Category: Lavender “From the Editor” Columns

I took my own advice and talked to some people about the freedom to marry. Let me qualify that statement: I’m always talking about it, but I really talked…you know what I mean. As much as I dislike the phrase “continue the conversation,” that’s what I did. I continued the damn conversation to move from voting against that amendment to extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. You know what?

It was really hard.

I spoke with multiple people so that nobody is singled out in this piece. What I noticed in having the conversations is that there is a disconnect with people. A disconnect that I didn’t expect. It has to do with the gravity of the situation. This is pure speculation, but I have two theories about this disconnect.

First, for the Democrats, it’s difficult to articulate that our chosen political party, particularly for the social liberals of the DFL, could prioritize civil rights to be addressed at an unknown date in the future. That shows a lack of priority. Talking to people, it’s too soon to do it this session, next session would be during an election year…and then the same two-year cycle starts again. There would be no convenient time, according to those parameters. Perfectly reasonable people (from legislators to laypeople) who believe in equal rights don’t see the immediacy and priority that should be given this situation–a group of people are being denied civil rights. Yes, there are other important issues to address in the state, but how much more important are they than civil rights? The budget? Jobs? Those are perpetual problems. Is asking legislators to multi-task too much of an overreach? Stop making excuses for the legislators. It doesn’t do anyone any favors. They’re big boys and girls and are paid to have the difficult job of representing their entire state of tax-paying citizens. Expect it of them, don’t ask it of them.

Second, I speculate that the Allies need a little nudge. I could get a fair bit of flak for this, but it’s critical to reiterate that civil rights affect this community every day. Allies were crucial to the VOTE NO campaign. Where we need to focus is moving Allies from voting no to supporting the freedom to marry…to supporting the freedom to marry now. Those who identify as Ally have all the best intentions for this community, but don’t walk in the shoes of this community.

I had a voicemail message that reduced me to tears a few weeks ago. A gentleman was expressing his frustration after contacting politicians about this issue and was met with some ambivalence, some resistance. Per Michael’s voicemail message (pg. 50) and our follow-up phone conversation, I heard and felt his frustration and fear. Recently, he and his partner had experienced a health-related issue for one of them that brought up medical issues and all sorts of “what ifs” in terms of what could happen to them today, now, next month. Because rights are tied up with marriage, this community is affected every day. It’s not necessarily only about having the right to get married as it is the right to be married and die married. People who aren’t living it can look in on it and feel empathy, but don’t really know what it’s like to feel helpless in doing something so basic as being allowed access to one’s beloved. Next year is not as crucial as this year, though both are necessary. And, I think that it’s something to gently mention to the Allies. Everyone could use the reminder, really.

Apparently, the legislation is going to be introduced this session to push for the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. In a two-prong approach to this issue, the legislators need to do their jobs and keep it on the table; but the public also needs to step up and show obvious and unquestionable support for legislation to allow same-sex couples to join marriage.

This brings me to a question: Where’d everybody go?

Remember when we could see a sea of orange and blue? I still see the bumper stickers as I’m driving around both here in the Twin Cities as well as in Duluth and up the North Shore. I’m sure they’re still in St. Cloud and Rochester and all sorts of cities and towns. Heck, when I’m visiting my parents, there’s at least one VOTE NO bumper sticker in Cokato. People still wear their t-shirts. Lawn signs are still up (even though it’s against the rules to have them up this long after an election…just so you know). We are still showing our disdain for that damned amendment, but where’s our support of the freedom to marry?

Maybe the Freedom to Marry Day at the Capitol on Valentine’s Day will bring with it some demonstrative swag.  I’d like some bumper stickers that look like the “VOTE NO” on top of “DON’T LIMIT THE FREEDOM TO MARRY” ones, but say “I DO” on top of “SUPPORT THE FREEDOM TO MARRY.”  I’d slap one of those on my Jeep faster than you can take the money that I’d pay for it. The same goes for t-shirts, as long as you make my size. Give me a Twibbon for Twitter and Facebook that says “I DO” right beneath my smiling face. By claiming “I DO” as a slogan, it’d subvert the traditional notion of marriage, but in a gentle and innocuous way–a way that’ll make sense to the future generations.  Need help designing the swag?  Let me know; one of my previous lifetimes was that of a graphic designer. I could design and get those to press in an afternoon. Well, almost any professional could. All you need to do is say, “Go.”

Why am I stuck on swag and promotional items?  For one thing, they’re obvious signs of support for the legislators. But, perhaps more importantly, I’m stuck on swag because people need something to speak for them. And I don’t blame them. The signs and t-shirts and politicized profile pictures do a lot of our heavy lifting for us. They’re like amulets. They give us strength. Message-wise, a change in logo also helps to fortify a change in mission: It’s no longer VOTE NO, it’s now all about supporting the freedom to marry. Become a card-carrying member of the movement. Wear your heart on your sleeve. Be a safe zone for those looking for strength in numbers. As voraciously as we bought up and gave out the VOTE NO items, the freedom to marry pieces could go just as quickly. And, with them, we can have more of those conversations.

