Welcome to La Parola

Featured

Posted on by

La Parola was originally the monthly newsletter of the Gay Italian American Club, a small, private, nonpolitical, social and benevolent society of men and women in the San Francisco Bay Area since 1984.

Summitlake.com La Parola has maintained this tradition since 1995. Our purpose remains the promotion of friendship and fellowship and to be a positive and benevolent force within the general community. Talking Crow Productions has been associated with our articles and essays since 1993.

Over the years, La Parola grew into a rich legacy resource of articles affecting the GLBT community, issue analysis, and community links. To paraphrase Tony Brown’s famous PBS quote concerning Shockley and racism in America, if we can’t confront the forces of hate and prejudice with facts and debate, then perhaps this lends credence to their theories that we are in some way inferior. In fact, when the issues are aired in the light of day, their arguments come across as pretty runny, which they are.

In recent years, many issues, which might formerly have been aired in La Parola, have migrated instead to our more general Commentary department. This reflects our long-held view that injustice inflicted upon gays and lesbians is actually symptomatic of underlying rights issues impacting society as a whole: all of us.

BANNER: The cover photograph at the top of La Parola was taken in San Francisco by Bob Sibley, around 1985.

Judging the Supreme Court on Same-Sex Marriage

Posted on by

From The Atlantic article “History Won’t Be Kind to the Supreme Court on Same-Sex Marriage” by Andrew Cohen, March 28:

Chief Justice Roberts attributed this “sea change” — nine states now recognize same-sex marriage — not to our society’s natural evolution toward empathy and compassion, not to our growing unease about judging our neighbors, not to the libertarian ideal that all consenting adults should be free to enjoy the benefits of civil rights, but to the “politically powerful” lobby and to “the political force and effectiveness of people representing, supporting your side of the case.”

Many commentators notes the SCOTUS performance in the last two days was weak-kneed, lacked conviction and pandered to popular sentiment and stereotypes.

I, one more gay person who is definitely unimpressed with the conservative block of SCOTUS, was nevertheless stunned by the appalling lack of principled legal argument or discussion among the defending and litigating parties, or, most particularly, by the Justices themselves. As far as I could see from media reporting, completely missing were discussions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or basic law and  constitutional principles of equal protection and non-discrimination.

Defending parties and some of the justices seemed to be arguing that, well, maybe we ought to let the States decide this — just as the states had decided that with slavery and Jim Crow laws before extraordinary measures had to be taken to stop them.

In Mississippi, it is reportedly still legal for a landlord to evict a gay person, and for an employer to fire a gay person. If this means the states can decide who gets basic civil liberties and how much of them they can get (and it does mean that), then the states are still doling out rights like party favors. Why is anyone waiting for the Supreme Court to put the “all” back into “all men are created equal?”

“Gay Marriage Polls Not Yet Reflected In Votes”

Posted on by

From David Crary on Huffington Post:

NEW YORK — Poll after poll shows public support for same-sex marriage steadily increasing, to the point where it’s now a majority viewpoint. Yet in all 32 states where gay marriage has been on the ballot, voters have rejected it. … For now, however, there remains a gap between the national polling results and the way states have voted. It’s a paradox with multiple explanations, from political geography to the likelihood that some conflicted voters tell pollsters one thing and then vote differently.

My comment:

“Still not with you people yet, but thinking about doing the right thing.” We’ve seen all this before with the civil rights movement, and then again with women’s rights. “Yes, we’re in favor of liberty and equality, but not just now, and not next door. But we’ll let you know.”

“Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small; Though with patience stands He waiting, with exactness grinds He all.” I think that about sums it up.

Westboro Baptist Church’s View on 2012

Posted on by

Getting an endorsement from Westboro Baptist Church is like getting an endorsement from the KKK. We all know of Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps and his off-the-wall little church in Topeka, Kansas. So who, if anyone, would those gay-hating churchgoers vote for in 2012? Since Bachmann is out of the race, I automatically assumed they’d pick Santorum.

I Googled it. The answer was a surprise, and not a welcome one. According to The Christian Post, citing an interview with The Huffington Post, Phelps’ gang would probably favor Obama.

This, from the same church that excoriates Obama as the Antichrist and embodiment of all evil. Why Westboro’s hatred for the gay-hating 2012 GOP lineup?

