Posts Tagged ‘pride’

You Need to Calm Down

Wednesday, June 19th, 2019

Happy Pride!

Look to the Western Sky

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

I’ve been living in California for a month now and I’ve been enjoying it very much. The first few weeks were very busy getting a California driver’s license and registering my car (which is from here), finding a good gym membership, and taking care of all those other little details. I’ve been volunteering with the San Diego Zoo and I just started a cool new job in horticulture.

My timing was good – Orange County Pride kicked off last week and they had a fully loaded schedule culminating in the all-night Laguna Beach Party. I’ve made lots of new friends and I’m looking forward to meeting more!

To be honest, I miss my family and the poms a lot, as well as my friends in Maine and Louisiana. Home is always where the heart is (so maybe I can get them to move out here, hehe). It was a difficult decision to leave, but a big part of me feels like I belong here. I often felt like a square peg in a round hole when I lived in Maine. SoCal values align much better with my own – health conscious people, environmental protection, and science and tech everywhere, not to mention it’s so much easier to be a vegetarian here. And no snow! Each region of SoCal has its own subculture, but I’m quickly adapting to life in the OC.

Torrey Pines Gliderport in La Jolla, San Diego



#WeAreOrlando

Thursday, June 16th, 2016

Only a few days before the tragedy in Orlando, my home town of Belfast, Maine celebrated its first Pride event. As a teen, bullied daily for being gay, I never would have imagined Belfast having a Pride celebration, much less that I’d be marching with my company, athenahealth #gaythenista #athenaculture. I am looking forward to Southern Maine Pride and Bangor Pride this month as well.

Unfortunately the recent events in Orlando remind us that there is still a great deal of hate in the world and we must come together as a community if we ever hope to heal. Our community can’t just be limited to LGBT people and our allies – it must also embrace the faith community, Muslims included. We cannot allow ourselves to become further divided by new fears and prejudice.

In the coming weeks, vigils will continue across the world to remember those we lost. The events in Orlando could occur anywhere and so it’s critical that we present a message of peace and inclusion. Working together and understanding our differences helps us recognize we all share so much more in common. We must listen to one another and keep an ongoing dialogue. It is the only path forward if we hope to see an end to unrest and violence.

#weareorlando


He drew a circle that shut me out-
Heretic , rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle and took him in.

~Edwin Markham

Belfast Has Pride: Coastal Town Holds First Ever LGBT Pride Festival

Love Wins

Sunday, June 28th, 2015

Adam Flanders

I joined millions of Americans yesterday in celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. For those of us at Pride, there was even more reason for celebration. The timing of the court’s ruling was perfect, falling within the National LGBT Pride Month and precisely on the anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas (2003, striking down sodomy laws) and United States v. Windsor (2013, invalidating DOMA and giving federal recognition to same-sex marriages).

My company led the parade in Bangor as a co-sponsor of the event. We had beautiful weather and a great turnout. In addition to the usual rainbows and glitter, I saw many #lovewins banners celebrating the Obergefell decision. It was a day for our community to truly come together and reflect on our achievements and consider what next steps are needed, such as prohibiting employment discrimination across the nation.

Mary Bonauto on her SCOTUS victory on behalf of marriage equality

I had time today to read the full 103-page decision and take notes. There is a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the argument and it can be difficult to discern the central issue. To me, the core question seems to revolve around whether marriage is a right or privilege, and whether access to marriage is guaranteed by the US Constitution. Even more fundamentally, and perhaps most clearly stated in Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent, does granting access to same-sex marriage, as considered in light of the Fourteenth Amendment, offer freedom (liberty) from government intrusion or freedom to a government privilege?

“Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits.”

~Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting

The majority opinion and dissents appear to be divided primarily along this distinction and I felt they both made reasonable arguments, although I believe the majority correctly found that prohibiting bans on same-sex marriage represents a freedom from government intrusion rather than establishing a new right.

“States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle…The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”

~Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority

Over the past decade or longer, a majority of states have made targeted efforts toward excluding same-sex couples from the civil institution of marriage. At the level of the legislature and popular vote, most of them succeeded. These actions represented a course of action that included identifying a minority class of Americans and choosing to write discrimination into state laws. Many of these laws contained within them true examples of animus, sometimes even being accompanied by laws forbidding the creation of any anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. Such actions were ultimately their undoing in Obergefell because they expanded into the realm of government intrusion. State prohibitions against same-sex marriage were no longer passive obstructions to gay and lesbian couples. Instead, they became discriminatory statutes written into the law with a very specific intent.

Marriage has become so central to our society, with all its associated benefits and rights, it is hard to see how the respondents could make any argument as to why it should be restricted to heterosexual couples. The majority opinion found, “The respondents have not shown a foundation for the conclusion that allowing same-sex marriage will cause the harmful outcomes they describe.” The two main “harms” the respondents wish to avoid are the undermining of procreation and child-rearing, and threats to religious freedom. I find the former arguments to be implausible, even absurd. The oral arguments do well to dispel any suggestion that same-sex marriage would somehow cause harm to children or traditional family structure, so I won’t address them here.

