Equal Writes

From Bloomberg:

The Obama administration must immediately end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on gays serving in the armed forces, a federal appeals court said.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a group that promotes equal rights for gays and lesbians, asked a U.S. appeals court to block further enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” while the court reviews a September lower court ruling that declared the law unconstitutional. The San Francisco-based appeals court today granted the organization’s request.

“As of today, the government is prohibited from applying or enforcing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ — the law is over and done with,” Dan Woods, a lawyer representing the Log Cabin Republicans said in an interview. “All investigations must stop, all discharge proceedings must halt immediately,” he said.

More here.

It’s been a great week for the gay rights movement. Last Friday, lawmakers legalized same-sex marriage in the state of New York, and now, it appears that Joshua Vandiver, a Princeton grad student in the Department of Politics, will not be separated from his Venezuelan husband, Henry Velandia.

Even though the couple were legally married in Connecticut, Velandia’s expired visa targeted him for deportation because the Defense of Marriage Act prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriage. A year long struggle ensued and has finally concluded. According to NJ.com:

It was a historic victory, according to the couple and their lawyer, Lavi Soloway, who said it was the first time immigration officials had made a decision to not deport the spouse of a gay or lesbian American on the basis of their marriage.

We’re so happy for this couple and hope that their moving story foreshadows DOMA’s demise. Although the fight for federal recognition of same-sex marriage is still underway, Soloway says it best: ”This action shows that the government has not only the power but the inclination to do the right thing when it comes to protecting certain vulnerable populations from deportation.”

by David Walters

If you haven’t heard the news by now, Tracy Morgan has come under fire for some serious homophobic remarks made at a stand-up performance about a week ago. (No recording has surfaced, but you can read an audience member’s account here.) The rant included a wide array of insensitive assertions, including the idea that being gay is a choice and that Obama should stop defending bullied youth. But at the end, when reflecting on what might happen if what he had just said upset gays, Tracy said “if they can take a f***ing d*ck up their *ss, they can take a f***ing joke.”

Yes, Tracy. I can take a joke. Unfortunately for you, what you’ve said is no laughing matter.

I (a gay Jamaican) spent my junior year in a quad with an Asian, half-African, and a Jew. Not a day passed without inappropriate reference to dreidels, wantons, or coconuts. But it all came from a place of love: we all recognized how ridiculous stereotypes and the negative sentiments that come from them are. Tracy’s “jokes” lacked that awareness. In fact, they were the well thought-out and earnest ideas that have led gay people to resent their very existence since time immemorial. What’s worse, as the above quote shows, the statements lacked the tone that makes a joke a joke. There was no “lol jk,” no “gotcha!” Quite the opposite… just an unapologetic “take a f***ing joke.”

Until we actually got an apology. A few days of reflection (and probably sobriety) later, Morgan has apologized. One of the jokes Morgan made was that if his son was gay he better “talk like a man” or else he’d stab the boy. In a later interview on the incident, Morgan says that if his son were gay he’d “love him just as much as if he was straight.”

Yes Tracy, you’d love your son if he was gay. That’s because you’d realize that he’s a person and that when you crack insensitive jokes about “gay people” you are talking about people just like him. You’d also understand why, given what you’ve said, I’m hesitant to just let the whole thing go. I don’t hold vendettas and I sincerely appreciate the apology, but I’m going to withhold my forgiveness and viewership until it’s clear that Morgan’s made some effort to undo the damage he and those who put forth such opinions are responsible for.

image from Wikimedia Commons

by David Walters

Recently, feminists and religious rights champions have given a lot of attention to FIFA’s ban on the Iranian women’s team. FIFA banned the team from an Olympic qualifying match against Jordan after they appeared wearing tracksuits and hijab, a head-scarf that covers the hair, ears and neck–attire that goes against FIFA regulations. Strong words have been thrown around and FIFA has come under fire for being intolerant, Islamophobic, and unreasonably strict. But many of these accusations are, I argue, hasty and lacking in context.

First of all, the full-body covering the players were wearing aren’t necessarily those regulations put forward by the Qur’an. While there are different stipulations for men and women’s dress in the Qur’an, the specific outfit the women would like to wear are required only on a very restrictive interpretation of the Qur’an. Many devout Muslim women feel no need to wear the garb. What’s more, the requirement isn’t necessarily the result of the players personal religious beliefs, but is the imposed rule by the Iranian government. In this light, FIFA’s ruling is not a blanket assertion against Muslims or their religious views, but rather a conflict that comes from one country’s strict rules combined with FIFA’s desire to maintain fairness and order.

One might ask, “What could possibly go that awry if FIFA allowed the women to dress as they feel they need to (or as their country feels they need to)? Soccer is hardly the right arena for ideological statements.” Well, unlike in America, soccer is highly politicized in some countries. Players refuse to play in defiance of their government or even the public they represent. Thus, FIFA has good reason to fear that allowing the Iranian team to wear the hijab and tracksuits will open the door for other players to try and make their own religious, cultural, or political statements. Especially since the outfit is different from what is specifically outlined in the Qur’an, widespread subjective interpretation of the rules is a big potential problem.

Continue reading →