According to the Christian Post article, Timothy Phelps, youngest son of Fred Phelps, said:

“These people claim to be Christian, New Gingrich and Mitt Romney and some of them others. They aren’t pure followers of Jesus Christ. I wouldn’t trust [any] of them with a handful of change to go get me some bubble gum. There’s nothing of any value in [any] of those human beings.”

He said the current president would be a better choice despite his support of the LGBTQ community.

I noted that the Christian Post reporter could at no point in the article bring himself to refer to Phelps the elder as “Reverend.”

Everything we wanted to know. And less.

Excerpted Huffington Post Comments

Posted on by

I’ve recently become active in the Huffington Post registered comment community. Summitlake.com readers may find in my comments some good talking points and “intellectual ammunition” on a number of currently topical issues. I’ve mostly commented on news about the dangerous Santorum, the growing extremist religious right political movements, gay issues, women’s reproductive rights, and other recent news show-stoppers. Boldface subtitles are the titles of the HuffPost article being commented upon.

Alexander Forbes’s Comments

Dear America: You Have a Gay Problem
Commented Mar 15, 2012 at 00:50:57 in Canada
“Of course you have a right to your opinion, and we have a right to disagree, as you say. The issue is that statutory law is being used to deprive certain minorities of certain basic rights afforded all other classes of Americans (which you may call huge collections of individuals, or just ‘groups’). The most likely remedy would be the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but, if you read the text; you’ll see it enumerates what the _States_may not abridge, which of course many states are doing anyway. Hence the push to ban Same-Sex Marriage on the federal level. Constitutional protections deal imperfectly with issues the founding fathers never heard of or anticipated. Many of your all-caps arguments are found in the Libertarian Party Platform. Sounds like your heart is in the right place even if you don’t understand “gay,” anyway.”

Social Justice: Is Marriage Equality a Civil Right?
Commented Mar 15, 2012 at 00:08:43 in Religion
“Outstanding! Thank you! Marriage equality is a civil right and should be protected under the “equal protection” 14th Amendment.”

British Lesbians Denied Valentine’s Rose By Waitress Because They Were Not A ‘Real Couple’
Commented Mar 11, 2012 at 01:18:21 in Gay Voices
“Boo Boo Bob is right; the establishment should have been called out. But, you know, that establishment wasn’t hiring ‘real’ waitresses.”

Chick-Fil-A Speaks Out On Viral Controversial Employment ‘Flyer’ (VIDEO)
Commented Mar 11, 2012 at 00:47:03 in Gay Voices
“Thanks, and you’ve raised great points in the thread too. I was “no preference” in the army, and I was never asked about religion or sexual preference in any of many careers between 1964 and 2009. “4F” draft status could be awarded for flat feet, bad eyesight or disability, not just homosexuality. But you are correct that, empirically, many employers still had covert interest in personal info that was none of their business, and rumor was often as dangerous as confirmation.”

Chick-Fil-A Speaks Out On Viral Controversial Employment ‘Flyer’ (VIDEO)
Commented Mar 10, 2012 at 23:41:19 in Gay Voices
“I’m not counting on it. I read the whole thread and researched this on Kos’ 2007 article (most links broken) and elsewhere. I don’t think I could eat at a place with a name like that anyway. I’m not even religious, but being Christian isn’t on trial here. Practicing discrimination – or trying to enact it into statute – is. The franchisee question seems legit to me until a pervasive pattern of actual discriminatory behavior is shown.”

Chick-Fil-A Speaks Out On Viral Controversial Employment ‘Flyer’ (VIDEO)
Commented Mar 10, 2012 at 22:52:27 in Gay Voices
“Wikipedia has more current info, in more detail, than you’ll find in standard paper references, AND its articles are usually better footnoted. It’s NOT a substitute for doing your own research; your teachers are right. See what you can find on “social conservatism” in Webster’s or Britannica, and then check Wikipedia. Excerpt: “Social conservatism is a form of authoritarianism often associated with the position that the national government, or the state, should have a greater role in the social and moral affairs of its citizens, generally supporting whatever it sees as morally correct choices and discouraging or outright forbidding those it considers morally wrong ones.”” Continue reading →

Church vs. State: Religious Freedom vs. Freedom of Speech

Posted on by

Just when we thought the HHS “Contraceptive Kerfuffle” was resolved! So-called “social conservatives” from the religious right are attempting to hijack the issue from the Catholic Bishops to put a two-pronged political and religious spin on it. This followup article continues our February 7 story “Contraception: Controversial Health Care Mandate” in Commentary. Read our latest followup on church vs. state, also in Commentary.

