Q Of The Day: Did LGBT Community Give A Pass To The White House's Forgetting About Bacon & Tomato?

Well this is about same-sex marriage, isn't it?

And "gay marriage" is often used as a synonym for "same-sex marriage". I think the White House was responding in the context of the same-sex marriage debate. So when they said gays and lesbians deserve protections, I think they really meant to say that people who are in relationships with members of the same sex deserve protections.

I don't think it's that people don't care about B and T equality, it's just the fundamental nature of the debate - the opposition is to same-sex marriage. The haters don't want two people of the same gender to be married. They don't care if they are bisexual, transgender, or gay - they just want everyone who is married to be of opposite genders. In the marriage debate, it's almost completely irrelevant if someone is B or T, because if they want to marry someone of the same gender - or someone who society decides is the same gender - then they're in the exact same boat as all the gays who want to marry. The problem is still same-sex marriage, or "gay marriage".

The fix for all of it is to remove the limitation that discriminates against people based on their gender. And I think that's what we're all fighting for, the right for consenting, non-related adults who are romantically attached and sharing a life together to be married, regardless of their gender. We're not fighting for one particular group, like "the gays", to have rights. And I don't think the answer is to broaden the language and add B and T. If anything they should be more precise and specify "same-sex marriage", and not conflate that with LBGT rights in general.

But either way this particular press release was about the gay marriage ruling in Iowa. If it were about employment or housing discrimination it might have been worded differently.

---

by: Eshto @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:28:03 AM CDT

B&T: what about the lettuce, mustard and mayo?

I go along with your sentiment of wanting full inclusivity, but have a problem in practical terms:  where does it end?

Once, it was enough to say 'gay'.  But some recognised that although the word was gender neutral, not all women felt properly included, so we spelt it out by expanding to gay & lesbian.  Later, we began to recognise that we were still missing the boat with some groups, so started to add the B&T - but not, perhaps, often enough.  What your post does not recognise, is there are still some sexual minorities not included by GLBT:  the intersexed community, for starters, and some specialist  subdivisions of the straights, such as heterosexual S/M practitioners.  So some people now prefer to speak and write of LGBQI (Q for Queer, I for Intersexed).

This raises two problems.  The first is simply practical.  The more we add to the alphabet soup, the more cumbersome and difficult clear expression becomes, and the more confusing we become to the mass of people who fail to follow all the nuances.

The second is more substantial:  the more we try to include all minorities by direct specification, the more we automatically exclude others who are not directly specified. Sticking to your culinary metaphor, there will always be some flavourings excluded from the menu.

This is why I increasingly prefer to avoid using the list of initials, and am reverting to the older terms gay or queer as referring to ALL sexual minorities.  However, in  the political sphere, I prefer to go a step further, and simply use language which is totally neutral on gender or orientation.

 

---

by: riverrun @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:33:08 AM CDT

I disagree with your first reasoning

I have to disagree, because frankly "where does it end" has never, ever been a logical justification for... well anything.

Also, inventing more and precise terms doesn't hinder clarity. Quite the opposite. Being lazy and falling back on umbrella terms like "gay" to refer to any old LGBTQI person is what causes confusion.

If the terms we keep adding to the "alphabet soup" have meaning and are appropriate, then there's no reason to stop adding them. Sexuality and gender are natural phenomena, and there's no reason we can't invent elaborate taxonomies for them, just like we do for every other aspect of nature. In fact, we need to so that we better understand those phenomena, and avoid lumping people together who might not share as many commonalities as we assume they do.

Your second point is better, at least in the context of marriage equality.

---

by: Eshto @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:50:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It would be nice to have an umbrella term, though

The phrase "sexual minorities" seems to be used a fair amount among European and UN type social democrats.  Of course American hate groups would have a field day with it, considering how unhinged some of them have become trying to create confusion about the definition of "sexual orientation."

"Queer peoples" would be fine with me, though many object to that word queer, and it's still in need of quite a bit of rehabilitation before politicians will take it seriously.

Frankly, "transgender peoples" would be fine with me, too, since gender non-conformity seems to be at the heart of the conflict we all have with the wider society.  It's probably too late to change and broaden the meaning of that word, though.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 12:34:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No

Is this even a worthwhile discussion to have?

It's really not.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:01:10 AM CDT

Can I expand on that?

