National Coming Out Day

[altivo]

Given the discussion about labels among some of my friends today, this seems particularly appropriate.

Earlier this week, my boss came to me and wanted to know if she could ask me something personal and not work-related, adding that I didn't have to answer if I chose not to do so. I was a bit surprised but have nothing to hide so I told her to go ahead.

It turned out that she was on a committee in her church that is trying to hammer out some sort of statement of "open acceptance." The question of gays and lesbians had been raised by some older people who were evidently very much set against including the words "sexual orientation" because it might imply that they were approving of "the lifestyle" or worse yet, endorsing same sex marriage. She wanted to know if it really mattered any more whether sexual orientation was included in such statements.

I was taken aback. Not that she would ask me this, because she knows enough about me to be quite confident that I'm gay, even though I've never said anything outright one way or the other. She has met my mate repeatedly, takes an interest in our lives, and never gives the least hint of objection or disapproval. Rather, I was astonished that she had to ask whether it was necessary to include the words "sexual orientation" in what amounts to a non-discrimination policy document. Of course I told her it was more important than ever.

It is especially important because there is presently a powerful movement in the United States that seeks not only to prevent legal sanction of gay partnerships, but to retract the small victories that have already been won by GLBT people toward equal treatment under the law and in society. I pointed out to her the fact that the loudest and most strident Christian voices, the ones that are heard on the media every day, are all opposed to any kind of generosity toward the GLBT minority. Tolerant, nonjudgemental Christians, who I still believe are in the majority when all is said and done, are not doing enough or speaking up loudly enough to counteract the negative attitudes of the more vocal conservatives.

As it turns out, she belongs to a congregation of the United Church of Christ, which has in general been one of the more accepting and tolerant of the evangelical protestant groups ever since the early seventies. The UCC is largely congregational in structure, meaning that little doctrine or policy is decided and enforced jointly, but instead decisions are made by the individual congregations. Some UCC congregations were among the first churches to accept open gays or lesbians into their pulpits and leadership, in fact, and many have in various ways celebrated same sex unions, though they do not use the word "marriage" to refer to them. One ordained minister who did perform same sex marriages and used that word was chastised severely for doing so, but on the whole, the United Church of Christ is a broadly open and liberal denomination. Their involvement in politics and social issues is largely directed toward tolerance and freedom, even tolerance of views contrary to their own. I pointed this out and urged her to press for inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a nondiscriminatory term. She thanked me for clarifying it and giving her a reason to do so, and said she would do her best to have it included.

This sort of thing is the reason for National Coming Out Day. If we value our freedoms and ourselves, we must sometimes stand up and label ourselves in order to make it clear that "gay" does not equate with "pervert" or "child molester" or some other such negative stereotype, but rather can be, and often is, the person next door who helps out an elderly neighbor by clearing their sidewalks in winter or fetching their prescription for them when they can't go out and do it themselves. "Gay" might well be the teacher you admired in junior high, or the actor, athlete, or singer you idolize. It can be (and has been) the soldier who receives a medal for bravery, the author who wins a Pulitzer, or someone as ordinary as your letter carrier or that cousin who is the same age as you but somehow never got married. Unless we remind everyone of this, and do so repeatedly, they forget and once again believe the stereotypes and the lies that are spread by a strident minority of hateful leaders.

That is why it is important to be open about who we are, rather than try to "pass" as something unremarkable and ordinary. We do that not to "rub it in someone's face" but rather to set a better example and to break an unfair stereotype. I for one intend to continue to do that. If I help provide a role model for even one oppressed teen or change the mind of just one bigot, then it was worth the risk and the effort.

Comments

[kakoukorakos.livejournal.com]

Not all Christians are closed-minded bigot evangelicals. It's sometimes hard to miss that there are some who genuinely do seem to get the message and see it as a pressing need to be accepting of others and put the righteous, judgmental attitudes that Pharisees were known for away.

As far as standing-out goes, I think the way some gay folks (straights as well for that matter) are conspicuous lacks in taste. I think the problems really start when that sense of decorum for the setting is ignored. But that by no means means that anyone should be trying to hide their relationships or sexual orientation to accommodate the prevalent decorum double-standard that exists.

