Thursday, May 6, 2010
Brief Update (Long Time, No Blog)
Some time ago, in fact, I was fortunate enough to conduct an interview with a major well-known DADT activist. What have I done with that interview? Roughly transcribed it, and not much else. Fortunately, a fellow local activist blogger has agreed to help me get the interview into a readable form. The news may have changed since the interview took place, but I still think it's worth putting out there.
So stay tuned for that interview. We'll be posting it on the Activist Hub. I'm also going to try to get my thoughts together for an official Mental Health Month post. (ETA: Part 1 and Part 2 of my interview with Lt. Dan Choi are now online!)
In the meantime, check out this article in The Huffington Post. Today is National Children's Mental Health Awareness Day. Rosalynn Carter quotes the late Dr. Julius Richmond as having said, "Every day that we do not intervene with effective programs, we are losing remarkable human potential. And every child whose potential is wasted is an incredible loss to the nation."
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Is Obama giving up on the public option?
(Continue reading at the St. Louis Activist Hub.)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
National Sexual Assault Awareness Month (and yes, I'm still alive)
Whether you know it or not, rape, incest and sexual assault affect everyone. If you haven't been a victim yourself, someone you know and care about almost certainly has. These are crimes that are woefully underreported, by male survivors most of all:
Many people don't take male sexual assault seriously. This is one of the reasons why male victims have a difficult time reporting what happened and why the rates of male sexual assault are thought to be significantly underreported. If a male survivor's friends think that male sexual assault is a joke, he will feel isolated and afraid to tell anyone. Sexual assault is a painful, traumatic experience for any victim.The National Center for PTSD elaborates:
There is a bias in our culture against viewing the sexual assault of boys and men as prevalent and abusive. Because of this bias, there is a belief that boys and men do not experience abuse and do not suffer from the same negative impact that girls and women do. However, research shows that at least 10% of boys and men are sexually assaulted and that boys and men can suffer profoundly from the experience. Because so few people have information about male sexual assault, men often suffer from a sense of being different, which can make it more difficult for men to seek help.There is some controversy over statistics regarding the prevalence of male versus female sexual assault in this country. I will not address the controversy here, as I have not done enough research to speak as an authority on this issue. Most statistics I have found indicate that women are victims of rape and sexual assault much more frequently than men. But it is clear that rape, sexual assault, and other forms of abuse* affect all genders. And sexual violence or abuse of anyone is unacceptable.
Here are some ways you can help a loved one who has been raped or sexually assaulted. Most of these guidelines apply or can be adapted to help a victim/survivor of physical assault or domestic violence. Self-care is also imperative, though often difficult. Please see the links near the bottom of the webpage for some guidelines regarding self-care, for friends and family members as well as for survivors.
If you have been a victim of rape or sexual assault, you can get help by calling the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE(4673). If you are currently a victim of domestic violence and need help, you can call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE(7233). (Please keep in mind that computer and phone use can be monitored.) You are not alone, and you have nothing to be ashamed of. You need not listen to the voices of abusers anymore.
* WARNING: This video contains graphic, disturbing images of real violence, which may be triggering to some. If you have been a victim of assault, battering, or other forms of domestic violence and have symptoms of post-traumatic stress, please do not watch this video unless you are in a safe place by yourself or with people you trust, and are confident that you can watch it without being triggered. If you feel triggered after watching this video, try watching something cute and fuzzy to help you calm down. If you experience a flashback while watching this video and do not feel safe, please call a trusted friend or a crisis hotline such as the Life Crisis Line in St. Louis, MO (314-647-4357).
Monday, December 1, 2008
World AIDS Day 2008
Many advances have been made in the treatment of HIV/AIDS since it was first discovered, but the treatments are expensive and inaccessible to millions of poor persons all over the world who are HIV-positive. Knowledge of advances in treatment has led some to engage in risky behavior, unaware of the expense of the treatments and failing to take into account the fact that these treatments are not cures. In spite of scientific progress, HIV is still a deadly disease, and recent efforts to create a vaccine have led to disappointment.
As well, significant stigma still surrounds infection. Some still view HIV/AIDS as a gay disease; thus the stigma surrounding the gay community falls on sufferers of this horrible illness. Although there is less stigma now than there was in the past, it is still a heavy and unfair burden to carry on top of that of the relentless retrovirus.