I appreciate the years and pixels that have been poured into helping us Ls and Gs to understand that marriage equality matters to Ts too--because taking the gender out of marriage laws is a precondition to T equality.

However, the issue here is legal treatment of couples who are NOT one-man-one-woman as defined by the most restrictive guidelines. So why would we even want to make it LGBT inclusive--it's really about the ridiculousness of using gender or sex as a condition for a legal status.  

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:30:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have to wonder

with the WH if it's a case of not really knowing the language or a case of thinking/assuming that talking about "G & L" covers the entire spectrum.

Years back, I would have said "gay and lesbian issues/rights" when I really meant "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender". It was a combination of laziness/not fully understanding/ not bothering to take the time to fully understand.

If THAT'S the case, then the White House should be made aware.

My 2 cents... good question and discussion point, Autumn.

As for marriage discussion, I tend to use the phrase "equal", as opposed to "same sex marriage" or "gay marriage"- both phrasings seem incomplete...

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:29:54 AM CDT

And when I do mention marriage equality in relationship to people...

...I've gone from saying same sex marriage to same gender marriage.

If I were to marry a woman in California at this point, it would be a legal, opposite sex marriage. But, it would be a same gender marriage.

And likewise, if I were to try to marry a man in California at this point, it would be an unlawful same sex marriage. But, it would be an opposite gender marriage.

And after I have genital reconstruction surgery in a couple of years, a same sex and a same gender marriage will legally become the same thing for me: can't marry same sex/gender in California, but can marry opposite sex/gender.

I learned the phrase same gender marriage from listening to Attorney Gloria Allred speak in San Diego -- she didn't explain her use of the term, but I "got it" as to why she using that phrase instead of same sex marriage.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:45:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

At some point, Autumn

I swear I am gonna give you a can opener, point at my forehead and say, "Fill my empty head with knowledge!"

Of course, half of it will leak out my ears...

But idiocy aside- THANK YOU. You just explained perfectly why I instinctively have leaned towards "equal marriage" as my preferred phrasing without fully understanding why it felt right to do so.

I do think there should be a "calling out"- a reminder to those who know better and an education opportunity for those who do not. These conversations could get one into a far more comfortable habit of understanding than presently exists, especially in our "leaders".

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:25:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I actually like "gender neutral marriage"

I think people just switch from same-sex marriage to same-gender marriage because they want to avoid the spectre of SEX.

I don't really see the issue here, if marriage is open to couples of the same-sex and it is open to people of the opposite-sex how does that leave out Bisexual and Transgender couples?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

---

by: Mad Professah @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:35:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry

But this is an issue where B & T have no business being mentioned, so the lack of mention is not erasure.

my guests and I discussed how marriage equality is more than just about lesbian and gay people.

Mentioning B & T only makes that more so, increasing the likelihood that T gets sucked under by the nect anti-SSM backlash.

"Marriage equality" is a synonym ACTUAL trans erasure.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:42:18 AM CDT

Not sure I understand...

I'm not even sure what you mean here.

---

by: kathygnome @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 06:29:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here is what I mean

Mentioning B & T only makes that more so, increasing the likelihood that T gets sucked under by the nect anti-SSM backlash.

As it stands, no anti-SSM measure that has passed has actually specified chromosomal sex; the states where that has come about have had it come about via judicial legislation.  The definition of marriage - whatever it may be - is not the same as the definition of sex.  Linking us to gay marriage only increases the likelihood that when - not if but when - a state with an anti-SSM constitutional amendment is called upon to interpret the meaning of its statute recognizing change of sex, the court will rule that transsexualism is just part of homosexuality, which, for purpsoes of marriage, was wiped out by the constitutional amendment.

"Marriage equality" is a synonym ACTUAL trans erasure.

This should speak for itself, but since it doesn't I'll spell it out: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Maryland.  

Spin is spin; reality is reality.

Gay marriage is all that matters in those states; we have ceased to exist as an issue.  

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 10:32:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Have you been seeing the fundraising letters coming out of...

...the FRC, AFA, FOTF, and NARTH?

Trans people are now on the religious right's radar -- whether or not the T (or the B) is(are) included in the marriage equality debate.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:03:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Their rhetoric does not equal law

It may influence passage of anti-LGBT law, but by itself it is not law.  In law, there is no such thing as a bisexual marriage or a transgender marriage.  When we use the phrase 'LGBT marriage', all we do is plant the seed in the minds of judges that anything anti-gay - like a marriage amendment - wipes out transsexual stuff along with gay stuff, irrespective of how the anti-gay thing is actually worded.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 10:35:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, They Are...

