Month: April 2013

Posted on

An Interview with Tammy Baldwin: 'Our Families Are Just Like Theirs and We Are Just Like Them'

Photo courtesy of Tammy Baldwin
Photo courtesy of Tammy Baldwin

Someday, there will come a time when we no longer have to call out when someone is the “First Woman” or “First Lesbian” or “First Gay” or “First Person of Color” Something-or-Other, but we are still in an era when these firsts are important to recognize. Progress requires attention and encouragement, especially for underrepresented groups of people. United States Senator Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin is not only Wisconsin’s first woman in the United States Senate, but is also the United States Senate’s first openly gay Senator. I had a chance to speak with her earlier this month about being the keynote speaker at the Midwest Family Equality Conference this weekend.

Andy Lien: It looks like Minnesota gets to welcome you to your neighbor state, thanks to the Family Equality Council. What great timing, considering what’s happening in at the Minnesota Capitol this session.

Senator Baldwin: Yes. We’ll be looking at the arc of progress on GLBT equality, particularly focusing on family issues.  It will be a celebration of the incredible work of the Midwest Family Equality Conference over the years.

AL: As far as the arc is concerned, this may be the fastest moving movement in Civil Rights history and, right now, it’s focused on marriage.  Back in 1994 when you were in the Wisconsin Assembly, you proposed legalizing same-sex marriages. That’s almost 20 years ago. What are your reflections on this progress?

Senator Baldwin:  I can remember convening a group of folks who were family law experts and GLBT activists and talking about how can we protect our families and what sort of state law would work. We looked at the benefits and rights that are associated with marriage. We talked about, “Should we do statewide domestic partnerships or civil unions?” when no other states were talking about it extensively. We had a lot of discussion at the local level about cities passing ordinances, private corporations and nonprofits passing policies to recognize families of their workforces, but it really wasn’t happening a lot at the state level. I tell you this because even the GLBT activists I talked to said “this’ll never happen.” People were incredulous even talking about the idea. A friend of mine who was a part of that discussion back in the early ‘90s came up to me and said, “I can’t believe all of the changes I’ve seen today, and I do believe I will see this in Wisconsin in my lifetime.” They were pinching themselves at how much progress has been made in so short of time.

AL: That sort of optimism will be transferred to the families you’ll be speaking to at the Midwest Family Equality Conference. Plenty of those kids will grow up not necessarily even knowing this was an issue.

Senator Baldwin: Of course. And many of those young people, those children, won’t have the context of how impossible this seemed only a couple of decades ago.

AL: Even here in Minnesota, we recently saw the proposal of civil unions by a group that was comprised mostly of members of the GOP. That’s something that took most of us aback; we would never have entertained that notion even a couple of years ago. Of the U.S. Senators, we’re [at time of press] looking at all but three DFL Senators supporting marriage equality. Great strides are happening.

Senator Baldwin: We just returned from our spring recess and we’re back in session. I had a chance to see some of my colleagues who, over the last two weeks, announced their support for marriage equality. We had little discussions and some of them were saying that this was “one of my proudest days in public service, to be able to make that announcement.” People showed great courage because it’s not necessarily politically popular but, boy, what a last few weeks it’s been.

AL: Last fall, the Democratic National Party wrote into its platform that marriage equality was something to strive for as Democrats. Do you see that as affecting your colleagues? How does that affect politics?

Senator Baldwin: Certainly party platforms and laws are very different things, but I do think that was an important step in the vision for the Democratic Party and also as a stark contrast between what you will see in the Republican platform which has few–if any–references to GLBT equality. Obviously, the platforms are the vision statements for the two parties and it exposes how very different they are. I gave a speech this past weekend about the progress on all different levels: you have party platforms, you have laws, you have court rulings, but we also have the constant need to change hearts and minds. We don’t want to just live in a country where our equal rights are enshrined in the law–but we’re certainly fighting very hard for that to happen–we want to live in a country where we are fully embraced as equal U.S. citizens, as Americans.

