Blood Laws

referenced from

referenced from

Today I read something that really made my blood boil.  Yes, it’s literally about blood.  I had no idea that currently homosexual men are not allowed to donate blood.  In fact, when I read this story I went and did my own research to confirm that was true.  I couldn’t believe it.  Yet, according to the Blood Centers of the Pacific website, it’s true.  American Red Cross confirms it on their website.  I suppose a homosexual man could technically donate under these rules, but only if they haven’t had sex with another man since 1977…

The content of the article I read was basically detailing a new proposal by the FDA that would allow homosexual men to donate blood, providing they hadn’t been sexually active in at least a year.  I had to double-check the source, because I initially thought this had been posted by The Onion or another satirical site.  It’s hard for me to understand why and how this kind of regulation could possibly still exist.  The article points out that there are tests which can detect HIV within two weeks of contraction.  It points out that allowing gay men to donate blood contributes significantly more of the life-saving resource to people who greatly need it.  It points out that the government assuming that assuming every single gay man has AIDS/HIV IS RIDICULOUS.

I’m very rarely at a loss for words.  Here I find that I’m pretty close.  To me, this falls under blatant discrimination of gay men, bordering on plain homophobia.  We have the resources to test for this disease.  It should be treated like every other blood disease that could be accidentally donated.  Screen as best you can, test the blood before it’s sent in, and THANK THEM FOR DONATING.


Looks Like We’re Not [bigoted] in Kansas Anymore…

by Justin DeFreitas

by Justin DeFreitas

Well folks, Kansas is finally getting there.  County by county, they’re beginning to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  I am happy to announce that Olathe, Kansas began officially issuing same-sex marriage licenses after several stop-start decisions because of legal holds and petitions.  I was fortunate enough to talk with one of the couples that initially applied for a license on October 9, 2014.  They even had an informal ceremony performed by a minister offering his services to couples on the courthouse stairs.  Soon after, the Kansas Attorney General put a hold on all same-sex marriage licenses, although applications were still being accepted.  Kaci Campbell and Kim Garner filled out an application on October 9th, but by October 10th the Kansas Attorney General had already blocked any licenses from being issued.  Kaci said after the first delay that the attorney general “…thinks that the judge that allowed us to get marriage license is not qualified to make that kind of decision…If not for activist judges, women would have no rights, right? Slavery would not have been abolished, right? Thank you, Judge, for standing up for ALL individuals’ rights.”  Kaci and Kim were finally able to receive an actual license recently, on November 19.  She contacted me the night before and said “They lifted the ban today in Johnson County, so tomorrow I will finally go get license and be married by the end of the day. The news called and interviewed us tonight, on channel 9 tonight…”  She and Kim still plan “to have another ceremony because the last one wasn’t technically legal.”  I’m so excited for them to have the most fun, creative, and LEGAL ceremony they possibly can!  They are both beautiful, unique people, and I wish them all the best.

Now, while this is certainly great news, it’s not the end of the battle (even in Kansas).  The state of Kansas is still appealing the rights to same-sex marriage.  Although this probably won’t amount to any changes, it’s still something to be concerned about.  Until same-sex marriage is at the very least respected by everyone, it won’t be an easy world for any of us to live in.  Why is it so hard for people to just see love instead of gender and sex and all of the other things that should be secondary?

Chinese LGBTs

referenced from

referenced from

I would like to point out that if you read the title out loud, it kind of rhymes.  I’m pretty proud of that.

I had no idea that electroshock therapy was still a prevalent conversion therapy technique.  Apparently, however, in China it’s still considered a viable method of “curing” homosexuality.  I won’t bother to point out all of the evidence pointing to conversion/reparative therapy being ineffective, and the antiquated nature of viewing homosexuality as a mental illness.  I’ll let you read that for yourself.  The article from states that China didn’t decriminalize homosexuality until 1997, and didn’t remove it from lists of mental illnesses until 2001.  The timeline is sort of amazing, but the fact that they are already considering banning reparative therapy is really quite a quick jump.  However, apparently the district court essentially ignored the case.  I would love to see this move forward, but again.  It’s pretty soon for a ruling like that considering they’ve only recently decided that homosexuality is something they’ll “allow.”

Genderless Ideas

I meant to post this on Transgender Day of Remembrance, but missed by one day.  In all fairness, my Thursday was absolutely insane.  I’m making up for it by posting an extra-long blog for y’all today!