Trans activists have only themselves to thank for it too.  The association of transsexuals with the GLB movement, furthering the transsexuals-are-gay-first-and-something-else-second stereotype, essentially gay men and women who go to the extreme of GRS, has succeeded perfectly in putting us squarely in on their radar screen...and it sucks.  Many of us are straight and don't want whatever issues we might have with marriage associated with the GLB movement.

Leave transsexuals out of the same-sex/gay marriage debate!  

---

by: EnoughNonSense @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:03:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It matters becaue the majority of T are GLB a well.

It matter because although such will not overturn rulings that deny us the right to marry, for the GLB transfolk it will give them an option that they do not have.

It does jack for straight T form our perspective, but in the end, it helps straight transfolk just as much from an outside viewpoint.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 13:51:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

2 issues

I don't think that what you suspect is correct. I think that as the statement specifically addressed couplehood, it could really talk only about same-sex/opposite-sex couples (in other words gay/lesbian). The only place I've seen the combination "bisexual couple" is usually classifieds for sex. Bisexuals and transgender people end up falling into pretty much the same situations: if you are interested in someone of opposite sex (or someone the state says is of opposite sex), there are no impediments to you getting married. If, however, that someone is (or is adjudged as being) of the same same as you, then it's a question of having rights as a same-sex couple, and you're in the same boat as the L and G in LGBT.

However, I do not dismiss your concerns lightly. The shift in the national discourse from protection of LGBTs to marriage equality, may falsely create a picture of all the other rights having been achieved and of the struggle further being unnecessary. So, I understand why it would concern you. Nonetheless, I think in this instance your fears are misplaced.

---

by: avocado @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 06:27:13 AM CDT

Not for transpeople

Bisexuals and transgender people end up falling into pretty much the same situations: if you are interested in someone of opposite sex (or someone the state says is of opposite sex), there are no impediments to you getting married.

Yes, if you marry someone of the opposite gender and you're trans that's fine. However, no matter what your birth certificate has been changed to or your paperwork says, what gender you are and therefore what gender is opposite changes legally depending on what state you are in.

Only two states unconditionally recognize transgender people as their transitional gender for the purposes of marriage -- fewer than allow same sex marriage. A half dozen or so states lock you into birth gender. And for the rest, you are in legal limbo and your marriage could be declared fraudulent and void at any time by a judge. And that's how it works, even if you can get the marriage license and all that, when you actually need its protections, a court can just declare it null and void. Change states and like a "same sex" couple you are suddenly no longer married.

Given the relatively tiny political power of transgender people, our best legal vector to full marriage rights is same sex marriage where our gender ceases to be an issue.

---

by: kathygnome @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 06:58:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And Kathy...

...that's one of the reasons I bring this up. By court ruling, my legal sex and gender will never match in Kansas, Texas, and Florida, whereas my sex and gender can match in my home state of California -- but only if I buy into the concept of a completely medicalized model of transsexualism.

So am I a woman now, or a woman only after I have genital reconstructions surgery in a couple of years? Or is it like many conservative "Christians" say and I'm always my "God given gender," so I'll always be a man?

I know the answer to the questions -- I'm a woman. But, we both know that what my gender is and my legal sex is aren't necessarily the same thing. And after surgery, my sex and gender will legally match and mismatch on a state-by-state basis.


-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:58:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't have to peek

or see documentation to know you are a woman. Same as me.

Pity that isn't a recognized and accepted fact legally in every corner of our country yet. :(

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:27:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, It Is a Pity

But I have never, ever seen any discussion addressing that issue...including transsexuals in the same-sex/gay marriage, furthering the notion that transsexuals are first and foremost gay, certainly isn't the way to meet that end.

---

by: EnoughNonSense @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:52:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Root of the problem

I think that at the root of all this is the fact that there is no, and there is not likely to ever be, a universally accepted definition of sex - or gender for that matter.

And lacking this definition ANY definition of marriage that involves prerequisites of sex or gender will inherently and undeniably discriminate against transgender people.  Even if the law says marriage consists of one man and one woman, one woman and woman, or one man and one man...  I met numerous people last weekend who do not fall into the binary system and I refuse to acknowledge any law as just if it leaves those people without marriage rights.

