Blogger's note: This is the first in a series of posts that I wrote in February of 2012 as part of a writing fellowship application. See the introduction to this series here. That DOMA and Prop 8 cases are soon to go before the Supreme Court is what reminded me of this piece.
Yesterday, Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage, was struck down by a federal appeals court in San Francisco. Gay rights supporters erupted in celebration, though those paying close attention to the decision were quick to point out that,
“. . . the Ninth
Circuit did not hold that same-sex couples have a right to marry. It held that once a state has granted them
the right to marry, it can’t take it away arbitrarily. In California, a state court decision
in 2008 had held that the state constitution required the state to allow
same-sex marriage.”
I
was living in California when Prop 8 was passed—in Oakland. It passed the same
day Obama was elected president, making it a
bittersweet day. Many in the Bay Area reflexively
blamed Southern California for Prop 8. Yes, Southern California is more
conservative than Northern California and yes, voters there approved the
measure at a much higher rate, but according to the by-county
breakdown data, nearly 25% of San Francisco voters and
a little more than 38% of Alameda County voters, where Oakland is located,
voted for it. Now those percentages are certainly low, but given the population
and history of San Francisco and Oakland, I was surprised and reminded SoCal
haters that maybe “no one they knew” voted for it but with one in four voters
in San Francisco and one in three in Alameda County voting “yes”, somebody in
their community certainly did.
Prop
8 passed in 2007 at least in part because its proponents were more organized
and funded. For one, opponents of Props 8 did a lousy job with their ad
campaign against it. Furthermore, if the numbers in San Francisco and Oakland
were any indication, would be naysayers were complacent. Many people who might have
voted against the measure didn’t even make it the polls. Especially powerful,
however, was the myth perpetrated by Proposition 8 supporters that if it did
not pass, children
would be “taught gay marriage”
(whatever that means), or even to be gay, in public schools. So some voters who
might ordinarily have voted with a “live and let live” attitude instead took
exception to the possibility of their own children being taught to live as
others might choose to live.
The American Prospect's Abby Rappaport holds
up happenings in the Anoka-Hennepin school district,
among other places, as another reason for hope beyond the Proposition 8 defeat.
In this particular case, I would be far more cautious. The night before
yesterday’s ruling, I happened to read this
article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely in Rolling
Stone about Anoka-Hennepin, which is about 30 miles north
of Minneapolis and is part of Michelle Bachmann’s district. Before it came up
for re-evaluation in 1994, health teachers in Anoka-Hennepin were allowed to
teach that homosexuality was normal, but after reconsideration, the policy held
the opposite. Any discussions or even
mentions of homosexuality stopped. Despite student and parental complaints,
students who intimidated and assaulted apparently LGBTQ and LGBTQ-perceived
students went undisciplined. After an epidemic of suicides, lawsuits, and
pressure, in 2009 the district modified the policy again to one of “neutrality,” which while better still came
across ambiguously to educators. Finally, this past December, there was a
proposal to eliminate the policy altogether. To note, the school district
released a
statement which disputes Erdely’s portrayal, calling it
“grossly distorted.”
Anoka-Hennepin’s
latest policy, which seeks to “prevent
teachers from influencing students on controversial topics,” is merely a
small step in the right direction, away from a policy that led to often brutal
and shameful treatment of a certain class of kids. Educators couldn’t mention
the word “gay,” couldn’t discipline students for bullying students for being
gay, had to engage in de facto don’t ask,
don’t tell about their own sexuality, and couldn’t teach about anyone or
anything gay. Kids were beaten, abused, and killed themselves—neither
Rappaport’s post or the Minnesota
Public Radio piece Rappaport links to mentions any of
these specifics. Certainly, the district should be applauded for finally taking
this step and certainly, according to Erdely, some school board members and
teachers union members there were against the policy from the get go, but
that’s a far cry from district leaders being champions of civil rights for
LGBTQ kids. Calling identifying as LGBT or Q “controversial” still implies that
it could be wrong. Can it be said that being a girl is controversial? A Latino?
A Muslim? Of course, students are free to think that being gay is wrong, but
when they go through public school doors, they shouldn’t be allowed to behave
as such, to discriminate against, threaten, or harm other students based on
those beliefs.
That Proposition 8 was struck down is a victory for
gay rights, but until we tackle the codification and teaching of discrimination
against LGBTQ people—this after all was essentially how Prop 8 was passed, by
tapping into people’s fears of their children being exposed to the concept of
homosexuality—the struggle will continue. If teachers are not supposed to be
impartial while mediating issues stemming from racism, then why should they be impartial
in matters of homophobia? Hate is hate, quite objectively.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.