[dongstyle-ltd.livejournal.com]

The religious theme reminded me of a discussion "on Holiness" that I heard while sitting in a church service. The preacher pointed out that if one had a squeaky clean image, that nobody could fault them.

My issue with this was that many interpret this to mean if one is only "holy" (or whatever) if conforms to all facets of normative standards. I figured it was better read if one transcended normative profiles, then nobody could fault them by appealing to such profiles.

It's risky but I think it actually works. I wouldn't let being "not-straight" be the first or foremost thing that people notice about me: it might be deeply personal but it's also incidental to being.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

I've got nobody left to come out to.

Incidentally, I was previously unaware that the greek letter lambda is supposed to be some sort of a gay pride symbol. I wonder what that says about third company Israeli tanks? ;-) [Well, I guess one is upper case and one is lower case. Still, it strikes one as odd.]

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

I do not really like "open acceptance documents". For as long as anti discrimination laws exist, it will be a constant reminder that the battle for acceptance has not been won. Merely a grudging impasse written into contract law.

I will only truly be happy when acceptance of people's differences becomes automatic, and does not require laws to be passed to FORCE people to think in a civilised way.

Sadly, at this stage it IS needed. Let’s just hope that in the future mankind is able to grow up a bit faster.

"God is Still Speaking"

[animist.livejournal.com]

The UCC has caught a lot of flack for it's advertising campaign, which features different people being barred from entering a church because they are different - including a same-sex couple - the point being is this is what they pointedly do not do. Certain churches that are openly homophobic took issue with that. BTW, the UCC ordained their first openly gay minister in 1972.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

You're right about proper decorum. On the other hand, I think people who are abrasively conspicuous, whether they are drag queens or hell's angels, are that way in reaction to the inappropriate pressure to conform to which society keeps subjecting them.

It could be fashionable to cut one's ears off or have one's nose tattooed, since fashion is strictly arbitrary. I'd find it quite reasonable to reject those expectations, even if the majority followed them. Sometimes the demands of societal decorum simply go too far. And once you have stood up against it (as I did for years with my long hair) you realize how irrelevant almost all those demands are. It then becomes too easy to reject them even when it's quite easy to be "decorous." ;p

[altivo.livejournal.com]

There's a difference, of course, between wearing your orientation on your sleeve and actually hiding it by pretending to be straight. Neither should be necessary.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Is that really a lambda on the tank or is it some kind of block print variant of the Hebrew letter gimel? I believe gimel would be an ancient representation of the number three, just as gamma was in Greek.

Back in 1974 a Greek-speaking colleague asked me why I was wearing a lambda, and before I could answer someone else told her that it was a gay symbol. First she was shocked at the idea that I was gay, then she nodded. She explained that lambda had been used by Greek freedom fighters during WW2 as a recognition symbol because it is the initial letter of leutheria (lev-THREE-a) which means "freedom" in modern Greek. I've never thought that the idea that lambda as a physicist's representation of "wavelength" made sense in connection with the gay movement, but the Greek antecedent certainly does apply.

Another person, who is in fact gay but was rather isolated from gay politics at the time, was a student of Chinese language and history. He read the lambda on my sweatshirt as a Chinese character meaning "enter". It is the mirror image of another character that means "man". I'm sure this is coincidental, but it's also amusing.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone actively likes this sort of legalism. For one thing, no matter what you say, it leaves more out than it says. However, as things stand right now, such statements are an essential element in the fight toward a more open and tolerant society.

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

*nods* I always look on it as a step in the right direction. It's just a shame we need to do it like this.

Re: "God is Still Speaking"

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Some of the earliest published Christian writing that promoted open acceptance of GLBT people was written by UCC ministers around that time. It was also the time when the Episcopal church appointed a commission to investigate church policies and behavior toward gays. The commission returned a beautiful recommendation in favor of openness which was immediately squashed by conservative elements. The conservatives eventally lost out, but it took another 25 years of gradual changes, each of which they fought vehemently. There has been a backlash in the UCC as well, as you point out, but I think the majority there have clearly favored openness.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I agree it's a shame, but human nature seems to make it necessary.

