After watching part of the debate between the Democratic Party presidential candidates, I realized I really ought to compare the stances of the popular candidates on several of the big Gay issues of today.
Not surprisingly, the results favor the Democratic candidates. Also, not surprisingly Republican candidates were less likely to have formulated positions on certain issues...except for Mitt Romney. Romney, it seems, has a consistent answer for everything these days. A few years ago, he was supportive of Gay rights, but no longer. Today, he is universally opposed to the "radical homosexual agenda."
On Ending DADT
McCain supports Don't Ask Don't Tell, lauding it as a solution to a difficult problem. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all oppose it. Giuliani wants it repealed. Romney wants to keep it.
On Gay Marriage
None of the six major candidates openly supports federal marriage equality. However, McCain, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards support the right of states to enact Gay marriage laws. Giuliani recently spoke against the New Hampshire plan to enact strong Civil Unions because they were too similar to marriage. Romney opposes Gay Marriage, universally.
On ENDA
ENDA is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation intended to ensure that Gay people are not discriminated against in the workplace. All three major Democratic candidates have voiced their support for the bill. McCain opposes the bill. Giuliani doesn't seem to have a position on it. Romney opposes ENDA.
On Hate Crimes Legislation
All three major Democratic Candidates support legislation that would include Sexual Orientation as a basis for hate crimes. McCain, Giuliani, and Romney oppose hate crime legislation.
On Civil Unions
McCain, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all spoken frequently supporting the civil unions or domestic partnerships as an equivalent to Gay Marriage. Although such unions are not equal to marriage, they are preferable to no legal union at all. Romney opposes Civil Unions.
On HIV/AIDS Funding
HIV/AIDS is still a monumental concern in the Gay community. As a result support for AIDS and AIDS prevention is paramount.
McCain has long been a supporter of the Ryan White CARE Act to provide AIDS funding in the US. He, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have each demonstrated their willingness to expand this funding. Giuliani supported AIDS causes as Mayor but has not taken a clear stance on HIV/AIDS funding as a presidential issue. Romney opposes AIDS funding and attempted to reduce AIDS spending as Governor.
On Comprehensive Sex Ed
Giuliani hasn't expressed a position that I could find. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all support comprehensive sex education programs. McCain doesn't support funding such programs. However he has expressed that he is unsure that condoms are effective prevention against STDs. Romney supports abstinence only sex education which, by its very nature, is not comprehensive.
In conclusion, the three main Dem candidates are fervently courting the Gay vote. Meanwhile, Guiliani and McCain have failed to take strong pro-Gay Rights stances where it really matters. No major candidate from either party is willing to allow Gay Americans to have full, equal rights.
And Mitt Romney opposes Gay Rights.
Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts
Monday, June 04, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Falwell DEAD!
The leader of hateful bigots across the country died today at age 73. Preceding him in death were hundreds of thousands of Gay men and boys that died as a result of Falwell's attempts to oppress homosexuality in the US. Many of those men died from AIDS while Falwell and his "Moral Majority" prevented funding for HIV research. Others died because they were denied the love and respect they deserved while Falwell's religious coalition described openminded and inclusive people as "Satanic."
Matt Foreman, executive director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, extended condolences to those close to Falwell, but added: "Unfortunately, we will always remember him as a founder and leader of America's anti-gay industry, someone who exacerbated the nation's appalling response to the onslaught of the AIDS epidemic, someone who demonized and vilified us for political gain and someone who used religion to divide rather than unite our nation."
Falwell should also be remembered as a founding contributor to the Sacramento Lambda Center. According to the Lambda Center website:
May his memory live on in the minds of all those that use the Falwell Memorial toilet at the Sacramento Lambda Center. It is important that all of those involved in the Gay Rights movement remember our powerful adversaries as a gauge of how far we have come.
Matt Foreman, executive director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, extended condolences to those close to Falwell, but added: "Unfortunately, we will always remember him as a founder and leader of America's anti-gay industry, someone who exacerbated the nation's appalling response to the onslaught of the AIDS epidemic, someone who demonized and vilified us for political gain and someone who used religion to divide rather than unite our nation."