I’m not going to tell you that these conversations are easy (not that the VOTE NO ones were). We still need to talk to people who don’t believe same-sex couples should join marriage. What’s different, though, is that the talks have to also happen with people we see as friendly, our allies in either political affiliation or Allies in self-identification. Talking to people about the importance of the freedom to marry and the priority of civil rights usually involves telling people they’re wrong. If it’s not explicitly said, it’s implied. It’s saying that by thinking the freedom to marry should be put off until after the important stuff is handled, you are incorrect in not seeing civil rights for what they are: priorities.

With you and with thanks,

Andy

I’m thrilled to finally feature Chastity Brown in Lavender. She’s crossed my radar so many times in the past year that I feel a little behind the curve, but better late than never. I was listening to the recent release of the Minnesota Beatle Project Vol. 4 (put out by Vega Productions to benefit music programs in schools) when I heard her rendition of “For No One.” She’s only done this one cover amongst her original works; it is so very gut-wrenching with her voice and interpretation of Paul McCartney’s lyrics. Slow and contemplative, Chastity sings: “And in her eyes you see nothing/ no sign of love behind the tears/ cried for no one/ a love that should have lasted years.” It captures a dreamy quality of yearning and denial almost too well. Apropos for the Valentine Issue? Indeed.

Valentine’s Day falls when things can be pretty stinky for the singletons. It’s cold and somewhat dark outside, thoughts stray to cozying up with someone we don’t have. On top of it, we’re fighting a fight for the freedom to marry, which has foisted loving couples into our vision and News Feeds in great concentration for over a year. They’re everywhere and the more they’re seen by greater society, the easier the fight will be. Good. But, at the same time, it’s rough. I’ll get it out of the way: I’m happy for you, you two make a great couple, blah blah blah. It’s true. I’m happy for people who have found their beloveds. But, it can bring out a little bit of the bitter, too. Some of us are working out of relationships. Some of us don’t remember our last relationship. Some of us are even new to the community and just figuring out where we fit and what kind of relationship we’re looking to have. Hoping. Our Valentine’s Days are for no one.

The interesting thing about Valentine’s Day is that we don’t tend to ignore it as we would any other holiday that we don’t observe. I never struggle with how to spend Hanukkah as a Lutheran, why do I worry about Valentine’s Day as a singleton? We are funny people. I’m going to take it easy on myself and curl up with Grendel, my dog, as I would on any other Thursday night. I’ll probably hang out on Facebook and listen to more of the Minnesota Beatles Project. Maybe, I’ll have some ice cream that I have to share…wait for it…with no one.

With love,
Andy

Listen to a snippet and buy “For No One” here at Amazon.com.

Happy New Year.  The last time I wrote, I talked about the cognitive dissonance of balancing the victory of defeating the marriage amendment last November just to have the issue of same-sex marriage be dropped by legislators.  We’re in a holding pattern until leadership takes the reigns and I really hope that’ll have happened by the time this hits the stands a week from today.  When this hits the stands, it’ll be the day after the start of the 2013 legislative session at the Capitol.  By God, I hope we’ll have rallied.

We’re good at rallies.  They usually run a bit long, we’re so good at them.  We’re passionate about this issue of attaining the freedom to marry.  Our speeches laud previous civil rights leaders and activists and we quote them; we say that this issue is no different.  Marriage is a freedom that this community has the right to as citizens of this country.  This community is an established and recognized group of people that has been defended as a minority, as well as a group of people that will not be discriminated against in the workplace, in academic institutions, in matters where being separate and independent people are concerned.

Now, in matters where joining together as a unit are concerned, this community needs  consistent recognition as a group that should not be discriminated against.  It needs to be reiterated that to join together with someone as a family unit is seen as an asset in our society.  Resources are shared, security is boosted, health is improved, and happiness is arguably more widespread.  If these statements weren’t true, marriage would not be something to attain, rights and privileges would not be attached to marriage, and marriage would be a non-issue for most people as it would not be as desirable, or even as necessary.  Therefore, same-sex couples who would seek to join marriage would improve our society as being more supported and legal in the sharing of resources, security, health, and happiness.

And this is a good thing for us as a society.

This good thing–this positivity–is what needs to be shared in this next leg of attaining the freedom to marry.  It’s both more nuanced and encompassing than this simple version, of course.  It would involve children that already exist in families that already exist headed by same-sex couples that already exist.  It would include couples that don’t yet exist that would be comprised of people who have not yet come out.  It would mean that same-sex couples, once legally married, would have to go through more hoops and legal proceedings to no longer be together as it would require divorce.  It would mean that language would become easier as marriage will be marriage whether in passing on the street or passing on in inheritance.

During the VOTE NO campaign, we shared our stories.  We had conversations as to why marriage matters to us.  We talked about rights. We pleaded our cases. We persuaded.  We came out. We cried. We overwhelmingly made the point that to limit marriage to be between a man and a woman in the Minnesota Constitution was unacceptable.  We need to continue these conversations.

