I met Evan Wolfson at the Netroots Nation convention. If you don't know, Evan is the guy fighting for gay people to be included in marriage. He's been doing this since at least 1983 when he wrote in favor of inclusion of gay people in marriage, and in 1992 when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for gays to be excluded from marriage.
One of the things he repeated on his panel was a plea to stop referring to the marriage issue as "gay marriage" or even "marriage equality." He said we don't want a "gay" marriage. He said we don't want an equal form of marriage. We only want to be included in institutions which already exist and are a huge part of American society.
He has a good point and it carries over into other facets of the progression we are trying to attain here. We're still, in 2010, excluded from military service in this country if we want to do what's called "serving openly." That in itself is an offensive term and an excuse to prolong bigotry. We can either serve or not serve. If we serve we deserve to do it with the same amount of openness anyone else would get. There is no "serving openly black" or "serving openly female." They just get to serve, so why not us?
Here, in 2010, we still aren't allowed to have jobs without the fear of being fired for being LGBT. We can still be summarily gotten rid of just for that reason. We have to make a choice, here in 2010, whether we want to let anyone with whom we work know that we are LGBT. We risk offensive treatment, stereotyping and we risk someone making an example of us - firing one person who is gay will send a chilling message to anyone who's employed with them or wishes to be. It says "stay quiet."
Even now we still don't have any way to make the process of becoming an American citizen easier on LGBT people such that one partner is not stuck in another country, preventing the couple from seeing or hearing from each other often. These rules apply to everyone else. The military rules apply to everyone else. Marriage applies to everyone else.
There is an obvious reason these laws and practices are the way they are: they want to dissuade homosexual behavior. They want to stigmatize us. That is not an unfortunate consequence of these laws. That's the motivation of the laws. The thing I think is important and is a huge reason everything is changing for LGBT rights is this: homosexual behavior has turned into "gay couples." It's now husbands, wives, and it's gay people. It's no longer a type of behavior anyone engages in but it is an innate part of our being. And as that becomes more and more well understood, laws need to adapt. This is not us asking for special rights or new laws or even asking for the constitution to be changed for us.
When I first read the Supreme Court decision Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez, I noticed something was different about the language of the majority opinion. I couldn't put my finger on it but it seemed more inclusive; it seemed to give gay people some humanity. Later, of course, someone more astute than I am noticed the line in the opinion in which Justice Ginsburg said that they are not distinguishing between homosexual behavior and gay people - it is the same. Even in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas there was only one justice willing to say that and it was a given in the CLS decision, even by this Supreme Court.
Things are changing but not nearly enough when you put it in perspective. It is 2010. Congress and the President are treating everything as if it's 1994 all over again, both in terms of the upcoming election and in the evolution of the American people's views. They haven't moved on any big legislation yet and the prospects are dimmer. As I asked exmearden, a DailyKos featured writer at the conference, why haven't they gotten scared enough about the upcoming election to do anything on our issues? I told her that the way I see it is: they didn't do anything in 2006 when we first got majorities. They didn't do anything in 2007 before the election in which we could have lost our majority. Short lived majorities do happen. They didn't do anything in 2008 when we won the presidency and a 60 vote majority. They didn't do anything when Senator Kennedy passed away. They should have been scared by that. They didn't do anything while Senator Byrd was very sick. They didn't do anything after we lost Kennedy's seat. They didn't do anything when Byrd passed away. And they're not doing anything before this election in which we're expected to lose more seats. So, when?
I also met (former Lieutenant) Dan Choi, one of my personal heroes, at the conference. We talked a lot about what inspires me to be active on these issues, even the ones which won't affect me directly, and it's the stigma. It's the point that military service, marriage and employment are such a basic part of American life. You simply cannot consider yourself a true member of American society if there are laws preventing you from participating in such ingrained things as military service. But we are Americans and we are full citizens whether people like it or not. Take Dan as a perfect example: he joined the military, fights for our country and our freedom every day. He's at risk of dying for us. He's an Arabic linguist who was fired (recently discharged actually) for being gay. Because, you see, not only did this man risk his life and limbs serving for us, but then he risked his own personal safety and his career, which he clearly loves, to speak out about the unfair and unjust policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Dan Choi is an Arabic linguist who could likely, it's no exaggeration to say, prevent the next 9/11, yet he's no longer employed by the government because they don't think a gay man is fit to serve. How fair is that? How just is that? Dan Choi is an American hero and he is a full member of society. He has done more for this country than even most of our elected officials. He deserves to be treated like a full fledged citizen and he deserves to be given respect by our government for everything he has done for Americans. And how do they repay him? They discharge him. And this is even the supposed "more humane approach" they promised last year. If this is humane I'd hate to see what it was like before.
We are not keeping up with the changing times. We are not acting like it is 2010. When gay people can't get jobs, serve the country or get married, this is not progress. And keep in mind, again, that stigmatization is the goal of these things, not some unwanted effect. This is not enough of an improvement. When someone like Dan has to go through so much pain because the government does not approve of something innate about Dan (but they seem to love the part where he can prevent terrorist attacks) this isn't something I will keep quiet about. We've come so far and we're ready for more.