“Straw Man” Arguments For Proposition 8

Posted on by

LOS ANGELES – A federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday that a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution, all but ensuring that the case will proceed to the United States Supreme Court. — New York Times.

PBS interviews with proponents of the same-sex marriage ban revealed they still argue that “marriage” is linked to “one man, one woman” by the biological necessity of procreation. As outlined on ProtectMarriage.com, they also claim, among other things, that

  • “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
  • “Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle.”
  • [Proposition 8] “restored the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be.”
  • “It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.”

The historical laundry list of injustices approved by voters and legislators beggars description. We even fought a civil war over some of those.  So let’s not pretend that a popular vote can actually legitimatize overt legal discrimination.

We even heard an argument by one PBS interviewee, John Eastman of National Organization for Marriage, that California Proposition 8 doesn’t discriminate; it merely defines marriage as between one man and one woman, thus preventing polygamy. But existing law doesn’t permit polygamy.

No one reading this column is likely to be fooled by such arguments. But we shouldn’t allow their outrageous claims to distract or side-track us, either.

Let’s just look at a very pertinent definition, a rhetorical tactic, discussed in Wikipedia:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Anti-gay-marriage proponents are simply redefining the legal definition of marriage with their manufacture of spurious additional attributes, then demolishing their “straw man.” There is nothing in any legal definition of civic marriage that ties it to procreation, protection of the “family,” ancient tradition, or any of the other attributes ascribed by people who wish to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Any 80-year-old couple can tell us they aren’t in it for the procreative value of marriage.

So let’s not allow the debate to be derailed by “straw man” fundamentalist smoke-screens. Like similar laws elsewhere, California’s Proposition 8 sought to permanently classify same-sex partners as second-class American citizens. Our fight is for full equality before the law and equal access to all its fundamental protections. Period.

No matter how much we cherish the idealized “mom and pop” version of marriage that we grew up with, fewer and fewer Americans remain willing to shame the American ideal of equality by supporting discrimination. There is no way opponents can evade the simple fact Proposition 8 preserves pervasive and systematic legal discrimination against one class of American citizens. Keep the faith. Ultimately we must and shall prevail.

Sage Advice on Coming Out

Posted on by

I caught this in the Huffington Post. It covers an aspect of Coming Out to friends that I never thought of. When I got to thinking about it, it covers a lot of other different situations.  ” … And wants to be in relationship with the person they need you to be” explains a lot of failed friendships.

“I can’t believe you’re doing this to me.”

It doesn’t hurt to state your piece, shut up, and wait to hear what the others think (as Shore himself narrates that he did.) Shore correctly identifies that particular specie of humankind who frantically tries to hijack any conversation about someone else’s life into a conversation about “me, me, me.”

Check out the full article by John Shore, “With Friends Like These.”

The bottom line, though, is that a gay person coming out soon learns that, like all people, they have two kinds of friends: true friends and faux friends. A true friend of yours loves and wants to be in relationship with the person you really are. A faux friend of yours loves and wants to be in relationship with the person they need you to be.

When push comes to shove, a true friend puts you and your needs ahead of themselves, but a faux friend puts themselves and their needs ahead of you.

Your friends blew it; they definitely proved themselves, at least during that car ride, to be your faux friends. They made your coming out to them about them: about their needs, their comfort level, their convictions. That’s a giant Friend Fail, for sure. When you come out to your friends, it’s supposed to be all about you. Period.

BBC: Hillary Clinton declares ‘gay rights are human rights’

Posted on by

BBC News ran a post on Hillary Clinton’s declaration that the US will fight discrimination abroad using diplomacy and foreign aid.

Last week Nigerian became the latest African country attempting to tighten homosexuality laws, with the Senate passing a bill banning same-sex marriages.”

My question: to which “Senate” was the article referring?