Transgender rights has been something that has weighed heavily on my mind lately.  I’m not sure why exactly, but every situation where a trans person would be uncomfortable seems to trigger me.  I think that with all of the developments being made in the arena of gay marriage and gay rights I feel like the basic, simple, everyday rights of transgender people are being forgotten (or at least overshadowed).

So I decided to take a basic internet survey (via posting in several completely non-related groups), regarding transgender bathroom assignment.  To me, this seems relatively straightforward, so I wanted to see how many people agree.  I was also hoping to prompt some interesting conversations for people who haven’t spent any time researching or considering transgender rights.  The survey was fairly simple.  You were asked three questions regarding what bathroom transgender people should use (each question identified a different age group), and you were given three options for answers.  There was then a space for people to express why they had chosen what they had chosen, but this wasn’t required.  I feel that I got responses from people on just about every part of the spectrum, opinion-wise.

The first question was “Do you believe that transgender elementary students should be able to use the bathroom they are most comfortable with?”  They were given the options of “Yes; they should use the bathroom that matches their gender,” “No; they should use the restroom that matches their biological sex,” or “They should use a single-stall separate restroom.”  Out of 65 responses, 38 chose “yes,” 20 chose “no,” and 7 chose “single-stall.”

The second question was “Do you believe that transgender high school students should be able to use the bathroom they are most comfortable with?”  They were given the same answer options as question one.  I decided to choose two different school settings because of the controversy surrounding younger transgender people transitioning while in school.  I was also interested in the younger vs older comparison because of the arguments surrounding the possibility of sexual assault, if restrooms are used by transgender students.  Again, out of 65 responses, 42 chose “yes,” 11 chose “no,” and 12 chose “single-stall.”

The third question was “Do you believe transgender people should be able to use the public bathroom they are most comfortable with?”  They were given the same “yes” and “no” options, but the third option was phrased slightly differently for clarity’s sake.  The third option said “They should use single-stall alternate (family) restrooms.”  I knew that there would be a significant amount of adults taking the survey, and considered them more likely to approach the student questions from a mindset of protecting younger people.  I inserted this questions to attempt to force them to investigate their own personal feelings regarding both being in a restroom with a trans person, and forcing someone their own age to use a restroom they may be uncomfortable with.  I had hoped they would put themselves in the trans person’s shoes when asked from this perspective.  Out of the same 65 people, 46 said “yes,” 8 said “no,” and 11 said “single-stall.”

I was a bit shocked that the statistics didn’t significantly change between questions.  Most people picked all of one answer (i.e. 3 yes or 3 no).  There were only a few people who selected different options for different scenarios.  It seemed that people either decidedly were uncomfortable with people using bathrooms based on gender, or they simply weren’t.  The open responses brought all types of responses; the open-minded, the angry, the explicit, the indifferent, and the generally unrelated.  The prompt simply read “Why or why not?”  Responses ranged from “Biological sex is their true gender regardless of what gender they believe themselves.” to “Because that is their gender even if they weren’t born that way.”  There was on response that used the prompt as an opportunity to criticize America’s handling of restrooms in general, saying

“I personally see no problem with both genders, and sex, sharing the same bathrooms. I think that in America going to the bathroom is over sexualized, where people are appalled at the idea of men and women sharing. The main argument I’ve heard against it is that men will attack women in the bathroom, however, if something like that were to happen I think that would have much more to do with the amount of violence in that area. If someone is twisted enough to attack someone in a bathroom then they’re going to do it regardless of if they’re “allowed” to be in that particular stall or not. A bathroom is a bathroom, we all have to use it, so what’s the big deal with keeping everything separated?”

There were slightly humorous takes on the situation, such as “Because everyone has a right to pee in peace.” and there were also very serious observations, such as “they’re just trying to apply to our socially ascribed rules as fits them.”  There was even a response that simply listed “tough questions” at the end of the survey.