AL: Coming from Wisconsin, obviously Minnesota is similar in demographic make-up; do you have any advice for other legislators who are facing the question of marriage equality? How might they be able to frame it in their mind?  What advice would you give constituents in Minnesota as they talk to their legislators about marriage equality?

Senator Baldwin: When you look at whether it’s the President’s evolution on this issue or the many U.S. Senators and other office holders who, in the last few weeks, have announced their full support for marriage equality, the common thread has been how loved ones, family members, neighbors, and coworkers have influenced their decisions. For the office holders, my advice would be to stick to that narrative: how have the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people who you’ve known impacted your view of their worth, their wholeness as citizens?

Then, when interfacing with elected officials, the GLBT movement since its earliest days has been about visibility and telling our stories. How do you change hearts and minds? By being heard and being seen. Then, people, including elected officials, come to the conclusion that our families are just like theirs and we are just like them.

____________

Join Senator Baldwin and many of our local politicians, friends, families, and professionals who are part of (or are working with) GLBT families in the Midwest at the Midwest Family Equality Conference taking place this weekend, April 19 & 20, in Minneapolis. For more information, go to www.familyequality.org/get_involved/events/midwest_family_equality_conference.

Posted on

From the Editor: A Plank in the Platform of the Party in Power

This is a time of high anticipation. So much has happened in the past two weeks, so much will happen in the next two weeks. By the time this issue is on stands, it’ll be Lobby Day at which the community will hopefully have shown a tremendous display of support for the Freedom to Marry at the Minnesota State Capitol. Perhaps we’ll be moving toward the marriage bills being heard on the floors of the House and Senate. I hope things will be full of passion and optimism. Maybe even celebration. Hope.

I’m well aware of the fact that the discussion of the topic of civil unions in the community has not been met with open arms and support by some. In this issue, we’re looking at both marriage and civil unions as they are relevant and pertinent to the bigger conversation. Marriage equality is the goal; but, stepping back a moment, what a historical event that was when four GOP lawmakers in Minnesota held a press conference to introduce civil unions for same-sex couples. When the only earlier GOP response to same-sex couples had included a parade of people arguing against the existence of homosexuality (as a concept, really), to see this happen was pretty monumental. Being that the civil unions press conference with the legislators also included each of them saying that they would not vote for marriage if the vote came up, it’s not entirely helpful to the greater goal of equality, but it did serve a purpose in shifting the discussion away from nothing.

Away from nothing.

Sit with that a moment.

That night, across social media and websites and newscasts, the future of rights associated with relationships for this community seemed less of an “if” and more of a “how.” I have to commend KARE 11 (the local NBC station) for quickly addressing the issue. Did you see the coverage? They delineated the difference between civil unions and marriage, and made it clear that civil unions were the lesser of the two–that the rights are not equal, that civil unions would likely not be acknowledged for federal rights should the federal DOMA be repealed, and other reasons. More than that, KARE 11 interviewed two couples from the community who gave faces to the fact that civil unions don’t mean what marriage means. But, what was not mentioned was anything other than civil unions or marriage–it’s as if there was no longer a third option: nothing.

The buzzkill of the day was that though plenty of DFLers came out saying that the concept of civil unions is lesser to the status of marriage for this community, there was still no promise to make marriage happen. Yes, I’ll hand it to Speaker of the House Thissen for pre-empting the civil unions press conference by a matter of minutes to say that civil unions are outdated and not acceptable to those who, like him, support marriage equality. We still get the answer that there hasn’t been a vote yet, and there may not be the numbers to pull off the freedom to marry in a DFL-controlled legislature.

This is when I wish that I had taken more political science courses. I stayed in the area of communications and women’s and gender studies, but times like these make me feel like my knowledge of politics rely on “I’m Just a Bill” from Schoolhouse Rock! which actually predates me. Though, I suppose, my gender studies might have actually taught me more about what might happen in closed-door meetings between people in power, a little more knowledge of how lobbying works would probably help me feel more optimistic that marriage equality might pass in Minnesota in 2013.  As it is, though, shouldn’t we all be able to understand how our legislature works by virtue of something as simple as understanding what the parties stand for?

