Saturday, April 14, 2012

ENDA...Is It Time To Turn Up The Heat?


Employment non-discrimination is getting some much needed coverage this week...albeit for all the wrong reasons. President Obama is coming under fire for refusing to issue an executive order banning anyone contracting with the Federal Government from discriminating against any of their employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. To be honest, while the reports call it a "blow for advocates", I don't think anyone is surprised. If anyone feels echoes of the DADT repeal or the President's "evolution" on marriage equality that's because the same tactics and verbage are again being put in play. While this executive order would only affect the employees of government contractors, it would at least be a step in the right direction to a larger national law. Instead, the administration is claiming to put their efforts into a national ENDA policy by building a "coalition" of bipartisan support. In a recent White House response to the President's decision, Press Secretary Jay Carney articulated the Administrations viewpoint:



The President is dedicated to securing equal rights for all LGBT Americans.  And that is why he has long supported an inclusive employment non-discrimination act which would prohibit employers across the country from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  The President is committed to lasting and comprehensive non-discrimination protections, and we plan to pursue a number of strategies to attain that goal.  Our hope is these efforts will result in the passage of ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which is a legislative solution to LGBT employment discrimination.

And I would make the comparison here that pursuing that strategy, the passage of ENDA, is very similar to the approach the President took for the legislative repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”



Does all this sound familiar to you too? With the repeal of DADT, the President had it within his power to issue and executive order and instead, opted to build a similar bipartisan coalition and came under all the same criticism. But there's a problem with the Administrations version of events surrounding the repeal of DADT that may be key to understanding our role in helping pass ENDA and ensuring workplace protections for all LGBT Americans....and that is the role of outside pressure.





It was really just a short while ago that the President was being urged to sign and executive order to end DADT. Advocates were pointing to the precedent established by President Roosevelt when signing a similar order to racially integrate the armed forces. Even then the President steadfastly dug in his heals and refused, preferring instead to try to build support amongst both Democrats and Republicans for a congressional repeal. It was precisely that instance on bringing both parties together that  led to the "compromise" repeal bill and its laundry list of prerequisites...including that embarrassing and sometimes downright insulting series of studies that were performed in order to poll straight soldiers about their attitudes to the fellow gay soldiers. That self same study with John McCain used to further stonewall the process for months. Both before and after the compromise repeal bill, the process had stalled out many times and there seemed to be a lack of clear Presidential support...not to mention the lack of any bipartisan support that President Obama claimed was the only real path to a lasting repeal.


So what changed? How did we go from stuck in legislative limbo to the passage of the compromise repeal and the final signing of the bill? In my opinion, DADT would still be the law of the land were it not for outside pressure. First were the lawsuits that accumulated one by one...then came the activists willing to chain themselves to the White House fence in order to raise awareness of the issue. There were also countless journalists and bloggers consitantly bringing the issue into the awareness of the greater public. And finally, the public itself became a huge source of pressure on the White House. Times had changed dramatically and it became clear that, while the powers that be feared phantom repercussions(and election year) of allowing  LGBT people to serve openly in the military, the public began to make it clear that  they just wanted them to get on with it and move on to more important issues....like jobs, recession, and the current wars.


But as an outsider looking in, the day I really saw things change was when Get Equal began becoming a nuisance by chainging themselves to the White House fence and sitting in at the offices of Senator McCain and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They made news and they brought the issue to the publics attention in a vissceral way. from the Administrations response to the demonstrations by Get Equal it became clear that they were feeling a little fire under their feet as it wasn't long afterward that the repeal actually began to pick up steam and move through congress, culminating as the final repeal. 




Where am I going with all this?......The White House will use the repeal of DADT as an example of their advocacy for the LGBT community and the success of their methods. But I don't believe that is true...nor do I feel that repeating that mistake will fare any better for ENDA. ENDA has none of the outside factors going for it that I feel ultimately pushed DADT out of limbo and into reality. If you were to ask the average American what the acronym ENDA stands for I doubt many would know. Even the gay community  is not as well versed in the topic as we were with DADT. For instance, how many of us know that it is still legal in 29 states to fire a gay person on the basis of their sexuality. That's more than half the nation!...or that it's still legal in 34 to fire a transgendered person? Or...how many of us have listened to the horribly demeaning "bathroom panic" arguments that have been leveled at the trans community in resistance to including them in the bill? How many American's know just how long that ENDA has been kicking around the halls of Congress for every session since 1994? DADT took on a human face in the public in a way that workplace non-discrimination measures haven't yet captured the public's imagination. America held it's breath as gay soldiers came out to their parents but there is no similar human drama to engage the hearts and minds of the public for workplace protections...unless of course you count the "bathroom panic" drama that scares the public into thinking cross dressing men are going to prey on women in public bathrooms...all just another way of making Trans people look like predators when they are the ones most often hurt by a lack of employment protections. 