Falwell should also be remembered as a founding contributor to the Sacramento Lambda Center. According to the Lambda Center website:
"On July 13, 1984, Jerry Falwell appeared on television and denied that he had ever referred to Metropolitan Community Church as vile, satanic and its members "brute beasts" on his Old Time Gospel Hour. He offered $5,000 to anyone who could prove that he had. Rev Jerry Sloan of MCC in Sacramento, California, called Falwell's toll-free number and purchased a copy of the tape as proof, and demanded payment of the $5,000. When Falwell refused, Sloan sued and won. With $5,000 in hand the Lambda Community Fund was reorganized in 1984 under its current name by Rev. Jerry Sloan and the late Timothy Warford with the help and guarantees of Terry Sidie, Marghe Covino and the Late C.G.N.I.E. Emperor, Randy Hartman, to mention a few, to serve the broader cross-section of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) community."
May his memory live on in the minds of all those that use the Falwell Memorial toilet at the Sacramento Lambda Center. It is important that all of those involved in the Gay Rights movement remember our powerful adversaries as a gauge of how far we have come.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Nobody Makes Me Bleed My Own Blood
I have written many times before on homophobia engrained in US law. Usually, my focus has been on the prohibition of Gays in the military and the right for Gay people to marry.
But those are not the only anti-Gay US policies.
The US Food and Drug Administration still maintain a severely outdated policy restricting Gay men from donating blood or bone marrow because of HIV concerns. Although similar policies have been reversed in other Western nations to no ill-effect, the United States continues to uphold this policy.
Recently, Cal students led a pro-active protest against the policy while recognizing the shortage of blood donations. The protest, led by UC Berkeley student, Jeff Manassero, asked Gay men unable to donate blood to find sponsors to donate in their place. As a result of the protest, a massive amount of blood was donated and lives will be saved.
Nonetheless, as a letter to the Daily Cal proves, some of the intellectual elite at Berkeley still support the outdated policy. Professor Moshe Sternberg supports the prohibition on the assumption that Gay men are far more likely than the general population to contract the disease. Unfortunately, the professor fails to consider that other minority populations (including African-American women) should be excluded from donating blood if pathogenic diseases were the only concern. Further, the American Red Cross opposes the outdated policy because it does not serve in the interest of protecting the health of Americans.
Simply stated, the policy prohibiting blood and bone marrow donations by Gay men is homophobic and based on outdated science and statistics. HIV screening is far better than it was in 1985 when this policy was first enacted and much less centralized in the Gay community. Further, there is a more pressing public health concern in ensuring an adequate supply of donations for blood banks.
But those are not the only anti-Gay US policies.
The US Food and Drug Administration still maintain a severely outdated policy restricting Gay men from donating blood or bone marrow because of HIV concerns. Although similar policies have been reversed in other Western nations to no ill-effect, the United States continues to uphold this policy.
Recently, Cal students led a pro-active protest against the policy while recognizing the shortage of blood donations. The protest, led by UC Berkeley student, Jeff Manassero, asked Gay men unable to donate blood to find sponsors to donate in their place. As a result of the protest, a massive amount of blood was donated and lives will be saved.
Nonetheless, as a letter to the Daily Cal proves, some of the intellectual elite at Berkeley still support the outdated policy. Professor Moshe Sternberg supports the prohibition on the assumption that Gay men are far more likely than the general population to contract the disease. Unfortunately, the professor fails to consider that other minority populations (including African-American women) should be excluded from donating blood if pathogenic diseases were the only concern. Further, the American Red Cross opposes the outdated policy because it does not serve in the interest of protecting the health of Americans.
Simply stated, the policy prohibiting blood and bone marrow donations by Gay men is homophobic and based on outdated science and statistics. HIV screening is far better than it was in 1985 when this policy was first enacted and much less centralized in the Gay community. Further, there is a more pressing public health concern in ensuring an adequate supply of donations for blood banks.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Don't Be Cruel
Once again, California is tossing around a Death-With-Dignity/Assisted-Suicide/Euthanasia bill modeled on Oregon's law. This one is a little more tightly controlled than past version but is no less necessary than past incarnations.
This bill would allow those with terminal illnesses to end their own life, at their own hand. It would, however, require that the patient have a prognosis of six-months or less to live and that the doctor explain, in writing, alternatives in treatment and hospice care. All patients seeking physician-assisted-suicide would be required to undergo a psychological evaluation and only those found to be mentally capable could be allowed to request a lethal dose of medication. Further, patients would have to request a lethal dose of medication in writing with at least two unrelated witnesses present. In order for the death to be legal, the patient would have to take the medication of their own volition and action without any coercion from others. Actions intended to force a patient to end their own life would be considered in the highest class of felonies.
