of linguistics, labeling, semantics, and the like. This idea seems particularly important to our community, meaning the LGBT community, at this time in history. The naming of our community has had an interesting journey. Let me spare you the academic jargon and historical overview of the labels, however, and just say that as time moves on, the labels become gradually more complex and divided. For example, early on, our community was simply labeled as the gay community. Then the lesbian branch developed; and still later the labels transformed to terms such as LGBT and LGBTQ communities. Cleary it's more complicated than this, but you get the idea. From this sequence, two situations have developed -- the first is a more ideological issue, while the second is more of a pragmatic issue. Ideologically, this naming game is problematic because at the same time that our community strives toward unification to become more politically influential and supportive of one another, it's becoming more linguistically divided. Some may say that these labels are just words, but we know that labels are much more powerful than just words. How does the increasing complexity of our community's name reflect what is is happening within our culture? For one, we know groups exist within our entire community that have long been politically, socially and emotionally misunderstood and neglected. Groups such as transsexuals, bisexuals and "double minorities" are becoming increasingly visible. They have a voice all their own, and the G's and the L's in LGBT are slowly coming to realize this fact. Moreover, as dominant culture becomes progressively educated on our issues, more of our population comes out of the shadows. This means that groups that were once marginalized within our community have empowered themselves and are now a solidified culture with their own unique concerns and needs that go beyond our shared values and goals. With all these voices, fragments, groupings, goals, agendas, etc., it's no wonder that there is no one, encompassing label for our diverse community. How can we linguistically represent everyone within a single word? Can language affect culture in such a way that we can move away from fractionalization and towards a collectiveness? The ideological problem of representing all our diversity within a label has led to pragmatic catastrophe. Our name has reflected our cultural changes by moving from the oversimplified label of gay and lesbian, to LGBT, to LGBTQI. And more recently, I have even seen LGBTTQI appearing in more and more literature -- linguistically marking the cultural differences in the transsexual and transgendered communities. Besides an increasing number of letters, however, further problems are present. For example, what is the appropriate order of the letters? Does the order reflect some sort of community bias? In other words, we commonly see GLBT or LGBT, but why not TBLG? Or LBGT? Crazy enough, there are 5,040 possible combinations of just 7 letters. 5,040 combinations. In fact, if you add just one more letter there are 40,320 possible combinations. Seven letters is hardly practical and having over 5,000 combinations of those letters is just unbearable. On the brighter side, though, at least there are only 19 more letters left that we can add -- you can do the math. So how do we identify ourselves to make everyone ideologically happy, but still be linguistically sensible? Unfortunately, there is no clear answer. Some like owning the term 'queer,' but for others this word brings up painful memories. Other people prefer the label 'alternative lifestyle community.' Many of us would argue, however, that there is no alternative to our "lifestyles" so this word hardly seems inclusive. In an idyllic world, we could all just be an inclusive human community. My optimistic, anthropological side loves that thought. On the other hand though, I realize that as humans we have an innate tendency to cognitively clump and label. In other words, a label is inevitable, and the aforementioned troubles still exist. Despite all this, it's exciting to see our community grow, develop and change. We are carving multiple paths on numerous levels -- culturally, politically, and, as shown, even linguistically. And so, the challenge has been presented: the next time you use GLBT, LGBT, etc., think about why you are using it and what it means. Is there an encompassing, less linguistically divisive and more functional label? And how can it become a core part of our lavender language? Until this amazing label comes along, I suppose I'll stick with my cheerful human community idea and wish you all the best of luck in your name hunt. Dictionary anyone? * * * * For more information on the history of gay labels and gay language see these resources: "Homosexual, Gay, and Lesbian: Defining the Words and Sampling the Population." Journal of Homosexuality 24(1/2):27-47 (1992) Leap, William. Word's Out. University of Minnesota Press, 1996 Leap, William. Beyond the Lavender Lexicon (editor). Gordon and Breach, 1995 Lavender Languages and Linguistics Conference at the American University in Washington, DC. [top]