The only just definition of marriage I can see is one without sex,gender, or sexual orientation definition of any kind... A marriage of two consenting adults...

Hugs,

Gwen

---

by: Gwen @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 13:06:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

All woman

No Question :D

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 00:21:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

true

and I am not arguing about it. But if you look at the gender, this particular issue will - as I understand it - be solved if same-sex marriage is allowed across the US. Once same-sex marriage is available across the US, it won't matter what label a particular state will force you into, because you will be able to enter marriage whether with a person of the same or opposite sex. That's what I meant.  

---

by: avocado @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:50:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting

Arizona must be one of those two states, since for the purposesof Arizona law i cannot go out and marry a woman, only a woman, despite being legally married to a woman right now.

That seems pretty unconditional.

In those states where my birth gender is what matters, well, the agency that determines it says my birth gender is female.

My marriage to a woman is in legal limbo only to the extent that I would seek to change it. Right now it is recognized at both the state and federal level.

And I don't want to be married to her (and I assure you the feeling is mutual).

So this gives me a few options:

Do nothing and pay for a divorce and expenses that I shouldn't have to pay for.

Challenge it and ruin the marriages of other transfolk who want to be married whether I win or lose.

But once I marry a man, only in one state is my marriage ever wiped out -- the rest have to deal with the authorizing agency. ANd in that one state, the untested result via precedent is that no transperson can marry.

And it would be that way even if marriage equality was instated.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 14:00:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

equality

I think trans people have certainly brought up that they were affected by marriage equality. We brought it up to another LGBT blog before CA allowed same sex marriage and it was obvious they were not comfortable with the issue. I do feel that bisexuals NOT being brought up is pretty common 'bisexual erasure'. At times there was an attitude of 'its a G&L issue' which I think is bad for alliance building when we so clearly have an overlapping interest here.
I don't think you're being overly sensitive because I think promoting an LGBT identity and community building is far more valuable in promoting equality. It's just that we still a long way to go there; but it's getting better. I am optimistic.

co-host of trans-ponder

---

by: Jaynatopia @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:33:24 AM CDT

I think it was worthwhile for you to raise the question.

My answer is pretty much in agreement with Eshto up above, but I'm still glad you raised the question.  The main reason is because I can;t remember Obama ever using the words bisexual and transgender.  I seem to recall that while campaigning, he would occasionally say something like "we have to be nice to gay and lesbian sheelpe voters people.  So I'm thinking that the press release was less about his deliberately closely fitting the language to the situation than it was about him just not having the vocabulary to begin with.  Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking he's never uttered "bacon and tomato".

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:01:30 AM CDT

Obama

I would be extremely surprised if Obama had never mentioned the word "bisexual" or the word "transgender" in his political career.  While in the State Senate of Illinois, he co-sponsored non-discrimination legislation on the basis of gender identity, and while on the campaign trail, voiced support for a "fully inclusive ENDA" - so he's familiar with the concept, at the very least.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:46:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

who cares about his entire policial career.

what matters is what he said during the interview for his present job.  we know he's said lots of things as a state senator that are not worth wiping your ass with now, like support of s-s marriage.  if you can point me to his using the words bisexual or transgender during his presidential run or tenure, i'd be willing to reassess.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 13:54:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By the way, Obama once professed support for same-sex MARRIAGE

CHICAGO - During his run for Illinois state Senate in 1996, Barack Obama stated his unequivocal support for gay marriage, according to an exclusive story in the Jan. 14, 2009 Windy City Times newspaper.

President-elect Obama's answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of the phrase "civil unions".
http://www.windycitymediagroup...

---

by: Pollyanna @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 15:34:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Which begs the question ...

Is he only "pro-civil union" because it makes good political sense?

I think that most of us here agree that the answer is yes.  Most Blenders believe that this is a bad thing, that it makes Obama guilty of something less than integrity.  It actually tickles me.

I don't know much about the inner workings of Washington, even though I live here.  But one thing I'm fairly sure of is that anyone who ascends to the office of President of the United States is insanely ambitious.  That goes for Obama, McCain, Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin (VP, but still) ... and all the rest.  They can play "I'm just reg'lar folks" all they want, but I give them credit for knowing what they're doing and the kind of power they're seeking.  And they will bend their ethics to get there.  All of 'em, every single one of 'em.  Nobody's perfect in this game; and if they are, they don't go very far.