As for religious freedom, it’s true that individuals representing government institutions and other civil organizations will be required to acknowledge and, where appropriate, participate in same-sex marriages and the associated rights of married same-sex couples. It is the nature of this country and our Constitution that we do not pass laws respecting any religion, nor do we abridge the free exercise thereof. The only exception is where fundamental civil rights and protections conflict with the practice of religion. We would not, for example, allow a fundamentalist Christian to sell his daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), even though he may say that such prohibitions violate his religious liberty. That may be an extreme example, but we have already seen modern examples of religious leaders attempting to circumvent other civil rights by asserting their would-be religious liberty. I had hoped the majority opinion would clearly establish heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation, but it was somewhat ambiguous in that respect. It nonetheless provides a strong precedent for future litigation and states in no uncertain terms that “sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”

Granted, no purely religious leader or organization should be forced to recognize or participate in a ceremony or other action that would violate their beliefs. That said, there is a distinction between the Church (religious) and State (civil) that the respondents often fail to recognize. That distinction is too often blurred, usually by opponents of LGBT rights. I myself have seen local churches in Maine use their congregations, church property, and even their billboards to explicitly encourage a certain result in civil law. By interfering with civil discourse, churches and religious organizations violate the separation of Church and State and by their own hand, make themselves vulnerable to state interference.

The reality is that protections for sexual orientation, just as with race, gender, ethnicity, and so on, trump those of religious freedom. All protected classifications are immutable and are not subject to choice, with the exception of one – religion. Religion is always a choice, it can represent any belief or position imaginable, and can change any time at the whim of the individual. The recent conflicts concerning marriage equality should be viewed as a coincidence of the times and the current demographic of the US.

“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.”

~Obergefell v. Hodges, majority opinion

Our laws are secular and any freedoms, even those contained within the First Amendment, come with limitations. The respondents in Obergefell expressed concerns about religious freedom and the majority opinion even offers some relief in that respect, the latter to which I do not object. However, I’m not going to pander to the respondent’s arguments; those who oppose equal rights under the law should be worried. I’m sure slave owners worried when African Americans began realizing new freedoms, as did some men when women began asserting their rights as equal persons. Just as we see today, religion at that time was used to justify unequal treatment under the law. And just as then, modern claims to “religious freedom” cannot suffice to maintain such practices. Most rational Americans no longer tolerate those religious justifications, so why should we tolerate similar justifications used to discriminate against gay and lesbian people? The highest power in this nation has declared that we won’t tolerate discrimination and offers us a clear path going forward. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority:

“These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage. Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.

“This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate…Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”

Thank you to the plaintiffs, their attorneys, especially Mary Bonauto, and all the other individuals who came together to ensure our nation started on the right path and achieved the dream of marriage equality. Although there is still work to be done, I am so proud of how far we have come and so grateful to be a part of this movement at a time in our history when we are realizing new freedoms and where a majority of Americans support those freedoms. Congratulations and Happy Pride!

Dispatch Magazine

Thursday, August 29th, 2013

I just got a copy of July’s issue of Dispatch Magazine, which is local to Maine and New Hampshire. My boss had actually saved it out for me because she recognized my picture on the first page (see full spread below). My friend Jesse and I went down to Portland and stayed for Pride weekend. I had a good time and this was the first Pride we’ve had since the passage of marriage equality in Maine, so it was even more special this year.

In more recent GLBT news, the Federal 9th Circuit Court just today upheld the ban on reparative therapy, a type of “counseling” intended to change the sexual orientation of gay and lesbian people. For now the ban only applies to minors, but I believe it will soon be extended to all adults, especially if opponents appeal the decision and it goes before the US Supreme Court. Following the DOMA and Prop 8 decisions, I think it’s pretty clear how our nation’s highest court feels about gay and lesbian people, so I have no concerns. Republican Governor Chris Christie recently signed a similar ban into law in New Jersey, a further indication that conservatives and the GOP are beginning to embrace equal rights for all.

Prop 8 supporters lost their last appeal a little while ago, meaning Prop 8 is permanently dead. As to the DOMA decision, there was some ambiguity about whether same-sex couples living in non-equality states who got married in an equality state, would receive federal marriage benefits. Today the IRS announced it would in fact extend federal marriage benefits to all same-sex spouses, regardless of their state of residence. That means a couple from Texas, for example, can vacation and get married in Maine, then return to their home in Texas and continue to receive federal marriage benefits. The IRS decision, combined with the current Supreme Court position, new litigation across the country, and public acceptance of marriage equality, leads me to believe same-sex marriage in every state is only a few years away.