What I’ve been grappling with and listening to in the time since the election is this issue about what the state voting down the marriage amendment meant.  As people talk, I hear them say that to assume that the state is ready for same-sex marriage is to misinterpret the election results… that defeating the amendment does not equate to wanting to extend the freedom to marry to include same-sex couples.

This is true.  The one does not mean the other.

But, we don’t need to underestimate Minnesota, either.  We don’t have to assume if the legislators legalize same-sex marriage right away that the backlash will be substantial or long-lasting.  Extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples will benefit all of us as a state, as a nation.  It is a movement that will happen, and it can happen now.  We are ready enough…the people who aren’t may never really be, until they’re forced to be for the greater good of society.

And, I can guarantee you, as far as the future of Civil Rights in the United States of America is concerned, to not move progressively on the issue of extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples will have far more negative of a backlash than people who are upset by it.  To be worried about the ripple effect of one action to make things right with a minority in the United States of America versus the inaction that fortifies discrimination is short-sighted and un-American.

So, with this, I charge you with challenging others in those conversations that include statements like “the state isn’t ready for same-sex marriage” or “the state has other priorities.”  Ask them what is there to be ready for?  Stop letting people frame same-sex marriage as something that is negative. Reclaim the conversations we started having last year and express to them the positive aspects of extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples.  And, if you’re feeling particularly engaging, ask them when would be right and when should civil rights be a priority, because if they can’t give specific dates, I’d maintain the answer is always NOW.

Keep rallying.

With thanks,
Andy

This is a tough one to write.  I’ve been chewing on this since November 7 and it’s not getting easier as time goes by.  What was our victory on November 6?  What will our next one be?  The realization that we are no further than we were before the election is really taking root.  Worse, the realization that we don’t have direction for what’s next is truly worrisome.  Perhaps by the time this issue is on stands, we’ll have more direction, but for now, we’re rudderless in the water.

We fought this amendment because we were forced to; it was foisted into our lives.  Now, what are we going to choose to do?

I don’t remember if it was the day after the election or the day after that, but I was approached a bit too soon with the idea that Marriage Equality has been dropped like a hot potato.  I believe the term to describe my facial expression was “deer in headlights.”  Honestly, I was getting an issue to press (a two-day process every ten days) and was working with very little sleep.  I was still riding the buzz of victory.  I wasn’t a deer in headlights, I was pissed off and in denial.  I’d say my expression was “stop talking right now.”

Dropped?  Like a hot potato?  HOW?  We’ve got MOMENTUM!  We’re on a high!  WINNING.

If this conversation had been an exchange on the internet, it would’ve ended with “Too soon? LOL.”

It was too soon.

Oh, but guess what.  It’s never too soon for the media.  As the publication for the GLBT community in the state that just defeated a discriminatory amendment by popular vote, I have to stay nimble.

I’d recommend we all stay nimble.  But, it’s really hard.  I’d say that there’s a certain barrier we all have to break through to get to the next stage of the unknown.

An important term at this point in the discussion is “cognitive dissonance.”  Dissonance is discord.  What’s in our head is our cognition.  Cognitive dissonance is a mental quarrel.  It brings with it anger, confusion, sadness, grappling.  We may hold two or more thoughts that conflict with each other.  Mine were: we fought this amendment together, why aren’t we fighting for marriage equality together, now?  I looked you in the face and listened to you every time you rallied us against this amendment—this summer at Pride, at fundraisers upon fundraisers, at the last rally at the U of M, at Election Night with Minnesotans United for All Families—why are you saying that it’s now time to wait to make progress toward Marriage Equality?

Let’s look at those ideas, because I know I’m not alone in this gross space of cognitive dissonance.  When we notice that we have two conflicting ideas, one of the next steps is to examine them and consider if they’re actually conflicting.

To say that we fought this amendment together is true.  To assume why we fought it can get us into an unknown area.  We don’t know why everyone who voted against it voted no, unless they tell us.  There were different organizations involved; some pushed for marriage equality, the more vocal and obvious one—Minnesotans United for All Families—was pushing for the defeat of the amendment.  The defeat of the amendment does not mean marriage equality, as we know, but many people supported MUAF because of they’re pushing for marriage equality.  It worked and it worked well.  In my interview with Richard Carlbom in this issue, the MUAF Campaign Manager even says that they were focusing on the emotional aspect of this issue and how much marriage means to keep this amendment out of the constitution.  Indeed, it was—and is—emotional.

And, largely because of emotion, it was victorious.

But, there were other reasons why people voted against the amendment.  Some people voted no because they recognized that such an amendment didn’t belong in the Minnesota State Constitution; perhaps not even really caring about the issue of same-sex marriage.  Some people voted no because it was a redundant piece of legislation in a state that already doesn’t allow same-sex marriage.  Some people voted no because they didn’t want the conversation toward marriage equality to end.  Some people voted no because it discriminated against the GLBT community.  Some people voted no because they believe in Marriage Equality and this amendment had to be defeated.  Some people voted no because they thought they were voting against gay marriage.  Some people voted no because they thought it would result in gay marriage.