We need to talk about this in a larger public sphere and as loud as possible. As a community we need to pay attention to ENDA's progress with the same attentiveness and sense of outrage that we brought to DADT. If the White House is going to give us nothing but talking points and polite handshakes then perhaps it's time to be inconvenient again. They need to know...and the nation needs to know...that we are here and that we are not going to go away with a "wait until later" response...later never comes. We rattled our sabers to allow LGBT people to be allowed to be themselves in military life and now it's time to beat our swords into plowshares to do the same for the gay, lesbian, and trans people who have to hide back home. Otherwise...what are we really fighting for if we are not allowed to be full citizens within the country that we are serving?


This is an issue who's time has come and it needs our help to lift it from obscurity and into the public limelight. It's time to hold our Government accountable to seeing it through and not accept dithering answers. It is time to turn up the heat on ENDA. Will  we find our voice?


Until next time dear readers....


44 comments:

  1. wait, what? i have seen the executive order....it exists.....one of my professors even confirmed and verified it, he was an hr major.. im confused. did it lapse or something? last couple of years? i will get the number and link it.... based on what i have seen, why would obama or any president issue an executive order that already exists? unless it has lapsed or something. the executive order does apply only to entities with a federal contract. im on the eeoc page and im not finding the stuff i saw and have been referencing but im notorious for not finding stuff when i want it. same goes for my comments about the civil rights act of 1991, i will find it though, it may be sometime though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ha, i found it! i had to get some help but that's fine. as of may 28, 1998 through fmr president clinton's modification of executive order 11478
      "It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation or status as a parent, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the federal government, to the extent permitted by law." -E.O.11478

      the link: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-orientation_parent_marital_political.html

      this is by no means comprehensive to the u.s. at large. it does ONLY apply to the federal government and its contractors.

      Delete
    2. also and more specifically relevant to the discussion.
      http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eo-11246.html

      ok....i stand corrected. part II of e.o.11246(which obligates contractors to the certain standards of employment practice) is not included in the change wrought by executive order 11478, so far-research continues, but this makes no sense what so ever and is contrary to what i have been taught for many years..which is not necessarily a surprise.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. dang-it lol yours wasn't there 2 minutes ago lol

      Delete
    2. lol... well good luck next time...mwahahaha hahahaha hahahaha!

      Delete
    3. lol when I had wrote it it said 0 comments and then when I publish it yours in front of mine lol...but I will beat you next time ;)...I will!

      Delete
    4. lol...its on like donkey kong...bring it. que the evil wizard with the steepled fingers.

      Delete
  3. the other issue with anything employment discrimination is that it can be very hard to prove. most employers are not required to give a reason for a no hire decision and so long as they do not say anything or write anything that reveals that discrimination was the reason for a no hire decision then they are safe to carry on in their bigotry. the other side is you have to show loss and if youve gone and got another job or an even better one then where is the loss? sometimes this stuff is obvious and there are exceptions(i.e. religious entities are free to justify their bigotry through their faith) the things one learns while getting their bba. yes shameless bragging but dammit i did a lot and went through a lot to get that piece of paper.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bryan,

    I think there’s more going on than ENDA simply being more obscure in the eyes of most Americans than DADT. I think our culture war over marriage equality is sucking out most of the oxygen of America’s attention when it comes to gay issues. As enormously important as marriage equality is to all of us here, ending the 24/7/365 “quail-like hunting season” on gay people in the workplace is just as important if not more so. There probably is a significant plurality in the gay community which has no interest in getting married or entering into domestic partnerships and may even be too flakey (promiscuous) to be suitable marriage or partnership material for gay folks who DO take those kinds of relationships seriously. But even the most promiscuous, coked-out bar fly in our community needs to support him or herself with a job. So the lack of ENDA affects far more of us than the fight over marriage equality. And, yes, it will take enormous noise from us to make anything happen legislatively. And even that’s a long shot considering that the House is controlled by Shiite Republicans, whose strength will probably increase further with the election.