I also fervently believe that had Obama professed support for same-gender marriage on the campaign trail, we'd now be living under the McCain-Bible Spice regime.  And I for one am happy that we are not.

In the end, I believe that we have a President who either believes that same-gender marriage should be legal - or, at the very least, knows that the Constitution allows for this and there's really no way around it.  He won't say so, but it's inside him.  And that's not ideal, but it's a fair shade better than electing John McCain to lead the free world.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 07:11:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, Pres. Obama has uttered the word "transgendered" and his campaign endorse ENDA with gender identity...

As we highlighted during the election season here at The Blend. Here are the statements we picked up during the primary process:

Statement:

Sen. Barack Obama co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Act (federal anti-hate crimes law) and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. When asked if he supports transgender inclusion, Obama said, "Absolutely. The transgendered community has to be protected. I just don't have any tolerance for that sort of intolerance. And I think we need to legislate aggressively to protect them."

Campaign's statements on ENDA/hate crimes/civil rights for transgender people:

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes
In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported. Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes law to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Fight Workplace Discrimination and Promote Rights
Obama believes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Obama sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

News reports on civil rights for LGBT people:

ENDA: Supports ENDA; sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate which would have banned sexual orientation discrimination in employment.

Transgender Issues: Supported inclusion of gender identity in hate crimes and employment legislation. Though he has recently avoided the transgender issue in his gay position paper, he told a gay reporter in 2004: "The transgendered community has to be protected. I just don't have any tolerance for that sort of intolerance. And I think we need to legislate aggressively to protect them."

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 22:26:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow, grammar in my comment "headline" above sucks. :|

Can you tell I'm a little tired tonight after a long day driving to and from L.A. from San Diego? The comment "headline" should have read:

Actually, Pres. Obama has uttered the word "transgendered" previously, and his campaign endorsed ENDA to include "gender identity"...

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 22:30:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you Autumn

As a bisexual person, it seems crazy to me that I CAN legally marry a person of the "opposite" sex/gender, but cannot marry someone of the same sex/gender (or a trans person who my home state classifies as "same gender").

---

by: Lrayn @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:52:04 AM CDT

You're so very welcome.

Obviously, we both believe terminology inclusion matters. :)

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 22:31:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've perceived some resentment...

...within trans communities about the emergence of same-sex marriage as a (the?) major focus of LGBT political activity.  So I've probably used language just like the White House statement, not to exclude, but if anything, to avoid being presumptuous about attributing my belief in the importance of marriage rights to trans people.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 12:26:18 PM CDT

The mainstream "gay rights" crowd

doesn't even push for equality for the "LG" side to be included in Obama's policies -- so I can't say I'm surprised.

---

by: M @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 12:27:06 PM CDT

I think that this is splitting hairs a bit

From a legal stand point as it pertains to marriage, bisexual and transgender people fit within the dichotomy of gay/straight. Technically a post op transexual can already get married to a member of the opposite gender...once they are legally classified as a man or woman. As far as marriage law is concerned, once gays and lesbians can get married, it would, by default include bi/trans folks just as the current law technically applies to them as well.

The issue is ultimately about the ability of people of the same gender to enter into a marriage contract. The law does not recognize transgender as unique. It automatically puts you into male or female which in turn makes your relationship either gay or straight.

This discussion is academic more than anything else because the law will always try to boil situations down to a simple binary for the sake of simplicity.

Another situation is intersexed people. They may have aspects of both genders, but the law will simply say choose one and then we'll work from there.

It is actually for the best that the law is this general. It ensures that the widest group of people will be included and not limit it to any one group. Just as the civil rights laws were focused on justice for black Americans. Most civil rights law was not written with the term "black or negro" included. Thus civil rights legislation implicitly covered all ethnic minorities.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 12:36:41 PM CDT

I agree with your bottom line but not your logic

Sure, transgender people are able to obtain marriage licenses and marry - if the state they are in at the time happens to like their sex configuration at that time.  I did it myself once... but as for the courts upholding the validity of those marriages it's truly a crap-shoot at best and brutally unfair at worst.  Then of course there's the whole valid-in-this-state-but-not-in-the-next-4-states-thing no matter what your status is.

You said : "The issue is ultimately about the ability of people of the same gender to enter into a marriage contract. The law does not recognize transgender as unique. It automatically puts you into male or female which in turn makes your relationship either gay or straight."