In light of these facts, defensive pessimism may be the best way to deal with the HIV infection of oneself or of a loved one. There is reason to be cautiously hopeful, though. Scientific research continues, and public health policies are being reevaluated. The idea, based on a mathematical model, that AIDS could be virtually eliminated within ten years, may be unrealistic, but at least one study says that it is theoretically possible.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Bush's Parting Gifts
According to a Planned Parenthood action alert, the lame-duck President has been rushing to enact a new rule that would allow doctors to redefine abortion to include birth control, and decline to inform patients of or provide them with contraceptive options. Bush is also attempting to relax environmental regulations, including the Endangered Species Act, before he leaves the White House in January. He is trying to do these things in such a way that it will be difficult or impossible for Obama to reverse them.
However, Democrats say they will do their best to stop these last-minute rule changes. Dear Bush: Thanks, but no thanks. Did you get a gift receipt?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Marriage Is Love
Below is the text of President-Elect Obama’s response to a question from the Human Rights Campaign regarding same-sex marriage. The questionnaire in its entirety with Obama’s answers is available at www.barackobama.com.
I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.
However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. I think the President should do all he or she can to advance strong families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President’s role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.
Now, here is an altered version of the same text. I have changed some of the original words to illustrate a point.
I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all couples – interracial or not – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.
However, I do not support interracial marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between two people of the same race. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage or a bill like the Defense of White Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. I think the President should do all he or she can to advance strong families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President’s role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.
The altered version would sound pretty preposterous coming from the child of an interracial marriage. Of course, it's pretty preposterous on its own. But laws against interracial marriage were still in place in several states as recently as 1967.
Granted, it is entirely possible that Obama's lack of support for legal same-sex marriage is at least partially due to the current political climate. Vocally supporting gay marriage would most likely have hurt Obama's chances for election. The wording in his response to the HRC's question about same-sex marriage was likely purposefully mitigating, in order to appeal to both sides of the issue. Appealing to both sides of an issue is what politicians do best.
According to the questionnaire, Obama would oppose legislation that would eliminate states' rights to decide on their own whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. His personal, religiously-motivated belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he is in favor of granting same-sex couples a separate-but-equal institution that would give them the same legal rights as marriage—just don't call it marriage, 'cause that word is sacred. He supports strong families, but some families have to stand in one line, and other families get to stand in the other line (the one that everyone wants to stand in).
Making comparisons between the struggle for gay rights and the struggle for civil rights for black Americans is dangerous territory, of course, because the iniquities committed against blacks in this country have been, overall, much more egregious and pervasive. However, civil marriage is a civil right, and it's not the same thing as religious marriage. No religion will ever be forced to perform marriages that it believes are wrong. But if straight people have the right to civil marriages, then gay people ought to have the right to them, too. Otherwise, we should get rid of the term "marriage" in terms of government-recognized unions altogether and have everyone stand in the line for a civil union license.
Religious marriage of same-sex couples can be and is performed by religious denominations that support it. The government has granted pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. the right to create a civil marriage at the same time that they create a religious marriage. However, religious leaders who would like to create a civil same-sex marriage at the same time as the religious one are unable to do so. Conservative religious beliefs dictate government policy on this issue. That seems a little like the establishment of a state religion. Thus, same-sex marriage can be viewed as a freedom of religion issue as well as a civil rights issue. How can we pass a Constitutional amendment that eliminates a First Amendment right without also repealing the First Amendment?
Not every church is going to sanction same-sex marriage, and not everyone wants a church-sanctioned marriage, anyway. Not everyone even wants to be married. The right in question is the right to civil marriage for those couples who desire it. Same-sex couples should have the same civil rights as opposite-sex couples. That means either a) giving same-sex couples the right to legally marry, or b) eliminating the word "marriage" from legal licenses and giving all couples the right to civil unions that are legally equivalent to today's civil marriages.
A lot of the argument on this issue is over semantics. Religious conservatives believe that the word "marriage" is sacred and they don't want to change the traditional definition to include same-sex unions. Committed, loving same-sex couples want to call their unions "marriages" and have those marriages be recognized by the law. Civil unions that confer the same legal rights as civil marriages are a step in the right direction. But ultimately, the government ought to pick one term and use it for all legally-recognized committed unions. Using two different terms for two different groups of people perpetuates inequality.
Separate is not equal.
The author invites her readers to join her at the
