When do you know that a social trend has gained full traction in America? One way is to listen to the pronouncements of pundits, think-tankers, pollsters and professors. They’ll conduct sociological studies; they’ll sample public opinion; and they’ll make the case with statistics. And, in the aggregate, they’ll probably get it right.

But if you really want to know what’s on the radar screen of most Americans, look and listen to advertising, tv shows, sports, movies and music. That’s where theory meets reality. That’s where savvy manufacturers and artists do what capitalists do best: capitalize on the zeitgeist.

I think we all knew that racial integration had really begun to take hold when at-the-time-beloved Bill Cosby [now disgraced, of course] became the tv pitchman for that all-American convenience food—Jello Pudding. More recently, Cheerios ads began featuring an interracial family.

And now, the Kiss Cam has broken the same-sex romance barrier. On May 2, 2015, the Kiss Cam at Los Angeles’ Dodger Stadium zoomed in on two men, who did what all obliging Kiss Cam couples do: they smooched on camera. And the crowd cheered!

That, my friends, is progress–especially considering the fact that, in 2000, a lesbian couple was kicked out of Dodger stadium simply for kissing as they sat in the stands.

Just for a little background, the kiss cam tradition originated in California in the early 1980s, as a way to fill in the gaps in play in professional baseball games, taking advantage of the possibilities of the then-new giant video screens. But until recently, the Kiss Cam was a hetero-only deal. Over the years, some Kiss Cam operators would use the lens to create a homophobic joke: framing two men on the Kiss Cam screen with the word “KISS” beneath their faces. That was supposed to elicit laughs and “ewws” from the crowd. And it probably did.

As CNN’s John D. Sutter puts it:

For years I’ve half-jokingly told friends that we’ll know gay equality is here when same-sex couples are featured unironically on the kiss cam — when two dudes who are asked to kiss on screen actually do it and get awwwws, not laughs.

And now that [at least] one Kiss Cam—and one enlightened crowd– has validated on-camera same-sex smooching, that great and glorious day when people can unashamedly love whomever they choose may be dawning in the American psyche.

The post Kiss Cam: The new social barometer appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Republican legislators and Governor Mike Pence in Indiana have presented us with the latest incarnation of church – state relations in the United States. As they try to stand four-square behind religion, it might be good to take a look at what U.S. Constitution says about church-state relations. The First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Like any right in the Constitution, it is not absolute. Why is it not absolute? Because it can’t be. Inevitably it will collide into other rights also guaranteed in the Constitution. For example, the 14^th Amendment, Section 1 states:” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So the obvious question arises, “What happens when my religious belief interferes with someone else’s “equal protection of the laws?” The answer requires that we follow the words of Lyndon Johnson, “Let us reason together.”

We literally have to bargain this through. Suppose the bakery in Indiana wants to refuse to sell goods to members of the LGBT community. The proprietor says that his or her religious beliefs are such that homosexuality is a sin and it is acceptable to treat members of the LGBT community with less deference and respect than others.

However, on the basis of the 14^th Amendment and the civil rights public accommodations laws of the 1960s, there is a guarantee that an individual, regardless of race, national origin, etc. cannot be denied service at a public establishment. So what is of a higher value, the proprietor’s right to discriminate or the customer’s right to be served at any establishment open for business?

In this case, it is a little difficult to determine purely on a legal basis because members of the LGBT community are not considered a protected class, as is the case with a race, color, religion, gender, age, or national origin. With all the advances in rights for members of the LGBT community, there has not been the sort of legal protection for just “existing” that many other groups have.

Even though the civil rights of members of the LGBT community are not legally protected in the way that other groups are, logic leads us to conclude that their rights should be protected as with other “existence” groups.

This leads us back to the question of what is of  higher value, the proprietor’s right to discriminate or the customer’s right to be served at any establishment open for business. If we side with the business owner because of his or her religion, we are left with all kinds of questions, not the least of which is “what is a religion.” What would happen if all the businesses in a particular area suddenly got “religion” and decided that it was against their religion to serve members of the LGBT community? Then we would have a situation similar to the confederate states during the era of segregation. Large numbers of individuals would be locked out of significant portions of our society. The “common good” of our citizens would be sublimated to the wills of individual business owners whose main intent would be to discriminate against an unprotected group of citizens.