I realize that nothing is ever really black and white…politics, especially, have shades of grey. We see that separate Boy Scout troops, Catholic parishes, and individual voters might step outside of the larger umbrella organizations of the Boy Scouts of America, the Archdiocese, and the Democratic (or whichever) Party. People have choices and can fully or partially adhere to the platforms of their particular groups. But, as far as we Americans understand it, how closely do representatives of a political party have to align themselves to their party?

The reason I ask this is fairly obvious. You know what’s coming.

That’s right.  It’s that brand-spanking-new plank in the Democratic Party Platform about marriage equality that was voted into the platform in 2012, which is under the heading “Greater Together” and the subheading “Protecting Rights and Freedoms”:

Freedom to Marry. We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

I don’t want to sound snarky at this point. I ask in all seriousness, am I missing something here when I hear that outstate DFLers are resisting voting for marriage equality? When I asked Democrat Senator Baldwin about adhering to the party platform in my interview with her later in this issue, I understood her when she said that “party platforms and laws are very different things,” that a platform is a vision statement for the party.  So here we are. We are trying to turn a vision into a law and asking the representatives of that party to do it.

Even if the national party platform does not directly bind the state legislators, the DFL platform says under the heading “Civil, Human, and Constitutional Rights”: “We Oppose: Discrimination against any person on the basis of race, creed, religion, immigration status, sex, sexual or affectional orientation, HIV status, gender identity or expression, marital or homemaker status, disability or age.”

As members of the Democratic Party, DFL legislators are to strive to achieve the vision of the party, and that vision includes marriage equality. Not civil unions. Not nothing.

The DFL has the majority in Minnesota’s House of Representatives. The DFL has the majority in Minnesota’s Senate. The DFL Governor has said that he will sign a bill to legalize same-sex marriage should it reach his desk.

DFL, it’s on you.

Your party platform requires it of you. Your vision is clear. It’s time to earn the loyalty you’ve had for years, by default, by fulfilling your duties as members of the Democratic Party, according to your party platform.

Now.

With hope and gratitude,
Andy

Posted on

From the Editor: "If You're Not With Us, You're With Us?"

During the two days of the Supreme Court hearings regarding Prop 8 and DOMA, those of us on social networking watched our News Feeds fill with red and pink equality symbols, a special redesign of the Human Rights Campaign’s usual blue and yellow iconic logo. People swapped out their own profile photos for the quickly claimed red and pink marriage equality logo and the feeling of solidarity was one that I hadn’t felt since the VOTE NO campaign. Whether on a computer or my iPhone, nine of every ten posts were that of people changing their primary personal online representation to be that of a uniform message of marriage equality.

Most of the changes were predictable, some weren’t. Some photos didn’t change, particularly of those friends who I know are against marriage equality (who I hope to influence in positive ways). Other photos that didn’t change to the marriage equality symbol were surprising; there were people who are online often and are very interested in marriage equality that didn’t adopt this red and pink symbol like the rest of us. Mysterious. One of them who is a student in law school came right out and said that she obviously supports same-sex marriage, but not the Supreme Court…so she wasn’t going to change her picture. Another friend sent me a private message, not because I said a single thing about her non-uniformity, but because she trusted me. She told me that of course she is a supporter of marriage equality, but she was having liberal guilt for being a conscientious objector to changing her picture for a reason that was important to her–reason enough to not join in the sea of red and pink.

My response was (paraphrased): “Good call, friend. No matter what, this is the symbol that’s been embraced by the community. It is marriage equality this week.” She didn’t ask for my approval. She didn’t ask for my advice. She simply wanted to state to someone her reason for being a conscientious objector and I turned it around to say to her that no matter what her reason was, it shouldn’t be talked about…that the easiest thing to do is just be quiet and go with the flow.

What I did was inexcusable. It doesn’t fit into my values to silence a voice that is being critical in a respectful, thoughtful way. Usually, my knee-jerk reaction is to debate the topic, not to debate that the topic was even raised. My standard operating procedure is that I’m going to tell you that I don’t agree with you–and why I don’t–instead of telling you to be quiet. With her, I threw in the towel on her behalf and conceded that she should follow her own gag order.