Features

Tamara Cohen: New LGBT Affairs Director for UF Among the milestones for LGBT staff, faculty and students, we might include the founding the Pride Student Union (then LGBSU) in the 70s, the establishment of the LGBT Concerns Committee, the founding of the Rainbow Alliance and the Gator Gay-Straight Alliance in the 90s, and the addition of sexual orientation to the UF non-discrimination clause in recent years. We can now add another major milestone on the path to a positive LGBT environment at the University: the appointment of the first director of LGBT Affairs at the University of Florida. On August 30, a reception was held for Tamara Cohen to announce her appointment to the new position. Cohen is a graduate of Columbia University and Sarah Lawrence College and has 15 years of experience with advocacy in both women's and LGBT issues. She has been in Gainesville for about four years, having moved here when her partner accepted a faculty position. Cohen begins work on Septmeber 20. Dr. Bernard Machen, recently inaugurated as the University's 11th president wasted no time in reaching out to LGBT groups when he arrived early in 2004, and responded quickly to concerns from LGBT leadership groups concerning the campus environment. He was responding as well to the results of the Campus Climate Survey. The Survey was conducted over two years ago, but the portion of it pertaining to LGBT students was released in Spring 2004. The Survey indicated the the University of florida was not a welcoming or comfortable campus for LGBT students. Machen has already stated that diversity is a central issue for him and an important issue for the University if it is to join the ranks of the nation's great universites. The position of Director of LGBT Affairs was created in the Division of Student Affairs, but the director will be involved with staff and faculty issues as well. The LGBT director will develop programming, assist in partner-benefit issues and facilitate relationships with campus offices. Cohen ws quoted in the Independent Florida Alligator: "I'm an activist, and I'm very intersted in creating change in things around campus." [top]

Looking Ahead: Pride Celebration of Gainesville PRIDE Week -- October 8th-17th, 2004 Momentum is building for this year's Pride Celebration. This annual event will be held in Gainesville October 8-17. Once again, banners over University Avenue and Waldo Road will announce the festival. Many events are planned and many groups come together to support the efforts of the Pride Celebration committee. Watch for the awards banquet, the parade, and the big finale -- the Pride Festival at Gainesville's Downtown Plaza. For more information, visit the Pride Celebration Web site, <http://www.gainesvillepride.org/>. The site will updated as more events are confirmed, so check back often! [top]

