The Gay Agenda

Jaan Williams, who was a huge part of the No on 8 campaign, recently posted what you might call The Gay Agenda (or actually the GLBT agenda) on Twitter. Rather than retweet it (since it's several tweets long) I thought I would re-post it here. So here it is.

Marriage equality is great; it's just not the be all end all of our rights. We still need employment protections, hate crimes protections. We need to repeal adoption bans, work for second parent adoptions. We need anti-bullying laws, we need protection from discrimination in accommodations and housing, we need healthcare reform and educated providers. We need immigration rights (w/other CIR), a repeal of DADT, repeal of DOMA. We need a repeal of the APA's definition of gender identity. We need reform in the way identity documents are used, created and maintained. We need to stop no-match letters coming from social security. We need better education and prevention on same sex/queer partner abuse. We need awareness and education for EMS staff about trans people. We need more AIDS prevention/living w/AIDS programs in general and in communities of color. We need broader recognition of all family structures. I could go on and that is the point. I care passionately about the right to marry. I spent 6 months working on the No on 8 campaign. We can just not believe for 1 minute, regardless of what happens on Tuesday, that marriage is our only fight and that it is only in California.

Plans for summer

Just wanted to take a second and lay out some plans for the summer before I start my internship on Tuesday. Whether I actually stick to all of these, well, we'll see.

• Get feedback. In my last two internships I didn't ask for feedback very often. I guess that's probably more typical for the real world, but what I'm used to is school where every single assignment has a grade associated with it, so you know exactly what you did right, what you did wrong, and how to improve for the next assignment. So this time, I want to try to check in with someone as often as possible, to get some feedback. This is my only internship-related plan so far. I'll probably add more once I get there.
  
• Read some books. Like a lot of people, I don't read enough. I mean, I read a lot of blogs and websites and stuff, but that doesn't really count. So I'm going to try to read some actual books this summer. Probably starting with the one Andy gave me that I never got through.
• Continue the conversation. A few weeks ago, I tried to start a conversation with the handful of people I know who voted yes on prop 8. It went well, but I didn't have enough time to devote to the conversation. Regardless of the decision this Tuesday, I want to continue to talk to them, understand their reservations about same-sex marriage, and debunk any misunderstandings they have about the situation.
• Do some coding. Of course I'll probably be doing a bunch of coding at my internship, but if I have time, I'd like to do some little project of my own as well. I don't know what it would be... just something fun. Maybe learn a new obscure language.
• Fun stuff. Besides hanging out with band people at orientation gigs, I'll probably try to spend some time at the beach, in West Hollywood, and of course Catalina and Lake Tahoe. This is my last summer before graduation so it has to be fun!
  

How to Repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

I've been reading the new study that just came out from the Palm Center at UCSB, entitled How to Repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell".

What many people probably believe, and what I believed until recently, is that since DADT was created by Congress, it would take an act of Congress to eliminate it. Such an act already exists, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, first introduced in 2005, although I think the Let the Gays Serve Their Country If They Want To, For God's Sake. Don't You Know We're At War Right Now?! Act might be a more appropriate name. In any case, as the study points out, many people in Congress don't want to do anything without consulting with military leaders first. Military leaders don't necessarily want to do anything either. Obama wants to do something but knows that it might be unpopular with many people. Basically, everyone is waiting for someone else to act.

But what I didn't realize until just now, is that Obama can effectively stop this ridiculous policy immediately if he wants to. He can tell the military to stop investigating whether people are gay. (In the recent case of Lt. Dan Choi, there wasn't much of an "investigation" -- he came out willingly on national television). This might be somewhat unpopular because it could come across as circumventing the laws that Congress has created, instead of getting them repealed via the appropriate channels.

But there is something else he can do, even for Lt. Choi, and the thousands of other soldiers who are already known to the military to be gay. According to a law passed after the Vietnam War, "the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States." (pg. 11 of the study) Typically, this is used to force people to stay on duty after their normal term of service ends. (The "stop loss" policy.) In this case, it would be used to keep someone in the military who actually wants to serve. This doesn't provide a long-term solution, but maybe after a few months of gays serving openly, if the sky doesn't fall and the world doesn't end, Congress will understand that this is the right thing to do.

Hm, wasn't I thinking almost this exact thought, a few months ago? Oh, right. "Now that gay couples actually have gotten married in this very state," I said, "surely people will see that these marriages had no effect on them, and will live and let live." Ugh.

Personally, I think it would be better if the change comes from Congress, but it's clear that the president needs to act quickly and assertively, either to get the Congress to step up, or to simply make it happen directly. Otherwise, we'll be stuck with this same dangerous, stupid, offensive policy for years and years. He needs to just be the guy that goes, "Okay. This is what we're doing."