Some people in our community didn’t vote no.

Next, consider the second idea that conflicts with the first, we’re being told by our legislators that we’re going to wait to continue our progress toward Marriage Equality.  We need to focus on jobs. We need to focus on the economy. We need to keep the conversation going.  And, from non-legislators, we need to proceed carefully so we can keep control of the legislature.

WHAT?!

Didn’t we just stand shoulder-to-shoulder and side-by-side in this fight toward equality and now you want to let the iron get cold?

This is where I have to hold myself in check.  The acute cognitive dissonance only lasts as long as I stay suspended here.  Yes, we stood side-by-side and shoulder-to-shoulder against the amendment, but yes, it was for different reasons.  And, yes, we’re back to where we were before this issue was put on the ballot.  And, no, I should not assume that everyone who voted no did so as a measure toward Marriage Equality.  And, no, we will not agree on what is to be the next important issues to be handled by our state legislature…because standing side-by-side against the amendment actually had nothing to do with the next session of legislation.

Dammit.

Like I said, the acute cognitive dissonance passes when we get to the point of realizing that there were different reasons for voting no in this last election; let’s be grateful that so many people did.  But, more of the cognitive dissonance will be relieved when someone takes charge of the next step.  And, as we consider the next step, we need to keep talking about the possibilities.

I don’t know where you are in this process of talking about what happened, where we are now, and what’s coming up.  I don’t blame you if you’re in the same place I was when I was approached with the proclamation that Marriage Equality has been put on the back burner.  You might disagree that it has been, you might agree that it should be, you might be in the same place I was and want to say, “stop talking right now.”  I understand.

We can’t stop talking right now.  As the only media outlet dedicated to this GLBT community, we have got to keep talking.

Okay, I’ll say it: We have to “keep the conversation going.”

I don’t like what we say sometimes.  Did I want to read what Brett Stevens wrote about “The DFL’s Big Gay Farce” in the last issue?  That was rough.  But, it was not inaccurate.  If something presented as fact was untrue, I’ll publish a correction.  If it’s a conclusion or opinion you believe to be untrue, that’s different.  Conclusions are up for debate, but researched facts are facts.  We’re publishing all of the Letters to the Editor that we received in response to the commentary and you can see for yourself that the responses span the spectrum as far as what should happen next.  We’re not in agreement.  And this is why we’re going to keep talking.  Brett and I probably would not be on the same political float in a parade, but I appreciate and respect his perspectives.  He goes so far as to actually provoke the bear, or donkey in this case. I’d agree that that donkey needs some prodding.

And, he followed up that piece by presenting in this issue what a logical next step would be: Minnesota needs to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.  Read what he says, the piece may ease some of the tension as far as what can be done almost immediately to keep us moving toward Marriage Equality.

I remember what it was like when General Mills stood up against the amendment.  I remember the euphoria of Cheerios being on our side.  General Mills gave its reasons for voting no and they fall within the many that I listed earlier.  After General Mills opposed the amendment, it seemed easier for other corporations and groups to follow suit.  It blazed the trail, it took the heat.  Nobody will forget the socio-historical statement and what it did for this fight.  Now, I’d say we’re looking for our first trailblazer in this next step toward Marriage Equality, and whoever comes out swinging with the right research-driven message will get a groundswell of support. If the extremely well-attended OutFront Minnesota Equality & Justice Summit on December 1 is any indication, we’re ready to continue to move forward.

Because that’s what we want, right?  To move forward?

I want to congratulate and thank you all for this amazing year.  I wish you and yours the best over the holidays and through the new year.  Your readership and your advertising keep this platform going and I can’t wait to see what the next year will bring.

With thanks,

Andy

It’s after Thanksgiving, but giving thanks has no cut-off date.  A year and a half into this job as Managing Editor, I’ve got a few things to be thankful for…not the least of which is that I have the opportunity to do so, publicly.

I’m thankful for a working website that has been embraced by the community. A year ago, I was working with our team to revamp and update both the website and the layout of the magazine to match each other and our community’s style of accessing information.  It’s proven to be a robust hub of activity as people use it to add events to our calendar and interact with each other in comments…and we’re only going to make it better.

I’m thankful for our iPad and iPhone apps (and our Online Magazine that’s viewable on all smartphones).  We’re closing in on 10,000 installations and people seem to be embracing this paperless method of accessing our free publication effortlessly.  It’s just delivered and waiting for you each time an issue of Lavender comes out. Join the club and get it in Newsstand.

I’m thankful that the election is over and the state voted NO.

I’m thankful that Lavender Media took home Minnesota Magazine & Publishing Association Excellence Awards.  To me, the most significant of our ten awards are the ones for the Overall Excellence of the magazine, the Overall Design of the magazine, the Regular Column (Joy Summers’s Slice), the website award, and the single-topic issue award for our Spring Wedding Issue.  The others are important, too, but these pointed to a consistency in producing an award-winning product as well as underscored that a same-sex wedding issue can not only be done, but it can be done well.