Back in the mid-nineties, Colorado passed a nasty anti-gay proposition by popular vote. A GLBT boycott against Colorado was proposed, since obviously those who voted for the proposition simply had no idea how many gay people there were in the state, or how many gay tourists were adding to their economy.

Two publications in the field of spinning and weaving that I greatly value are produced in Loveland, Colorado. When it came time to renew, I sent a letter asking whether the publisher had a non-discrimination statement with respect to employment, and pointing out the necessity of such a statement in the light of Colorado's sudden turn to the right. She actually wrote back saying that they had two open lesbians on staff but no one felt it necessary to have such a statement. Grudgingly, I renewed my subscription, but only for a year. To my surprise, about six months later I received a second letter from the publisher, telling me that they had reconsidered and added a nondiscrimination clause to their employment policy, precisely for the reasons I had laid out. She agreed that making such a statement was an important move in light of the state of Colorado's politics.

As it turned out, other larger corporations took similar action to make it clear that they did not endorse and would not use the discriminatory loopholes created by the passing of that proposition. Ultimately a court invalidated the law, declaring it unconstitutional and unacceptable.

To straight Christians & the likeminded..

[gabrielhorse.livejournal.com]

When it no longer matters who I'm attracted to or whose attracted to me, then there will be no issue & I'll go quietly home and never have to point it out to people again. At present, it still matters. You have no idea what its like to be me, have people treat you differently based on silly ideals, or to have to work as hard as I do just to get what you take for granted. My views of you and your beleifs have nothing to do with it. Can you say the same to me?

Re: To straight Christians & the likeminded..

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Exactly so. We have to be visible just to show the more bigoted members of society how large and impressive a minority we are. They have been brainwashed into thinking of GLBT as equivalent to "the dregs of society, consisting only of drug addicts, thieves, and other morally corrupt" and simply have no idea that our number includes as many kings, geniuses, and other respected people as theirs does. (Frankly, I think we have more than our share, but I can't really prove that.)

Re: To straight Christians & the likeminded..

[gabrielhorse.livejournal.com]

*Nods* "Other morally corrupt" is a politically correct dodge from being sued for slander, methinks.

[typographer.livejournal.com]

As I said over in my own journal, every time I thought that was true-- even this week-- it's turned out not to be. There's always someone who hasn't twigged.

*shrug*

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

I think this was all very well said, Tivo. You were logical, level-headed, and fair.

I hope you know that I have never denied the bigotry and prejudice common among conservatives and evangelical Christians towards gays and others of "abnormal" sexual orientations. I have pointed it out myself that one of the reasons why I am so reactive is because I attacked by the religious right for my sexuality and for my Christianity by the far left. It can tend to make one very paranoid.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Thanks for recognizing that. I think what you miss when you say you are attacked "for your Christianity by the far left" is that like Christians, liberals are not a monolithic group that all believe the same things. Those who speak out against Christianity are often reacting to the same bigoted and loud-mouthed negative views that I indicted above. To them, that must be what Christianity stands for because it is all they ever see. You can't fault them entirely for that as long as the more tolerant and open minded Christians continue to hide in their closets or basements instead of openly condemning the bigotry of the religious right.

At the same time, most of the people I work with (indeed most of the people I've ever worked with in libraries) would be labeled as "far left" by Americans of conservative views or Republican loyalties. Yet I am the only one who is not a Christian, and does not attend church on Sunday. None of these people would attack you for being Christian, yet every one of them dislikes George Bush and the Republican party. At the same time, none of them attack me for being gay, furry, or non-Christian. They don't subscribe to the "us vs. them" mentality.

[songcoyote.livejournal.com]

Beautifully said, my friend. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this; they are congruent with my own.

I have similar struggles in talking about my "weird" lifestyle (read: polyamory) and being bi anywhere that it could negatively affect my work - and the fact that I have to worry about that at all is problematic in and of itself. At my current job it would probably be okay (and in truth more than one person has seen me smooching more than one of my sweeties in the parking lot) but I still take care, even here in the particularly liberal San Francisco Bay Area.