I am a post-op trans woman.  My birth certificate says I was born female and in many states I am legally recognized as such.  But as far as the state of Texas, Ohio (where I lived for many years), and numerous other states are concerned I am male despite my female body.  Do you truly believe that's right?

And as for the binary system and dealing with intersexed people... This isn't just about "same gender" or "same sex" marriage.  Surely you don't believe the courts are best suited to "sex" those people because they know best?  That just scares the crap out of me.

I do completely agree with you that what we need is marriage laws that contain no gender, sex, or sexual orientation requirements.  I also believe that we must legally recognize the fact that gender/sex is not a binary system and must be legally treated as the continuum it truly is.

Peace,

Gwen

---

by: Gwen @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 13:30:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your issue...

Is more about the universal application of the law than anything else. If same sex marriage were legalized nationwide, it would not matter if the person were trangender or not. As far as the law is concerned, it would not matter which you identified with since either way your marriage would be recognized.

I also did not say that the courts should "sex" anyone. What I said was that as far as the law is concerned with regard to marriage, it would not matter which you identified with. Once same sex marriage is legal, the law would not have much else to say on the issue since one way or the other your relationship would fit the criteria for marriage. This logic only applies to marriage because gender would by default be irrelevant.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 13:44:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

honestly

My issue is more about the fact that laws are written with carefully chosen words that attempt to craft a very specific interpretation and application.  And any definition of marriage that has any limitations based on sex, gender, or sexual orientation will unfairly discriminate against someone.

By the way I hope I didn't come across as hostile.  I don't mean to.  I just have very strong feelings on these issues, as I know we all do.

Also I didn't really mean to imply that you actually thought the courts should "sex" anyone.  Though I think many people are probably happy with that... disturbing.

Hugs,

Gwen
 

---

by: Gwen @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 13:56:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Isn't that why the issue is called Marriage Equality?

At least most organizations I've been working with use the term Marriage Equality and do not use the term same sex marriage.  The goal was, and should be, marriage equality rights for all.  If marriage between people of the same gender is allowed then trans folks would have no more issues than gay and lesbian folks when it comes to crossing state lines, in fact they would have it better, as pointed out in this conversation on this blog.  If many states allow you to change your natal sex to something different than it was at the "natal time" then those who have changed it can marry in more states than the L and G.  Also, if Same-Sex marriage is passed, then that would include trans folks as they could marry anyone they choose to regardless of natal sex or cis identity.

Opposites can already marry so the issue is if two people of the same sex, regardless of what it was and now is, would then be able to marry.  I think that the issue really is so that people can marry whom they choose.  Trans folks would be able to marry whom they wish regardless.  I think that is why the issue is only the L and the G.  T's and B's would be covered all the way round if the L and G gets marriage rights.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 14:52:20 PM CDT

It really is a job of the national orgs, isn't it?

When the majority of press releases don't use inclusive language, how can we expect the administration to? But that was the fact on Friday; national LG(BT) groups issued non-inclusive statements on Iowa.

This happens all of the time. How can you expect the media, the politicians, even gays & lesbians to use inclusive language or even understand how harmful it is when many of our civil rights organizations do the same thing?

I guess its why I only give to groups that include me, as a major factor in giving should always be self-interest.

---

by: johnlclark @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 19:07:33 PM CDT

@ Eshto

You said, '...because frankly "where does it end" has never, ever been a logical justification for... well anything.'
Where else do we feel the need to list all the ingredients of a thing when speaking of the thing?
For example, I can say 'the United States', I don't have to call it "AAAACCCDFGHIIIIKKLMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNOOOPRSSTTUVVWWWW,' even though that's the first letter of each state.
That would be quite inconvenient.
You also wouldn't ask someone to bring you back a 'sugar, milk, cocoa butter, chocolate, soya lecithin, vanillin, rice flour, salt, malt, and ground almonds,' you'd just ask for a 'candy bar'.

"Those of us who succeed in life are those who think they can." - Barb James

---

by: Terry In Iowa @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 23:18:11 PM CDT

Thank you

Autumn,
I have to run, and I will have to come back to leave a longer comment later - and/or to respond to some of the other comments on here, some of which are really frustrating to me - but I wanted to make sure I left a comment on here as soon as I read this. Thank you so much for this post. Also, bacon & tomato made me smile.

---

by: Bi Avenger @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 16:57:05 PM CDT