Last and most, I am thankful for the relationships I’ve grown with so many of you.  I write for the readers. I plan the issues for the readers and the advertisers.  I attend events to document you, to meet you, to tell your stories.  But, as it happens, when I meet you, the line between media and public turns elastic and we embrace.  I am grateful.

I wish you the best this Holiday Season.

I give thanks for you.

Andy

We did it.  Hallelujah, we did it.

It would seem like the GLBT publication of the state that just defeated an amendment discriminating against the community would be dripping with victory coverage the week after the election.  Clearly, it’s not.  The election happened just as we were putting this issue to bed, so we unapologetically present our Holiday Gift Guide just in time for the day after Thanksgiving.  But, believe me when I tell you that I’m pretty sure the VOTE NO campaign and election results will get their due coverage in the year-end issue.  I have it on good authority.  Ahem.

Where were you when you got the news that the state Voted NO?  Were you at RiverCentre with Minnesotans United for All Families?  Were you snuggled on the couch with your family anxiously keeping the proverbial candle vigilantly lit for the returns to be in our favor?  Were you at a local bar in the time between last call and closing time? Were you in your pajamas the next morning flipping through channels or clicking through the internet?  The hour was wee, the moment was historical.

I was at RiverCentre taking pictures of the speakers and happenings to post them on Lavender’s Facebook page as the evening progressed.  It wasn’t the usual, objective position for a person in the media to take; I am invested in this.  No, Lavender didn’t get involved with the rest of the politics of the campaign since our audience base is politically mixed, but Lavender clearly took a stance against the amendment.  And, I wanted to be there both in solidarity as well as to document the crucial moments of the night as the election results came in.  The vibe was that of cautious optimism.  It ended in relieved euphoria.

So many hugs. So many tears. So many smiles. So much relief.

And then we went home.

Leaving the rally to go to the parking ramp at 2:00 in the morning was surreal.  Hugging along the way.  Starting up the Jeep, driving out with other vehicles stamped with VOTE NO signage.  Driving along the empty streets of St. Paul to a nearly deserted I-94 to then get home to hunt for parking by my loft.  Walking the dog in a near-dead state of shock.  Catching up on Facebook and seeing how many people were at the rally via social networking.  Crawling into bed at 4:00 to lie awake until 5:00. Waking up to the rest of Wednesday that was going to happen regardless of the election results.

Now what?

Rest.  This community has been working toward November 6 for so long—that it’s come and gone deserves the same acknowledgement and reverence as any big event in our lives.  We go through it, we come out on the other side, and we rest.  We regroup.  We evaluate.  We play.  We take some “me time.”  After fertile there is fallow.

Just take a time-out.  At the United for Our Future Rally at the State Capitol on Wednesday, November 7, it was stressed that we need to celebrate.

Heck, we need to soak in celebration until our fingers get pruney.  It has been earned.  It is deserved.

Then, as we emerge from this big event and the aftershock, we’ll start keeping regular sleep hours again.  We’ll eat more healthy meals again.  We’ll stop seeing each other so often.  We’ll see more everyday posts on Facebook.  We’ll go shopping for the holidays.  We’ll pick up life as usual.  We’ll miss each other and we’ll miss the activity.

And then we’ll look to our leaders for what will be coming next.  To avoid being partisan, I’ll say that our new State Legislature is poised to be the most receptive to GLBT rights than it has ever been.  We have every reason to have high expectations of our leaders; their feet will be held to the fire.

The wishy-washy element to this next phase of GLBT rights is that there is no date that is on the books like there was for this amendment vote.  We all had November 6 burned into our brains—we knew we’d have an answer on November 7.  We were working for it like I’m working toward today’s print deadline: it’s over when it’s over.  The goal either will or will not have been achieved.

Next, we have to articulate our goals.  We have to impose our own deadlines.  You know how this works—we’re better when we’re working with concrete expectations.  Humans are terribly predictable.  And, being that our legislature is made up of humans that we have elected to represent us, we have to ask the same of them.

My own cautious optimism has turned into reasonable anticipation.  I anticipate more progress.  I expect it.  We have a long way to go toward equality for this community, but the time has never been better to get out there and demand it.

I’ll see you out there.

With thanks,
Andy

Love. Weddings. Marriage. Commitment. Coming out.

They’re all right here: in these pages, on our minds, in our hearts, and on the ballot in Minnesota on November 6.

QUORUM held its 19th Annual National Coming Out Day Luncheon in mid-October.  As one of the inspirational speakers, Anna Min spoke to us about how many different communities we can identify as being a part of–it was a powerful speech.  Anna asked us to stand when we identified as a member of a particular group; in essence, we were coming out. If I understood it correctly, the goal of the exercise was mostly to prove a point that we are multi-faceted, which we are.  Thinking about it more, in coming out, it also shows just how exhausting life can be when we represent ourselves so actively in so many different areas.  Personal and private issues are pushed into the public with these actions, such as when we stand up…when we come out.
We are activists, simply by existing.