For most healthy people, the idea of killing oneself is outrageous. However, at the end of a life already being cut short by a painful and debilitating disease, there is often little dignity left. Those who would force such individuals to endure their diseases unwillingly are cruel and unjustified.
Certainly, many of those who are nearing the end of a struggle with terminal cancer, AIDS, or any one of a plethora of painful, life-ending diseases would not choose to take their own life. Their choice to continue living with their struggle should be considered as sacred as the choice others would make to end their own life. The benefits of living longer may, in some instances, outweigh the benefits of dying. A hastened death, however, may reduce some of these costs in some instances. Such costs can be measured monetarily, psychologically, in the burden of survivors watching family members struggle, and in the pain endured by the patient. Certainly, the decision to end ones own life should not be a choice taken lightly.
Fabian Nunez's AB 374 takes each of these factors into consideration and makes every effort to ensure that the patient is well informed and acting according to his or her own wishes. The freedom to end one's own life is a liberty that should be established under the law to allow already dying individuals the ability to cut short their suffering. Any action by government officials to prevent such freedom would be cruel.
This bill would allow those with terminal illnesses to end their own life, at their own hand. It would, however, require that the patient have a prognosis of six-months or less to live and that the doctor explain, in writing, alternatives in treatment and hospice care. All patients seeking physician-assisted-suicide would be required to undergo a psychological evaluation and only those found to be mentally capable could be allowed to request a lethal dose of medication. Further, patients would have to request a lethal dose of medication in writing with at least two unrelated witnesses present. In order for the death to be legal, the patient would have to take the medication of their own volition and action without any coercion from others. Actions intended to force a patient to end their own life would be considered in the highest class of felonies.
For most healthy people, the idea of killing oneself is outrageous. However, at the end of a life already being cut short by a painful and debilitating disease, there is often little dignity left. Those who would force such individuals to endure their diseases unwillingly are cruel and unjustified.
Certainly, many of those who are nearing the end of a struggle with terminal cancer, AIDS, or any one of a plethora of painful, life-ending diseases would not choose to take their own life. Their choice to continue living with their struggle should be considered as sacred as the choice others would make to end their own life. The benefits of living longer may, in some instances, outweigh the benefits of dying. A hastened death, however, may reduce some of these costs in some instances. Such costs can be measured monetarily, psychologically, in the burden of survivors watching family members struggle, and in the pain endured by the patient. Certainly, the decision to end ones own life should not be a choice taken lightly.
Fabian Nunez's AB 374 takes each of these factors into consideration and makes every effort to ensure that the patient is well informed and acting according to his or her own wishes. The freedom to end one's own life is a liberty that should be established under the law to allow already dying individuals the ability to cut short their suffering. Any action by government officials to prevent such freedom would be cruel.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Do Your Part
As promised, I have compiled a short list of organizations and resources involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
Above all, though, know your own HIV status and get tested. There are locations near every community in the US that can provide tests for the disease that causes AIDS and provide counseling to determine your risk factors for the disease and help you to prevent contracting the virus.
Check your local community for organizations that provide services to AIDS patients. Groups like Meals on Wheels, Hospice, and even churches often provide important services, companionship, and care to people dying from AIDS.
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS
Foundation
YouthAIDS
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
American Foundation for AIDS Research
Above all, though, know your own HIV status and get tested. There are locations near every community in the US that can provide tests for the disease that causes AIDS and provide counseling to determine your risk factors for the disease and help you to prevent contracting the virus.
National HIV Testing Centers
Check your local community for organizations that provide services to AIDS patients. Groups like Meals on Wheels, Hospice, and even churches often provide important services, companionship, and care to people dying from AIDS.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
World AIDS Day
World AIDS Day is tomorrow. This disease has taken the lives of more than 22 million men, women, and children worldwide. Another 42 million people are currently infected. An estimated 14,000 more people are infected every day, mostly in the 15-24 age group. In the United States alone, over 1 million people are living with HIV with 40,000 new infections each year.
AIDS has ceased to be a “Gay disease” but the GLBT community should continue to consider it a “Gay issue.” Our community was the first to see the ravages of the epidemic and continues to be one of the hardest hit. Yet, this is an issue that our nation seems to have become bored with and put aside.