Lt. Choi's new organization, Knights Out is asking everyone to call the White House today and "flood the switchboards" to ask the President to repeal this law. They offer a sample script but if you can just speak honestly about your opinion of this policy, I think that would send a stronger message. If you've read this far, I'd say you're probably well-informed enough to do that. 202-456-1111. Please call and express your support for ending this ban. This is not a "gay issue," this is a "let's treat everyone equally" issue.

I'll finish up this post with a quick quote I found in the study, and to keep this blog from getting too serious, a video from The Onion.

“Equal and just treatment of all personnel exerts direct and favorable influence on morale, discipline, and command authority. Since these key factors contribute to mission effectiveness, efforts to ensure equal treatment are directly related to the primary mission.”
(Department of the Army. (1973). Improving race relations in the Army: Handbook for leaders. Washington, DC (Pamphlet Number 600-16), page 2.


'Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat,' Says General

Teach For America

A recruiter from Teach For America emailed me and a few other students, saying that she was "reaching out to us based on our achievement at USC and our roles as SI Leaders." The recruitment director for the program wants to come and talk to us on campus next week. Woo! Anyway, I started reading a little bit more about it, and it turns out there's this whole collection of blogs from current TFA corps members. After reading several of their posts, here's what I've learned:

1. Teaching is hard.
2. No really. Teaching is very, very hard.
3. Occasionally, teaching is extremely rewarding.
4. See numbers 1 and 2.
   

I still think I want to learn more about the program and probably apply for it. And maybe even be a teacher permanently. Maybe.

USC Ally Discussion: Pro-Gay Marriage and Anti-Homophobia Intervention Strategies

I went to this event today. Here's the full description:

Ally Discussion: Pro-Gay Marriage and Anti-Homophobia Intervention Strategies
Featuring Jade Agua, Assistant Director for Asian Pacific American Student Services and Rev. Jim Burklo, Associate Dean for Religious Life
12- 1 pm
WPH 403
On the day the California Supreme court begins to hear arguments about Propostion 8, USC Allies will learn intervention strategies on how to combat homophobia and also advocate for marriage equality. Some topics to be discussed how to use religion in favor of gay marriage and how to start these conversations with our friends and family.

Basically we just talked about the different anti-gay arguments that tend to come up a lot, particularly those that were used during the prop 8 campaign, and the best ways to combat them. I took some notes along the way, so I just wanted to post some scattered thoughts and good quotes.

• The first thing Jim talked about was how his own homophobia was cured over the course of about 20 minutes, as a result of a close friend coming out to him. It's important to represent ourselves and the gay community as real people so that people can't think of us as "those people up in the Castro"--we're just people like everyone else. Later on, someone mentioned that people associate homosexual couples with sex. They see gay families as an environment where innocent children are surrounded by sex all the time. Seems to me, the solution is probably to make gays seem like ordinary people.
  
• When he was growing up, gay rights was a nonissue, in the sense that it wasn't something people thought about or talked about at all. Sometime soon, it will be a nonissue, in that nearly everyone will just agree that same-sex marriage is okay.
• He believes that the people and the churches will lead this movement. (Obviously not all churches, but some of the more "progressive" ones.) Then the law will follow. This goes against the feeling I had recently, "There's no point in us fighting much more right now. It's the court's move at this point." That was largely an excuse I made to myself anyway, because I was sick of doing campaign work.
• Jim moved on to talking about the Bible. The type of same-sex relationships we're talking about (committed, monogamous) are never mentioned in the Bible. Jesus himself didn't mention homosexuality at all. He does, however, have something to say about divorce. In any case, progressive Christians are not required to believe everything the Bible says.
• Jim and Jade did a little role-play, Jade playing a yes-on-8 voter who is uncomfortable going against the Catholic Church. Jim reminds her that even the Catholic church admits that you must listen to your conscience--the voice of God within you--when it is in conflict with the Church.
• He also emphasizes religious freedom. No one wants there to be an official religion of the state. One of the students in attendance (who was half of an adorable gay couple) points out that this argument must be approached very carefully, because the yes voters want their children to be "free from having the beliefs of others forced upon them." A great point about that: Teaching kids about something is not the same as teaching them that it is good or they should do it.
  
• There are a lot of sins in Leviticus that no one would ever seriously suggest we legislate against. I didn't catch the title, but there's a book about someone who tried to follow Leviticus literally for one year. Supposed to be very funny.
• More on the Bible: St. Paul condemns homosexual relationships. But he also condemns heterosexual relationships, advises everyone not to have sex at all, unless absolutely necessary. He's also completely opposed to marriage and family life. (If I understood correctly, reproduction isn't necessary because the second coming of Jesus is only a few years away.)
  
• The slippery slope argument: If we let gays get married, how do we know this won't open the door to pedophilia, incest, etc. The key is to point out that we're talking about consenting adults. Children and animals are not in that category. Also, remind people that those are completely separate, unrelated issues.
  