When I say that we actively represent ourselves, I’m talking about coming out and what coming out means these days.  Anna asked us to stand up if we identified as parents, queers, bicyclists, managers, allies…but the list could be endless, really.  Especially in this era of self-publishing on the social networking sites like Facebook, we self-identify and come out whenever we “Like” or “Share” a post.  Joining a group on Facebook can out us as being GLBT or simply for admiring an idea. Our personal is political. Being multi-faceted is something to acknowledge and celebrate.  It also might necessitate a nap.

Think of all of the coming out that’s happened since May of 2011 under circumstances that we didn’t ask for–that we didn’t choose–with verbiage that is confusing and discombobulating.  A proposed amendment on the upcoming ballot that limits marriage to being a union between a man and a woman–in a state that already does not allow same-sex marriage–means that we have had a fight on our hands to keep discrimination out of our state Constitution.  It’s taken time.  It’s taken money.  It’s taken energy.  The message this community has had to repeatedly and relentlessly send was determined early on in the campaign: “We believe that marriage matters.  To all.”

We’ve had to come out.  Repeatedly.  Again and again.

We’ve come out as members of the GLBT community.  We’ve come out as allies.  We’ve come out as supporters of marriage, even.  We’ve been forced to be political.  We’ve organized.  We’ve been standing up since May of 2011.

There have been multiple groups that have formed since then…from those that are focused on defeating the amendment this year to those that are fighting a longer battle for marriage equality.  All groups have been tireless and welcoming.  Our Pride events were covered in blue and orange as Minnesotans United for All Families recorded our intentions, organized us, and mobilized us.  This issue has defined many of us.  Never before have so many people in the state come out en masse in support of GLBT rights.  This is historical.  There is no turning back from this movement.  There is no “going back in.”

Just as we are multifaceted, so have been our methods of coming out, of standing up against this discrimination:

1. Updating our pictures to say we will be VOTING NO.
2. Having conversations about why others should VOTE NO.
3. Writing letters and sharing stories about how VOTING NO affects us.
4. Sharing a VOTE NO image on Facebook.
5. Donning a VOTE NO t-shirt.
6. Wearing a button or pin in support of marriage equality or to VOTE NO in NOvember.
7. Waving a VOTE NO fan at the State Fair.
8. Wearing an orange ring that indicates EQUALITY FOR ALL.
9. Wrapping a vehicle in VOTE NO decals.
10. Going to a house party for people who are VOTING NO.
11. Listening to a concert by musicians who are VOTING NO.
12. Meeting athletes who are VOTING NO.
13. Seeing signs at places of worship stating that people of faith will VOTE NO.
14. Leaving this Wedding Issue on a table at the coffee house, inviting people to VOTE NO.
15. Eating baked goods that say NO.
16. Sharing videos of people explaining why we need to VOTE NO.
17. Going to rallies where we can be with others who will VOTE NO.
18. Putting a VOTE NO bumper sticker on our vehicles.
19. Running or walking in races that have been Big and Gay for VOTING NO.
20. Crawling in Pub Crawls to raise money for VOTING NO.
21. Door knocking for VOTING NO.
22. Calling citizens to have conversations about VOTING NO.
23. Quietly complimenting another person in a VOTE NO shirt.
24. Posting a VOTE NO sign in our yards, hanging them from our trees.
25. Donating money. Donating money. Donating money.  Our bank accounts are VOTING NO.

Out, out, out.  VOTE NO, NO, NO.  See how each of those is in the present tense?  We’ve been coming out and doing all of these things during this campaign…and we’ll need to continue after this campaign, just with a different message.  On November 7, we’ll be looking at a different Minnesota.  It might be that we’ll have an amendment in the constitution that discriminates against tax-paying Minnesotans.  It might be that we’ll be rejoicing after defeating this proposed amendment.  Either way, we’ll need to keep coming out and fighting for what this community deserves: equal rights.

Either way, we will be proud of what has been accomplished since May of 2011.

I want to stand up again.  I want to come out and applaud all of you for your daily heroism in being yourselves, however you self-identify.  I want to continue to see your weddings that aren’t legal here, yet.  I am impatient for the time when they will be legal here.

As has been said, it’s not a matter of “if,” it’s a matter of “when.”

With you,
Andy

When I was in high school, I was called “The Bulldog” by a real-life judge on the Mock Trial circuit.  I loved to debate.  I would wail on and pick at your arguments until they were annihilated.  It was a rush.  I was good at it.

One of the bigger arguments I can recall was when I took a resolution that I wrote for my 9^th grade Civics class to the School Board and requested that condom machines be installed in our bathrooms.  That was a little progressive for our conservative school district circa 1991, but I felt vindicated when I got to Macalester four years later and they were giving them out in candy dishes in the campus health center.