Anyway, thanks for sharing that. I'm glad your boss asked and received such an excellent answer, and even more that she then decided to include the phrase... even if we truly wish it weren't necessary.

Light and laughter,
SongCoyote

[altivo.livejournal.com]

It's kind of hard for me to imagine that there's any great risk to openness out there, but you know better than I. Even here we have more substantial legal protections than ever before. I find that in the case of employment I simply would not be willing to work for an employer who discriminated based on such things. Contributing my efforts to their economic success would seem wrong to me, and as I have done several times in my life, I'd probably quit well before they'd get around to taking any action against me.

I'm much more concerned about the social pressures that are brought to bear on high school or college age kids, who can suffer tremendously from bullying and bigotry, and often receive no support from family or teachers. Not having role models is particularly damaging to them, and that makes it important for as many of us to be visible as possibly can do so.

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

Those who speak out against Christianity are often reacting to the same bigoted and loud-mouthed negative views that I indicted above. To them, that must be what Christianity stands for because it is all they ever see.

That's partially true, but not entirely. Many of those who speak out against Christianity deliberately choose NOT to look at the good things about it because of their own animosity. For example, people are always quick to point out the atrocities done in the name of Christianity but are completely ignorant or refuse to acknowledge the incredible good it has done the positive impact it has had in societies throughout the history of western civilization. I find that all the good Christians do is often ignored and denied. So even if the more outspoken Christians changed their tune, it would probably not change the minds of their enemies much.

You can't fault them entirely for that as long as the more tolerant and open minded Christians continue to hide in their closets or basements instead of openly condemning the bigotry of the religious right.

Maybe not entirely but I can fault them for refusing to be objective.

I think what you miss when you say you are attacked "for your Christianity by the far left" is that like Christians, liberals are not a monolithic group that all believe the same things.

You're right, they are not. I better term would be socialist because much of the left in this country is no longer subscribing to true American liberalism, but socialism. Mrs. Clinton, an excellent example, is reeking of it. Socialism and Marxism are inherently hostile to religion as both see the oblivion of religion as part of the perfect utopia.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Um, no. Now you're just talking a party line without any rational support for the statements you're making. Stalinism was opposed to religion, yes. But there is nothing inherent in socialism that causes it to oppose religious belief. In fact, my understanding of a good portion of early Christian history is that many Christians lived in what we would now call socialist communes.

I am not a communist or a socialist particularly, but I do not view socialism as an "enemy" of faith in any way, either. Sometimes you do come across as being just as prone to prejudice and stereotyping as any of the people you decry.

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

Oh and to add to my point about the critics and haters of Christianity not changing their views even if the more outspoken evangelicals accepted gays and other minorities, they would just complain about the past. "Well, they use to be bigoted and discriminated against gays! Look at what Christians did to gays! So what if they accept them now, the damage has still been done!" It would be just the same as what people do today, pointing out how evil and bad Christianity is because of the crusades and inquisitions hundreds of years ago that no longer happen today. No matter how much Christianity improves and evolves, people will never forgive and forget it's past "sins."

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I can say the exact same thing about your attitudes toward "liberals", "socialists", and "non-Christians," love.

[heavens-steed.livejournal.com]

Um, no. Now you're just talking a party line without any rational support for the statements you're making.

Actually there is, I've studied socialism as an ideology and in order for it's goals to logically be obtained, religion must be destroyed. Socialism is a transitional system to communism and Marx definitively stated that religion needed to disappear. But I guess you're saying I'm too stupid to know what I read and what I was taught, right? I'm just reguritating other people's words. That's what I'm talking about. You assume that because my opinion is different from yours, I am a mindless parrot. That's the kind of prejudice I am talking about. I take that as a personal insult. I think you are wrong, but I don't assume you are being a parrot.

Sometimes you do come across as being just as prone to prejudice and stereotyping as any of the people you decry.

Well, as I just pointed out, you're the pot calling the kettle black. It's not prejudice when it is truth, or at the very least, informed opinion. I asked in my journal for people to explain why they think I am stupid for being a Christian. You never gave me your answer. Why do you lie to me, Tivo? Do you have that little of respect for me?