• Jade: "The traditional family is a myth. Somebody made it up in the 50's and they've been promoting it on TV ever since."
• This is important: According to some study, people don't vote for rational reasons. Their votes are usually based on emotional reasons. This of course goes back to the common complaint that the no on 8 campaign should have used actual images of gay couples. But with that in mind, what are the appeals to emotion that we can make? The suicide rate among GLBT kids is still relatively high. Not that we can change that overnight, but the way the government/society treats them might have something to do with it.
• http://www.soulforce.org/ is a resource for gay Christians. Jim described it as "PFLAG for evangelicals"
• Rick Warren is slowly beginning to change his stance. He's removed all the anti-gay language from his website and invited Melissa Etheridge to speak at his church. This was news to me!
• I think the most annoying argument I hear is that prop 8 is the "will of the people." Democracy is not the same as majority rule. There's a reason we have courts and a Constitution.
• Jade recommends talking to the yes voters you know, and who may be persuadable, not worrying about the far "right wing" people.
  

If you have friends who voted yes, and you probably do, talk to them. It's not easy, but it's necessary. No matter what happens 90 days from now, we should continue to fight, and dispell the myths from the campaign that many people still believe.

easy-to-use!

I'm beginning to think that Python being really easy to use is not a wholly positive feature. In a language where refactoring your code takes a long time, you're more likely to stop and think before you write something, like you're supposed to do. That's all for now.

Sierpinski Triangle

I've been playing around with Scheme (a dialect of Lisp (a weird language that I can't really describe)) by watching these videos and kind of just playing around. Today, I got a working Sierpinski triangle program. It's not particularly elegant, but it could be worse.

What's the best way to auto-convert spaces to non-breaking spaces?

; Draw a sierpinski triangle

; Get all six coords of vertices of equilateral triangle
; with tip at (x1, y1) and side length 'side'
(define (triangle x1 y1 side)
(let ((x2 (- x1 (/ side 2)))
(x3 (+ x1 (/ side 2)))
(y2 (- y1 (/ (* (sqrt 3) side) 2)))
(y3 (- y1 (/ (* (sqrt 3) side) 2))))
(list x1 y1 x2 y2 x3 y3)))

(define (draw-triangle g x1 y1 side)
(let ((tri (triangle x1 y1 side)))
(graphics-draw-line g (first tri)
(second tri)
(third tri)
(fourth tri))
(graphics-draw-line g (first tri)
(second tri)
(fifth tri)
(sixth tri))
(graphics-draw-line g (third tri)
(fourth tri)
(fifth tri)
(sixth tri))))

; Level-zero Sierpinski triangle is just a triangle
; Level-n triangle is three copies of level (n-1) triangle
(define (sier g n x1 y1 side)
(if (= n 0)
(draw-triangle g x1 y1 side)
(let ((tri (triangle x1 y1 (/ side 2))))
(sier g (- n 1) (first tri) (second tri) (/ side 2))
(sier g (- n 1) (third tri) (fourth tri) (/ side 2))
(sier g (- n 1) (fifth tri) (sixth tri) (/ side 2)))))

(define (new-sier g n x1 y1 side)
(graphics-clear g)
(sier g n x1 y1 side))

(define g (make-graphics-device 'win32 1000 1000))

;Call it like this:
(define side 2)
(new-sier g 6 0 (/ (* side (sqrt 3)) 4) side)


Note to Obama

I realize that Obama himself is unlikely to actually read this, but I'm submitting it on the change.gov website and I'd like to think that maybe some intern or assistant somewhere might read it and, you know, take a note. Hopefully it does some small part to counteract all the letters they're getting from the "EQCA Action Center."

I worked very hard during the summer and fall of last year for a political campaign--something I had never done before because no person or issue had motivated me. And no, sorry, it was not the Obama/Biden campaign. While I was quite happy to see you win the election, my efforts focused on trying to defeat California's Proposition 8. I appreciated both Obama's and Biden's opposition to that proposition, and I am very disappointed that it passed, not just for the thousands of devoted same-sex couples statewide, but because I might like to get married myself one day.

A few weeks ago, I got an email from Equality California, asking me to write to Obama and his team, and express my intense outrage at his decision to allow Rick Warren, a vocal opponent of gay rights, to speak at the Inauguration. However, this is one of those times when I had to disagree with EQCA's views. In this case, I believe you have shown more maturity than many of the gay-rights leaders in this country. Rather than label our opponents as hateful, ignorant bigots, you have clearly expressed your disagreement with them on certain issues, but then shown them that you respect their views and do not think they are bad people just because they have such beliefs.

I see the passage of Prop 8 as a huge step backward for my state, and it angers and saddens me to know that people like Rick Warren are largely responsible for it. Nonetheless, I hope my voice will stand out as part of a minority within the LGBT community -- as someone who understands and supports the decision to allow him to speak.

It would be wonderful to have a president who agreed with me on everything. Instead, I have one who has committed to look at both sides of every issue. Realistically, that's probably the best I can hope for, which is why I look forward to hearing Rick Warren's comments on the 20th, and to the next four years.