Condoms for high schoolers was a shocking concept.  I don’t recall being taken seriously at the School Board meeting, but I do remember being allowed to state my case.  I have to give the school credit for that—not only did my class vote this case to be the one to be presented to the School Board, but the School Board didn’t censor the presentation.  Kudos all around.

The request for condom machines was denied.  Providing condoms would lead to more teenagers having sex.

Would it?  No, it would not.  That’s fallacious.  Teenagers are already having sex; therefore, it would give them the safety measures that are necessary to do so safely.  Making condoms available doesn’t force or encourage someone to have sex—or even use them if they are having sex.  That was a preposterous argument, in my mind.  I didn’t want to see even an iota of validity in it, because I wanted to win my case.

Putting a bowl of candy on the table doesn’t mean more people will eat them and gain weight; it means more people can have candy.  Putting Bibles in drawers at hotels doesn’t mean people will have to convert to whatever religion the Gideons are part of; it means that you can look at a Bible if you’re bored or curious in your hotel room.  Putting bright green bikes out for rental on city streets doesn’t mean that we’ll all be forced to exercise and give up our vehicles; it means that you have a healthier option for transportation.

There are plenty such arguments like this that the 15-year old Andy could make.  All day long.  Until your ears bleed.

But, the 35-year old Andy has caught on to the validity of the School Board’s point.  Presenting an idea or option can be seen as endorsing it.

Allowing kids to take condoms is a stark contrast to condemning underage, premarital sex.  By not condemning teen sex, it implies that it can exist–it might be saying that it’s okay.  You won’t go to hell.  Shockingly, nothing at all might happen to you (especially if you use the condoms).

Is that how it works for coming out or approving same-sex rights and marriages?  By not condemning same-sex relationships, it implies that this community can exist—it might be saying that it’s okay.  People who are attracted to people of the same-sex won’t go to hell.  Shockingly, nothing at all might happen to you.

Where the two arguments depart is in the next step: encouragement.  Providing condoms for kids might encourage them to have sex: Not true. Acceptance might not mean encouragement.  Providing rights for people in same-sex relationships might encourage them to come out: True.

Right?

I hope so.

It’s like a problem posed in a Philosophy course.  Ethics, morals, dichotomies…a whole lot of grey area and conjecture.  I don’t necessarily hope that teenagers see a bowl of condoms as an encouragement to go have sex…but I hope that people who have been in the closet see acceptance of the GLBT community as an encouragement to come out.  The difference is that one argument might lead to an action; having sex.  The other argument might lead to the recognition of an identity; coming out as GLBT.

Teen sex is nothing new.  Same-sex relationships aren’t new either, but with some people, it seems like they just sprang to the fore.  And the subject is scary to those people because it’s unknown.  One of the many problems with this situation is that despite how long same-sex relationships have existed, people who are new to the concept are being allowed to vote on the subject.  They have followed the argument to the point that to allow these relationships could encourage them, but haven’t made the next step to see that coming out is good.  They don’t understand that encouraging people to claim their identity is healthy and it benefits our culture.  They’re mired in fear.

And, because they are afraid, they seek a fallacy of protection:

Put an amendment in the constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman.  Tell the parishioners that their eternal salvation is at risk if they don’t stop seeking equal marriage rights for same-sex couples–bully them into choosing this legislation on their ballots when they exercise their right to vote.  By not allowing it, it won’t exist.

Really, “The Bulldog” might not be in retirement.  35 is a little young for that.  But, I appreciate that age has given me more perspective to be able to have more conversations than arguments.  Whether calmly or with a bite of debate, people need to be told the basics: There is a separation between church and state; this will not affect heterosexual marriages; accepting homosexuals will not turn you into one. And, really, bullies need to be called out on their shit.

With hope and thanks,

Andy

I’m in love with this issue.  Look at it.  The people, the places, the pictures, the people, the people, the people. But, I have terrible timing. Just as we wrapped up the voting for the Lavender 100 and scheduled photo sessions with the Community Members, I went on vacation.  Big mistake on my part as I missed seeing—and meeting—some of these wonderful people in our pages.

I love people.  As the editor, my priorities are clear: the Editorial Calendar reigns supreme, then the columns, then the stories that we find as we live our lives.  Most of the people fall into the third wave of coverage—our lives.  This time, though, when my Editorial Calendar gives me the FAB 50, I made some choices.  I decided to give us more categories, more winners, more people…100 of them, to be exactish.  More lives, more conversations, more people.

But, what I missed while I was gone were the conversations.  No, I don’t personally do our interviews on a regular basis, but I do personally talk to people.  That’s my favorite part of this job.  And Kathleen told me exactly what I missed while I was gone.

Hope.  She told me that of all the people she met, the most common theme was the hope they had that the community can look past its differences and become more unified.  What?  In a year when “Minnesotans United” has taken such a prominent role as an organization and as a theme?  Yes.
We need to own that.  Unity.