Out of everything contained in this, the thing that shocked me the most were people who seemed to believe that the single-stall bathrooms were a way to make everyone comfortable.  I purposefully placed that answer to see if people genuinely believed that this was a fair solution for all involved, and it seems that many do.  The people who chose the single-stall answers left comments like “It doesn’t bother anyone if they use a family bathroom, and it’s probably less awkward for them, not getting stares and what not.”  They argued that “It’s disrespectful to others that aren’t comfortable with the transgender population.”  They even left responses as blatant as “Because I can’t pee if a person with a penis is in the stall next to me.” I’m not kidding.  I was shocked.  I can’t imagine being told, my whole life, that I can’t use the same restrooms as almost everyone else around me.  Wouldn’t that feel, to you, like you were shouting to the whole world “HEY, LOOK AT ME.  I’M TRANSGENDER.” every time you walked into the single-stall handicapped/family restroom?  There are so many transgender people who go to great lengths to conceal the fact that they are transgender that we don’t even have any accurate statistics on how many people transgender people there are.  Asking them to identify themselves in public by using a specifically dictated bathroom is inhumane.  It’s embarrassing.  It’s hard for me to believe that people think that it’s fair in any respect.

There were two remarks that expressed concern for the safety of the transgender person themselves, saying “I don’t think our society is ready to responsibly and humanely integrate transgender students/adult in a public restroom setting.” I think that this is a valid concern, especially right now.  As this survey clearly indicates, there are a lot of people who are still incredibly uncomfortable with even the idea of a transgender person, forget an actual human being.  That being said, there are many hard-fought wars over basic human rights that have happened within even the past 100 years.  Most of them have resulted in some bloodshed.  I know plenty of transgender people who are willing to fight, and fight hard, for rights as basic as using a public restroom.  There are plenty of LGBTQ people and LGBTQ Allies that will join in that fight (and already have) and shed blood right alongside them.

I don’t think that this survey itself will change the world.  I don’t even know how many people will make it to the end of this post.  What I do know, is that this has opened my eyes to the discrimination coming from all around me, to people who have done nothing to deserve it.  I hope that I’m not the only one it impacts, but if I am?  I’ve certainly taken on a new respect for what’s happening around me.  And with that, I’ve taken on a new fight.

One Foot in and One Foot Out

by Tom Toles

by Tom Toles

Kansas is still fighting its losing battle against the allowance of gay marriages.  Really, they’re trying very hard to prevent it.  However, this week some counties finally began to issue marriage licenses this past week.  There are still many legal battles and confusion floating around, but apparently some places have had enough waiting.  What makes this battle interesting is that while some places are already issuing licenses, most places aren’t allowing legal name-changes, driver’s license updates, and other typical after-marriage chores.  Obviously, this is receiving a lot of interest and generating newly inflamed outrage.  If the marriages are being recognized, what is stopping the name changes?  How can these places pretend to support gay marriage if they only allow certain parts.  That is inequality just as much as banning gay marriage completely is.  All of this inconsistency seems to be aimed at driving this case directly back to the Supreme Court.  Frankly, at this point, the Supreme Court taking over and issuing an all-inclusive ruling would probably be the simplest solution.

Oh Kansas…

by Steve Benson

by Steve Benson

Yet again, Kansas has gotten within arm’s reach of issuing same-sex marriage licenses but then been blocked.  This time, a U.S. Justice by the name of Sonia Sotomayor issued a very last-minute stay (literally hours before licenses were set to begin being issued).  She is essentially clearing the way for gay marriage advocates to reply to the ban officially.  As far as I’m concerned, the Supreme Court has made it clear that bans on same-sex marriage won’t be tolerated.  Now we’re just dragging our feet.

Ludicrous Lucifer

by Cal Grondahl formerly of the Standard Examiner

by Cal Grondahl formerly of the Standard Examiner

I’m not here to make fun of anyone or their beliefs.  But come on.  Sometimes it’s hard not to.  The most recent example is undoubtedly one of the more interesting lawsuits filed against same-sex marriage.  A man from South Carolina believes that he is “anointed and assigned as a watchman for the souls of that people errantly identifying and calling themselves lesbian and gay” has decided that the issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with religion.  While that viewpoint, in itself, obviously isn’t new or innovative, what he follows this idea with certainly is.  He has filed the lawsuit with the claim that allowing same-sex marriage in South Carolina would directly obstruct his ability to worship.  In effect, he has argued that the freedom of religion clause in the first amendment prohibits same-sex marriage.  I can’t say that I see much real legal basis for this argument.  We’ll have to see how it is treated legally, but I’m certainly curious to see how much attention it garners, if anything purely for creativity.