Re-Fighting Amendment 1 in NC

Tammi Fitzgerald of NC, who fought for Amendment 1, is wrong: the "one man, one woman" vote is going to go down, and the amended constitution of NC will change because of the Supreme Court of the US's decision re: DOMA.  Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy argued against DOMA because it put one kind of marriage as more "moral" than another.

Now the ACLU is fighting for marriage equality in NC, and our friends Marcie and Chantelle Fisher-Borne are in the thick of it as two of the six plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Go here for more information: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/09/3019207/aclu-moves-to-challenge-nc-gay.html

Things are changing quickly.

Brett

Next states for marriage equality

According to queerty.com, the bet is on Hawaii, NJ, IL and OR for marriage equality.  Currently, 30% of the country celebrates and recognizes marriage equality. Meanwhile, NC is going deeper into the 1950s.

Here's the link to queerty.com: http://www.queerty.com/picking-the-states-where-marriage-equality-will-happen-next-20130710/

The Big Mo

From my column in Q Notes:
I am writing this column on Thursday, June 20, 2013. I was going to write about the Supreme Court of the U.S. coming down on the side of justice in terms of throwing both California’s Prop 8 and DOMA to the dustbin of history. Alas, the Supreme Court did not come out with a ruling today. By the time this this column is published, the nine in their black robes will invariably have changed the lay of the cultural landscape until the next set of judicial rulings and new laws are enacted within the country. Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, it is evident that we who are LGBTQIA have what is called “the Big Mo” with us. “The Big Mo” was an expression from the 1960s, used as a way to explain how a sports team had the momentum in a game that would invariably take them over the finishing line, the final goal, the last basket in the game, the ending homerun. Borrowing from the sports teams, the “Big Mo” may also be used as a way of describing a change in a politician’s campaign, a way of describing economic recovery, or highlighting social transformation.
Almost regardless of what the Supreme Court of the U.S. decides, the die has been cast in terms of modern societies making significant moves in going beyond welcoming to including LGBTQ individuals, couples, and families as part of the fabric of the public square. For example, on a recent trip to Scotland and England, I delighted watching same-sex couples holding hands along the city streets of Edinburgh and London, with no one turning around and noticing such a personal display of affection. For fun, I went into a kilt shop — Howie Nicholsby’s 21st Century Kilts — to get fitted for a kilt if and when I ever get married. I met Howie — a kilt maker extraordinaire — inside the shop to take my measurements for a denim kilt with a fringe on the side with the colors from the Ferguson tartan (my mom’s side of the family).Howie didn’t bat an eye about the purpose of the kilt and regaled me with other stories of gay men who had come in to get kilts for their weddings.

More here: http://goqnotes.com/23811/the-big-mo/

Vladimir Putin Really Doesn't Like Us, or Get Us!

Russia's Vladimir Putin really does not feel the "love" of the LGBTQ community.  He has recently signed a law that, well, outlaws a chance for LGBTQ individuals or couples from adopting children from Russia.  It isn't because there are suddenly a lot of homes in Russia for orphans. It is simply because he, and the legislators don't like us, trust us, or want us to be parents...even though every social study shows we're really quite good at it.  For more information, click here:
http://www.advocate.com/news/world-news/2013/07/03/putin-signs-adoption-ban-gay-foreign-couples

Something New

Dear Readers,

Happy (almost) Fourth of July!

I'm working with Nathan at Rings of Equality to boost the exposure of Onbeingagayparent.blogspot.com.  For example, you will see the new logo on the right hand corner of the site; the new description of the site (focused on faith, family, and LGBTQ issues), and will see more opportunities for other people to add on their blog entries on this site.  In other words, I hope this site becomes more of a community venture rather than Brett posting his thoughts and ideas and comments about this or that.

I'll also be posting more about our families, faith, and culture in the coming months and hopefully years from blogging with Huffingtonpost.com.


 More to come!

Best,

Brett

p.s., if you like the logo, I'm about to make some t-shirts with this design. $20 per shirt! 

Redefining Family Membership: How YMCAs and Other Clubs Discriminate Against Our LGBTQ Families

Recently, the local YMCA—of which I am a member—has been considering merging with another larger YMCA in the area. One of the stumbling blocks in the talks about merging has been the “family membership”.  Why “family membership”? Because many “family memberships,” which offer a great discount to a family, who are usually strapped for money, have determined that a “family” is one man and one woman, with no variation. I was surprised that there were no other options for my family of two men and children. “Name of wife/mother” and “Name of husband/father” were the only blanks offered on the form. After a series of discussions over a period of months, the YMCAs reached a compromise, simply putting the words “Parent” where gender language was used before.

            My family is not the only one confronted by this legal form of discrimination. The “Hands On Children’s Museum” in Jacksonville, FL used a similar form that specified that a family was one mom and one dad.  There was no space for “partner,” “moms” or “dads,” let alone a place for aunts, uncles, grandparents, or godparents.  If the one mom included the other same sex partner as a “friend” there was an additional cost to the family membership.

            YMCAs and the “Hands on Children’s Museum” are not the only ones with this practice of specifying that family include one man and one woman.  It usually isn’t until we start joining groups and organizations that offer family membership that we discover whether or not our families are considered a “family.” Slowly, but surely, we will change the small and large obstacles that stop us from our same sex parents being accepted as one of the models for being qualified as a “family membership.”

When a House is Not a Home: Housing Discrimination among LGBTQ Families

One of the keys to keeping a balanced life is knowing where your home is.  This is especially true in the middle of days of our life when there is angst and a general sense of unsettledness. For my children, in the middle of their mom and I separating and divorcing, the children suddenly were welcome to two homes, one where their mom lived, and one where I lived with my partners. What was key throughout my years of parenting my young children was making sure that they knew they had a home, a bed, that was safe, warm, and comfortable, where they were loved.  This meant that we worked on making a house a home, which is easier said than done.  But with grit, determination, and practicing love against all kinds of odds, I think we were successful.

            Our family is not like all other families. The U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development recently released a study finding that same couples have a difficult time discovering a place to rent together than do opposite couples.  In the study “An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples,” 7000 inquiries were made in fifty cities across the country from June-October 2011. Two inquiries were sent to one rental unit, with the only difference being the messages as to if the couple was a same-sex or opposite sex couple. The results? Opposite sex couples were favored over gay male couples 15.9% of the time, and over lesbian female couples 15.6% of the time. What was even more amazing was that there was more discrimination where it is prohibited by law than those places not protected by such laws under the Fair Housing Act (see Alejandro Lazo, Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2013).

            In a country that is pushing forward with marriage equality, with more same sex parents and children coming out of their closets in this country, this housing study is illustrative of the work still to be done.  While there are laws in some states that protect those of us who are same sex parents, it is obvious that we are still being discriminated against in housing, in employment opportunities, and in our opportunities to simply wed one another or be in civil union. The struggle continues until all parents—same sex and opposite sex parents alike, and our children—have the right to seek and obtain affordable housing and not being turned away from it simply because of who one loves.  After all, what parents are trying to do is locate that special house that will soon become home for a special family.