This is a community that has been tied together by rather disparate similarities.  The requirements for membership are more conceptual than actual, being based on sexual orientation and gender identity (and more…or less, depending on who you talk to).  What we face on a day-to-day basis is different from person to person.  And, getting to know each other is how we begin to understand how we’re actually similar from person to person.  Circumstances may not be the same, but struggles and triumphs can be.  So, in this issue, these people are just the tip of the iceberg for who we can look to as role models in seeing not only how we are all so different, but also how we can find pride in our unity.

We want that, right?
With hope and thanks,
Andy

I’m sitting at my desk just hours before leaving for my first vacation since taking this job over a year ago.  I’m pretty much crawling out of my skin, in a good way.  I also feel a little bit sassier—fortified—in my new orange VOTE NO t-shirt.  In my size.  I know.  They didn’t apparently exist, but now they do.  I’m stoked.

My destination is Seattle, Washington, for a bit…and then I’ll go up (north) to check out Vancouver and Whistler in Canada.  Knowing that these are extremely GLBT-friendly places to go, believe me: this isn’t the last you’ve heard of my trip.  Like any writer/photographer/editor worth her salt, I’ll make sure the whole thing will be documented for you.

What I’m curious about is what kind of reaction my VOTE NO shirt will get as I travel.  I’m big, it’s orange; together, we’ll be a visual force to reckon with.  I anticipate conversations, particularly at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport today.  But, I also anticipate friendliness, particularly in Washington, where marriage equality is also at the fore, as well as Gay Whistler, where same-sex marriage is celebrated.

It won’t always be comfortable.  For one thing, I don’t wear bright colors.  Those of you who encounter me in the wild know that it’s rare to see me in anything other than black, though I do make an attempt to be more chromatic at our events than I do on any other day.  This bright orange shirt visually propels me into your eyeballs.  Then, VOTE NO.  It’s in your face but not demanding that your attention stay with it.  Glance at me, look away.  Go ahead.  The impression has still been made…and, with it, will be a smile.

I’m friendly.  My message is one about love.  It’s a little touchy-feely when you think about it: make love, not war.  I come in peace and I hope to be received in peace as well.

Similarly, this approach can be applied to a little problem we’re having in this campaign.  Have you noticed how many of us are preaching to the choir?  Multiple people have mentioned this to me, how even Lavender is speaking to a mostly friendly audience…so how do we expand the campaign?  Of course everyone thumbs-ups our VOTE NO posts on Facebook—if our circles are only the like-minded folks, it makes sense.  How can we move past the choir to include more people?

A bright orange shirt and a smile both help.

What could be the equivalent in effect, but without the change of wardrobe or head-turning color?

I have a possible solution.

You know how many of us are just SO DONE and OVER the people from home? You know, the people we never have to deal with again unless we go home to high school reunions or run into them at the grocery store.  The people that we are even a little proud about being beyond…or for having left them behind.  Some of them aren’t proven to be intolerant, but they’re in that halo effect of a more narrow-minded childhood.  A painful young-adulthood.  A harrowing college experience before coming out.  Heck, a weird comment string on a shared friend’s Facebook post.  All of these are places that might leave us with a bad taste in our mouths in terms of dealing with people.  We write them off simply due to guilt by association.

I’ve noticed that there are the intolerant people and that there are the people who are still considering.  They’re very quiet people; they don’t comment or express “Like” over things, but they’re watching.  They won’t wear an orange t-shirt.  They’re the people who won’t stand on a soapbox, but will still be voting in November.

And they might VOTE NO.

Who are they?  I have my suspicions.  Think back to the people who were more neutral in your past.  The ones who you have had some sort of relationship with but wouldn’t call them close—the ones who you’ve encountered.  You could encounter them again…like on Facebook.  You could “friend” them.  You could have just as neutral of a relationship with them as you did the first go-round, but, this time, you’re different.  You’re open about your life and your goals.  You show them, kind of like wearing a t-shirt or putting up a lawn sign or posting a video on your own Facebook page, that you’re a person who they (still and now) know, who is negatively effected by this proposed amendment.  That you, by existing in their repertoire of people, deserve consideration.

Antagonism isn’t necessarily the way to go with these new-old friends.  Living and teaching by example is a less heavy-handed way of dealing with the issue of equal rights.  We’ve been talking about how telling our stories will make the difference in fighting this amendment—your Facebook page is telling your story.  And people are watching and taking notes.  Thankfully.

I’ve mentioned before how I’m from Cokato, a conservative community that’s west of the Twin Cities by about an hour.  I know there are people there who I’ve left geographically, but who I am happy to never say I’ve “left behind.”  They’re people who I can draw into the conversation simply by not letting up on this issue of VOTING NO.  They are people who I might not even know are part of the choir I’m preaching to.

Invite people into your choirs.  Preach by living your life.  Expand your circle of influence in a gentle way.  Or, heck, get your own blaze-orange VOTE NO t-shirt.

Whatever you do, don’t mistake all the thumbs-ups on VOTE NO posts as indicating a victory.  See them for what they are: encouragement.

With you…and with thanks,

Andy