Our world has made great progress in slowing the effects of the disease, allowing some of those infected to live longer lives. Still, we must not forget that this disease has claimed far more lives than the holocaust and has no end in sight. At the current rate of infection, nearly every person in Africa will be infected in only a few short years. It is unthinkable to allow an entire continent of people to die of a disease with no cure.
President Bush continues to promote an outdated abstinence only approach to avoiding STDs. While we are all aware that abstinence is the only 100% effective approach, it is not always the most appealing. Condoms may not be perfect, but they are the most effective way of preventing the spread of disease among sexually active people and should be promoted heavily.
Our congress (I won’t blame either party because both are guilty) has failed to adequately fund AIDS research and prevention efforts. The Ryan White CARE Act expired well over a year ago and has yet to be reauthorized. Further, it needs to be updated to reflect changes in the way our nation now approaches and defines the disease.
It was only two generations ago that our country led the way in eradicating polio worldwide. Only one generation ago, smallpox was eradicated largely because of American efforts. I am not saying that we can eradicate HIV in the near future, but US efforts could begin a reduction in new infections.
December 1 is World AIDS Day and we should all make an effort to donate our time and money and help to raise awareness about HIV. But the real point of tomorrow is to remind us to stop for a moment and realize how devastating the disease continues to be. That realization should be enough to drive us all to continue to push for an end to the AIDS epidemic.
Later, I will post a list of helpful resources about how each of us can get involved with the fight against AIDS.
AIDS has ceased to be a “Gay disease” but the GLBT community should continue to consider it a “Gay issue.” Our community was the first to see the ravages of the epidemic and continues to be one of the hardest hit. Yet, this is an issue that our nation seems to have become bored with and put aside.
Our world has made great progress in slowing the effects of the disease, allowing some of those infected to live longer lives. Still, we must not forget that this disease has claimed far more lives than the holocaust and has no end in sight. At the current rate of infection, nearly every person in Africa will be infected in only a few short years. It is unthinkable to allow an entire continent of people to die of a disease with no cure.
President Bush continues to promote an outdated abstinence only approach to avoiding STDs. While we are all aware that abstinence is the only 100% effective approach, it is not always the most appealing. Condoms may not be perfect, but they are the most effective way of preventing the spread of disease among sexually active people and should be promoted heavily.
Our congress (I won’t blame either party because both are guilty) has failed to adequately fund AIDS research and prevention efforts. The Ryan White CARE Act expired well over a year ago and has yet to be reauthorized. Further, it needs to be updated to reflect changes in the way our nation now approaches and defines the disease.
It was only two generations ago that our country led the way in eradicating polio worldwide. Only one generation ago, smallpox was eradicated largely because of American efforts. I am not saying that we can eradicate HIV in the near future, but US efforts could begin a reduction in new infections.
December 1 is World AIDS Day and we should all make an effort to donate our time and money and help to raise awareness about HIV. But the real point of tomorrow is to remind us to stop for a moment and realize how devastating the disease continues to be. That realization should be enough to drive us all to continue to push for an end to the AIDS epidemic.
Later, I will post a list of helpful resources about how each of us can get involved with the fight against AIDS.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
A Case AGAINST Gay Marriage
No, I haven't become a straight, Christianist, homophobic operative of the religious right. Trust me, I am as Queer as I have ever been. And yes, I do think that we Gay people are totally equal to straight people and should have every equal right, including marriage. However, given the state of our nation and the Gay rights movement today, a good case can be made as to why we shouldn't be fighting for the right to marry.
Today, New Jersey made a ruling that is being touted as a precursor to Gay marriage. It is not. What the court said today is that the State of New Jersey must provide all the rights that married couples enjoy to same-sex couples. They did not, however, say that Gay people can get married. Their ruling will likely provide a system identical to California's. We are seperate and almost equal.
But if we learned anything from the civil rights movement, seperate is inherently unequal. We should be allowed to marry. But the title of this post is "A Case AGAINST Gay Marriage." We shouldn't be fighting for the right to marry.
In states where Gay marriage is likely to be legalized, we don't need it. In California, we have all the benefits of marriage that the state can give us, except for the word marriage. Soon, New Jersey will give those same rights to Gay people. Several other states have granted protections for the Queer community and a few have even protected Gay families.