When did this become acceptable to me as an option? Why did I do it? When did I turn from leading by example to actively encouraging a voice to silence itself? I had to look into myself and my motivations. For one thing, I didn’t understand what she was saying. I didn’t have time to look into it–I just knew that it was against the popular sentiment. To explain it would appear to be in opposition to the equality. But, more worrisome, is that I’ve seen a wave of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” rhetoric lately, and it’s made me wary of expressing real, valid opinions.

The “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” rhetoric is easy to claim, but hard to defend. It’s isolating, by definition. It turns conversations into oppositional debates, needlessly. It’s a fallacy, because it can be untrue based on the conditions of what constitutes being “with” someone. And it puts fear where there doesn’t need to be more fear…implying that I should be afraid to be seen as against you. The peer pressure tactic is a poor one to choose, especially within a community that has been historically pressured to stay quiet and in a closet.

If you tell me that it’s good to present a united front when we campaign for the freedom to marry, I will agree with you. If you start putting conditions on what a unified front looks like, we’ll probably start disagreeing. If you then say that breaching those conditions of what a unified front looks like actually means I’m working against the campaign, I will reject that notion with confidence. You see, one can be critical of a movement one supports. It’s good to stay nimble in one’s beliefs. But, in our own community, there’s been a different model of intolerance that’s been rearing its ugly head, one that would place Lavender somewhere outside of wanting the freedom to marry, which is simply not the case.

I won’t lie. Controversy is not my favorite space to be suspended; it would be much easier to stick to the popular coverage and not defend any challenge or critique of what is popular and would mean a clear victory for equality. Freedom of speech isn’t easy and people will hear what they want to hear, regardless of what is said. Lavender’s printed 39 articles about marriage equality since Election Day of 2012. Of them, 29 have been easily pinpointed as being pro-marriage as the only option; 8 have been pro-marriage as the only option but critical as to how it’s being achieved; 2 have been pro-marriage, critical of the legislators and, therefore, positioning civil unions as a fallback if marriage isn’t going to have the votes. Really. I went back and read every single piece we’ve published and those are the most concise ways of describing the pieces and how they play a role in how we’re viewing the current campaign for marriage equality. Of these 39 pieces regarding marriage equality, 26 were written before the bills to legalize same-sex marriage were introduced in the House and Senate on February 28, 2013.

Between the beginning of November and the end of February, we were in limbo as a community, not knowing if we were going to have an organized campaign for the freedom to marry or who would be quarterbacking any legislation. We couldn’t not talk about what could be happening. So, we brought Brett Stevens on as a political columnist to push the topic. Being that the DFL is in the majority and has in its power to make marriage equality happen, a gay conservative columnist who is for the freedom to marry but critical of the party in power is a useful voice in the conversation. He may not represent 100% of us in 100% of our beliefs, but he represents a very real segment of our community and asks questions that many of us might prefer not to, despite wondering about them.  He’s asked when the will legislation be introduced. Will it be for marriage equality? Will DOMA be struck down on the state level regardless of the status of legalizing same-sex marriage? Will there be a contingency plan to get rights to this community if the party in power does not pass same-sex marriage this year? Will Minnesota step up and vote on same-sex marriage regardless of what the Supreme Court does?

It’s never been that the community deserves less than marriage equality. It’s that the party in power may not be able–or choose–to make it happen and, therefore, when and what will this community get?

We all have different opinions about the when, what, which, and how despite most wanting full equality. Please see each other as being with us, not against us, no matter how much critical thinking and second-guessing goes into the process of “continuing the conversation.” See each other for where we are, where we’ve been, and where we’re going. To question authority and doubt its success does not make someone a “self-hating gay.”  To believe that the DFL will do the right thing and pass the freedom to marry does not make someone “naive” to the history of the movement. We’re all in different places and have different degrees of faith in the system working for us or not; but we’re in this together. Moving forward.

With you,
Andy