Marriage Update On Aug. 3, Missouri became the fifth state to adopt a constitutional ban against gay marriage; the others are Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada. Similar amendments likely will be on the ballots in 12 other states this fall: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Massachusetts November 2003 — The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts announces its decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health holding that the state law barring same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution and ordered the legislature to remedy the discrimination within six months. February 2004 — The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that offering civil unions instead of civil marriage would not meet the requirements set forth in Goodridge. May 17, 2004 — Marriage for same-sex couples became legal in Massachusetts. Equal marriage went into effect when the legislature failed to provide an acceptable law restricting marriage. Aug 19, 2004 — A Superior court judge ruled that Massachusetts may not issue marriage licenses to any out-of-state couple that would not be qualified to marry for any reason in their home state. The decision was based on a 1913 law which had never before been enforced. Missouri August 3, 2004 — In a statewide vote, Missouri became the fifth state to adopt a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage; the others are Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada. New Jersey November 2003 — A New Jersey Superior Court judge rejected a lawsuit brought by seven NJ couples asserting their right to obtain a marriage license in NJ. The decision was immediately appealed. January 2004 — New Jersey passed a domestic partnership law which applies to same-sex couples and to opposite-sex couples in which one partner is 62 or older. Benefits include equality with married couples in insurance coverage and medical decision making and the choice of filing joint state tax returns. However, the law does not provide for inheritance rights, the right to petition for spousal support if the relationship ends, or automatic parental rights. Second parents still have to petition for adoption. March 9, 2004 — The first-ever marriage license for a same-sex couple in New Jersey was issued at Asbury Park. Several more couples applied for licenses but the state attorney general obtained an injunction preventing any ceremonies to be held. July 10, 2004 — The New Jersey domestic partnership law passed in January 2004 went into effect. Sept 3, 2004 — New Jersey Attorney General filed a 60-page brief with a state appellate court asserting that the courts have no jurisdiction over marriage, and that it is the exclusive province of the state legislature. The AG was responding to a suit filed by seven NJ couples. California February 12, 2004 — San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome orders city clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. August 13, 2004 — The Supreme Court of California ruled that Gavin Newsome, Mayor of San Francisco, exceeded his authority in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The decision invalidated the nearly 4000 licenses issued by SF, but it did not decide the central issue, whether marriage for same-sex couples is constitutional. Washington Aug 17, 2004 — A Federal bankruptcy judge rejected the application for joint bankruptcy by an American couple married in British Columbia. The judge affirmed that federal law defines a ‘spouse' as a person of the opposite sex. This ruling was in effect the first ruling from the federal bench on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Sept 2004 — Thurston County Superior Court rejected denial of marriage rights as unconstitutional in Washington. The case will go to the state Supreme Court. Same-sex unions will only be allowed if and after the state Supreme Court upholds this decision. National Republican Platform – "Renewing America's Purpose. Together." "Our country was founded in faith and upon the truth that self-government is rooted in religious conviction." "We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law." Democratic Platform — "America 2000: Prosperity, Progress, and Peace" "Democrats believe that God has given the people of our nation not only a chance, but a mission to prove to men and women throughout this world that people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths and creeds, can not only work and live together, but can enrich and ennoble both themselves and our purpose." "We support continued efforts, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to end workplace discrimination against gay men and lesbians. We support the full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of the nation. This would include an equitable alignment of benefits." Federal Marriage Amendment May 21, 2003 — Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado, and five co-sponsors introduced H.J. Resolution 56, a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Florida Cosponsors of Marriage Discrimination: Jeff Miller (R 1st), Ginny Brown-Waite (R 5th), Cliff Stearns (R 6th), Ric Keller (R 8th), Michael Bilirakis (R 9th), Adam Putnam (R 12th), Dave Weldon (R 15th), Tom Feeney (R 24th). Nov. 25, 2003 — A companion bill, S.J. Resolution 26, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colorado. February 25, 2004 — President George Bush announces his support for the an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as ‘one man-one woman.' July 15, 2004 — Senate rejects the Federal Marriage Amendment. Proponents failed to gain the 60 votes necessary to bring the amendment to the floor of the Senate. Getting to the floor is the first hurdle, the amendment would require 67 votes to pass on the floor. The White House expresses "disappointment" that the amendment has been "temporarily blocked" and urges the House to take up the measure. John McCain called the amendment "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." International Canada September 2004 -- Manitoba becomes the fourth Canadian province to legalize same-sex marriage. Manitoba joins British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, which had taken similar steps in 2003. The Yukon territory legalized smaesex marriage in July 2004. The judge in the case found that the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman was contrary to the equal protection provision of the provincial charter. The judge ruled, ""The traditional definition of marriage in Manitoba is reformulated to mean a voluntary union for life of two persons." France February 2000 — The French National Assembly passes a domestic partnership law. The law confers many rights of marriage on same-sex couples but does not address parental, adoption or citizenship rights. June 5, 2004 — The mayor of Begles, near Bourdeaux, performed a civil marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. France's Minister of Justice stated that he would seek to have the marriage invalidated immediately and that there was no way the marriage could be legally "qualified" under French law. July 28, 2004 — A Bourdeaux court annulled the marriage performed in Begles on June 5, supporting the position of Jacques Chirac's conservative government. The couple remains legally married pending the outcome of their appeal. In the meantime, a survey by Elle magazine showed that 64 per cent of French favor of same-sex marriage. Spain April 2004 — Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has stated that he will move forward with plans to legalize gay marriage and grant equal rights to gay couples. The PM further said, "Homosexuals and transsexuals deserve the same public consideration as heterosexuals." The proposed changes in the Spain's Civil Code will recognize equal rights to marriage with the resulting effects over inheritance, labor rights and social security protection. The necessary legislation may be presented in September 2004. [top]

Departments

September 2004 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 2004 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 been working with Pride Student Union on this. New Gator Graduate and Rainbow Alliance Member Phillip Perry has contacted the Florida Foundation about adding "LGBT" as an interest area that alumni can select. Good work, Phillip! 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 cmb@ifas.ufl.edu. We're very interested in what is going on on other campuses. Maybe we can support and help each other. 5) We're fortunate at the University of Florida and the Gainesville are to have a rich network of LGBT organizations. The question is: how do newcomers find out about these groups? e want to look into what information is provided to new UF faculty and staff during orientation so that they can be aware of the many opportunities. [top]