Unfortunately, in many other states, Gay people have few (or no) protections. In some states, not only can't Gay people adopt children, they can lose custody of children that they adopted in other states. Until quite recently, it was illegal for Gay men to have sex in some places. As a community, Gays should be focusing on promoting the basic necessary rights for our families to survive in this world.
Gay marriage scares little old ladies in the South. It scares a lot of other people, too. The people that Andrew Sullivan calls "Christianists" get motivated by their homophobia and act on it. They vote. There is a reason why several states have gone so far as to repeal Gay rights in some places and enact constitutional bans on any form of domestic partnership or civil union between same-sex couples. Every time our community goes out there demanding the right to marry, more and more single-issue voters try to elect the Mountjoys of the world- namely homophobic " Biblical constructionists" that provide no benefit to society.
This isn't to say that we should give up the fight. Gay people should be recognized as completely equal to straight people. Instead of so loudly proclaiming that we want to marry, we should be focusing on protection for Gay people and families in places where there is none. We should be working to provide support for young people terrified to come out of the closet. We should be working to improve the public image of the Gay community.
We know that not all Gays are sexually promiscuous demons ready to molest innocent children and turn them Gay, too. AIDS is neither the Gay Cancer or a punishment from God for our evil ways. Further, we are not hated by God or doomed to spend an eternity in hell because we want to sleep with a person of the same gender. We also know that we do not simply choose to be Gay. But we haven't done a very good job of portraying all of that to those who fear us.
What we should be doing is attempt to live our lives as best we can. If we want to marry, we should find partners and live as married couples with whatever form of civil union we can get from our states and santify them with an appropriate ceremony. We should live in homes next to theirs, mow our lawns next to them, raise our children next to theirs, and invite them to our bbqs.
Then they might finally see us as people.
Today, New Jersey made a ruling that is being touted as a precursor to Gay marriage. It is not. What the court said today is that the State of New Jersey must provide all the rights that married couples enjoy to same-sex couples. They did not, however, say that Gay people can get married. Their ruling will likely provide a system identical to California's. We are seperate and almost equal.
But if we learned anything from the civil rights movement, seperate is inherently unequal. We should be allowed to marry. But the title of this post is "A Case AGAINST Gay Marriage." We shouldn't be fighting for the right to marry.
In states where Gay marriage is likely to be legalized, we don't need it. In California, we have all the benefits of marriage that the state can give us, except for the word marriage. Soon, New Jersey will give those same rights to Gay people. Several other states have granted protections for the Queer community and a few have even protected Gay families.
Unfortunately, in many other states, Gay people have few (or no) protections. In some states, not only can't Gay people adopt children, they can lose custody of children that they adopted in other states. Until quite recently, it was illegal for Gay men to have sex in some places. As a community, Gays should be focusing on promoting the basic necessary rights for our families to survive in this world.
Gay marriage scares little old ladies in the South. It scares a lot of other people, too. The people that Andrew Sullivan calls "Christianists" get motivated by their homophobia and act on it. They vote. There is a reason why several states have gone so far as to repeal Gay rights in some places and enact constitutional bans on any form of domestic partnership or civil union between same-sex couples. Every time our community goes out there demanding the right to marry, more and more single-issue voters try to elect the Mountjoys of the world- namely homophobic " Biblical constructionists" that provide no benefit to society.
This isn't to say that we should give up the fight. Gay people should be recognized as completely equal to straight people. Instead of so loudly proclaiming that we want to marry, we should be focusing on protection for Gay people and families in places where there is none. We should be working to provide support for young people terrified to come out of the closet. We should be working to improve the public image of the Gay community.
We know that not all Gays are sexually promiscuous demons ready to molest innocent children and turn them Gay, too. AIDS is neither the Gay Cancer or a punishment from God for our evil ways. Further, we are not hated by God or doomed to spend an eternity in hell because we want to sleep with a person of the same gender. We also know that we do not simply choose to be Gay. But we haven't done a very good job of portraying all of that to those who fear us.
What we should be doing is attempt to live our lives as best we can. If we want to marry, we should find partners and live as married couples with whatever form of civil union we can get from our states and santify them with an appropriate ceremony. We should live in homes next to theirs, mow our lawns next to them, raise our children next to theirs, and invite them to our bbqs.
Then they might finally see us as people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