Women and minorities have been discriminated against during most of this history of this nation. In the 1960s, we began to make serious progress in reducing the discrimination. In the past five years, we seem to have taken steps backwards. What is happening now in Indiana and elsewhere beckons us to renew our logic and our compassion to protect the basic interests of the common good.

The post This church – state thing gets curiouser and curiouser appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On July 11, 2014, nationwide, gay men contributed to blood banks in the only way they legally can: Instead of men being able to donate blood themselves, they have to bring along allies who are legally eligible to donate.

The National Gay Blood Drive isn’t your everyday charity event, it’s also a protest that gives voice to an important and overlooked issue. The FDA bars gay and bisexual men from donating blood.

Almost unbelievably, this law is still in effect. When donors enter a donation center, they are asked to fill out a form that includes many questions—one example of which is “Have your ears been pierced in the last three months?—to establish whether or not a person is at high risk for diseases transmitted through blood. Most regulations on blood donors are reasonable and necessary to accurately decrease the amount of unusable blood, by assessing their risk for diseases including Hepatitis B & C, syphilis and HIV/AIDS. So it is excessively unfortunate that another question on the form asks if the donor is a man: “Have you had sex with another man since 1977?” Answering yes to this question makes a man ineligible to donate blood for fear it would contain HIV.

So, being gay puts you at higher risk for AIDS? According to science, absolutely not. According to the federal government, apparently—yes.

Not only is this belief as vintage as leg warmers, it’s a throwback to 1980s knowledge of HIV and the all too recent HIV scare targeted at homosexuals. Obviously, the FDA is thirty years behind the times. Why exclude lifesaving blood when someone needs a transfusion approximately every 2 seconds?

Here are just a few reasons why this law is just plain wrong: All donated blood is tested. All donated blood is tested for HIV, Hep B & C, and syphilis. So, why make you answer questions about sexual identity? If the FDA is willing to concede that not just gay men have HIV, why ban them as a group?

Sexual promiscuity and homosexuality are not synonyms. Just because a man is homosexual or bisexual does not mean he is promiscuous. But this law doesn’t determine someone’s number of partners, just his gender. Some heterosexual people are promiscuous, and many gay men are not. Obviously.

More women have HIV than men. The largest population of HIV today is in Africa, and over 70% of people HIV positive there are women. Women are more likely to contract all types of STIs, including HIV, because of their anatomy.

There. Now that we have established that this regulation is as unfounded as it is arbitrary, why is it still happening? Why doesn’t the FDA just change the questionnaire? There are so many ways to assess high risk behavior, regardless of how a person identifies. It’s a simple solution. But instead, the FDA forces gay men to disclose their sexual behavior when all they wanted to do was give a life-saving donation. It targets gay men who may then relive the torments they’ve experienced before being comfortable identifying as gay.

And this law works on a bizarre honors system. If you don’t disclose this information, no legal action can be taken against you. Why make gay men hide their identity to give blood?

All these questions deserve answers. But what is really striking is how little awareness there is for this issue. While gay marriage garners the main stage of the LGBT rights platform, blatant discrimination and defamation that still exist in government bureaucracy are ignored.

Why is this issue on the back burner of the fast moving LGBT rights movement? Especially when these kinds of misunderstandings about gay men has caused so much animosity in the past, both during the AIDS epidemic and before.

Most people, even in the healthcare industry, have no idea that this law still exists. It’s archaic, a violation of our rights, and totally fixable.

If you’re like me and want to do something to change this law, here is a link to the National Gay Blood Drive website, where you can sign a petition to repeal the ban on gay blood.

The post Let’s repeal the ban on gay blood appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In unanimous decision on July 29, the drafting committee for the Democratic National Convention embraced marriage equality as part of the platform for the 2012 Convention. The next step will be for the full platform committee to vote on it, after which it will be presented to the delegates at the Convention in Charlotte for a final vote.

The Democratic Party, after a long and winding road, is finally getting there on gay marriage. Most refreshingly, the Party is looking to take a strong moral stand on an important social issue. That act of taking a moral stand, in itself, could be a turning point for a Party that long ago lost its moral compass. In the 90’s, during the Clinton years, it rejected its progressive roots in favor of a neoliberal agenda that primarily serves the needs of the wealthy and well connected. Support for gay marriage could help the party return to what it should be doing—representing the interests of the poor and middle classes, including the special needs of minorities, women, gays and lesbians, children, and the elderly.

If the Democratic Party is going to win in November, it has to draw a sharp contrast between itself and the Republican Party. The way to do that is to reject “Republican lite,” and become, once again, the party that serves the needs of the majority. The majority will know that the Democratic Party is different by the concrete actions it takes on its behalf. The Democratic Party has to start doing what is right for the majority rather than doing what is politically expedient, making strategic calculations that protect relationships with donors, and legislating in ways that are economically beneficial for the careers of its elected and appointed officials.

Doing what is right often requires taking a moral stand. 

By “moral stand,” I mean regarding others with respect and treating them with dignity; accepting that we are all interconnected and have a responsibility to care for one another; and, having the motivation and intention to relieve suffering and promote happiness whenever possible. Taking a moral stand assumes these values. It rejects the greed of free market capitalism, the selfishness of the Republican worldview, and the harsh, punishing, judgmental attitude of fundamentalist religions.

Some additional moral lines in the sand that Democrats could draw: raise the cap on payroll taxes to fully fund Medicare and Social Security, double social security benefits, and extend Medicare to everyone. That’s just for starters. Democrats not only have to draw moral lines in the sand and differentiate their values from Republicans, they have to make a forceful case for policies that serve the needs and interests of the majority. The voters, on the other hand, have to trust that Democrats stand with them and not with Bank of America, Exxon Mobil, Big Pharma or Monsanto.

Supporting gay marriage is a no brainer

A recent Pew Research poll shows a dramatic increase in the acceptance of gay marriage since 2004. Among the total public, support is up 9%; among Democrats, it’s up 15%; and among Independents, up 7%. Even for Republican support for gay marriage is up 5%! Today, nearly two thirds of Democrats, or 65%, support gay marriage. Even though there are forces on the religious right working against gay marriage, and reactionary State Houses passing anti-gay marriage laws, the momentum is on the side of those who support equality for gays and lesbians.

By supporting gay marriage, the Democratic Party shows support  for the gay and lesbian community which could turn out more enthusiastically for Obama.  As a constituency, we are more vocal and more “out” than ever before. Large companies like Boeing, Apple and Microsoft are openly supportive of gay employees, and in many work environments, large and small, it’s safe to be out. Because there are more of us visible in the media, in the work place, in the military, at school and more of us are out to family and friends, the number of people who know and support gays and lesbians is growing. Together, we make up a significant voting block. If you know and love a gay person, it’s going to be more difficult for you to back a Republican with an anti-gay agenda. It’s not longer a political opinion to accept or reject. It becomes personal.

The Republican fueled religious right—along with the Catholic and Mormon hierarchy—tries to sell the idea that gay and lesbian marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. But it’s getting harder to make the case that gay marriage weakens or delegitimizes heterosexual marriage. Except for members of the Tea Party and the religious right who refuse to deal with reality, everybody knows that heterosexual marriages crash and burn every day on their own. The fact that one in two marriages ends in divorce has nothing to do with Bill and Joe, or Brenda and Sharon, choosing to marry.

Through much of its first term, the Obama administration pretended it never made promises to the gay and lesbian community or enlisted its help in winning the election. When gay and lesbian leaders met with administration officials in the White House to complain about a lack of progress on issues, they were told that the president’s view on gay marriage was evolving—a strange statement since during his 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, Obama expressed an “unequivocal support for gay marriage.” The response from the understandably impatient gay community was “evolve already.” It appears that for the good of the country, and for the good of the Party, he has.

The post Democratic Party to take moral stand in support of gay marriage appeared first on Occasional Planet.