    I recently started a new job at a car dealership in a small town which borders Omaha, my home town. Omaha recently passed a new anti-discrimination ordinance which covers sexual orientation. In terms of annexation law here, Omaha may annex adjacent suburban communities so long as the population of the annexation target is under 10,000. Many, if not all, suitably sized suburban communities have been annexed by Omaha and, therefore, would also be covered under our new anti-discrimination ordinance. But the suburb where my new job is located has population 15,000, which means it can never be annexed and, therefore, I am unprotected working there. And I have heard that this particular satellite community is rabidly conservative—essentially Santorum territory. And the culture of the car dealership I joined is very macho, to retarded extremes. We have meetings in which they actually have us chanting “booyah” in response to someone’s good sales results. I go along with it—like I really have a choice in the matter although I do it quietly—but I feel like a complete moron doing it. Not that I’m inclined to do so anyway, but this most definitely isn’t the workplace environment to go around with “gay” stenciled to my forehead.

    It’s too early for me to tell for sure, but our hours are crushing enough that I’m hoping we won’t be spending social time together at e.g., Christmas parties, etc. where people bring their spouses and those who are unmarried and without a girlfriend look like they have two heads and a tail at such gatherings. There also are so many of us and we are so busy working with customers that I’m hoping we won’t get too in depth into each other’s personal lives in conversation. So I’m hopeful it’ll be reasonably okay for me there. So, especially in a workplace environment like mine, I sure could use some protection. Now that I’m out of the care-giving business with my now deceased mother, I want to get on with my life now and find my soul-mate. It’s long overdue and I’m sure as hell not getting any younger….

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i am working in a soul devouring job as well...but i am looking for another. while it is a work in progress for me, and all of us, i want to live like clooney, meaning i dont want to do anything that is not fun anymore. i am a bit stuck right now but that will change. please dont stay in that kind of job. i am a gay pagan biker wanna be in the bible belt in texas...i was even both a poster boy for white supremacy as a child-in looks and the 'baby' jesus in the parade, but the mountain's song calls once again and it's call reminds us to be joyful in the lifes we have. blessed be dave, you are loved.

      Delete
    2. Why, thank you. You're very kind to say that. You are loved too. I didn't intend though in describing my new job to imply that I disliked it (although our meetings are wearing the hell out of my bullshit detector). I meant that our hours were demanding enough that I would think most would regard their personal time as precious and wouldn't care to spend yet more time with their co-workers in a social setting. And that can work to my advantage if I have a boyfriend or better.

      Delete
    3. ah, well perhaps my own situation colored my reading then..not usually something i do (we all have our filters so im not at all unbiased) nonetheless. blessed be.

      Delete
  5. I think that this is important and that there are couple reasons besides not tugging at the hart strings that it suffers in gaining traction. For one thing very often the LGB community is to willing to throw the T community under the bus to achieve a goal with the promise that once they have X they will come back and help the T community get X too. (and that dose not tend to work out for the T community)

    I think that another part that hurts is that 21 states the LGB are already taken care of, then add into the mix that the firings don't make national news because for the most part the big national company's already similar policy (because its easeyr to write your policies for the strictest state and apply them nation wide then to have 50 different policies) so you don't get the outrage of the Wall Mart's, Kroger's, or Macy's firing employees for being gay making national news. (and it tends to only be very big company's that get national media attention for any employment issues)

    Then there is the very important fight for gay marriage that comes in and takes up lots of the medias short attention span. In part because media wise it is an much easier story to cover and takes much less explanation and nuanced explanation for the subject then ENDA dose. (and we all know how much the media like simple!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i agree, the media likes simple. its that whole 3rd grade education thing ive complained about for years. without detracting from the serious nature of it at all..in many ways the marriage issue can be considered a 'fluff piece' to make people go 'aawwwhh.'

      Delete
  6. @everyone....I see all your points and it's clear that workplace protections are a much higher priority for some people that marriage ever may be....that said....

    I in my opinion the struggle for marriage equality isn't an impediment to pursuing other vital legislation. In fact, I think that any time we take a step forward, it has a generalizing effect on other issues. There was no doubt that the general public was for allowing gays to serve and they were getting tired of the administration turning into such a big deal. They didn't see it as a big issue and began to grow as frustrated that we were still discussing this as much of the gay community was. It made Republicans look foolish and put some egg on democrats faces too. I think that same current of emotion runs through the marriage equality fight...and extends to a lesser extent to all other fights as well.

    Each piece of the civil right puzzle that we fit into place helps the public at large not as afraid of further ones. I think that for the public to realize that lgbt people can defend their country...and in some states marry, makes the fact that you can still be fired for being gay look absurd and laughable. Not to all people, but a growing majority.

    As we take more steps forward, it becomes less scary for the nation to accept the next ones and in that sense fighting for out military service and marriage equality can help employment protections because the it begins to look like an embarrassing missing piece to the puzzle. But the key is that people need to know and how will they if we don't raise a ruckus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bryan,

      I don’t think anyone here would disagree that a ruckus on ENDA needs to be raised. Many of us have been saying instead, in part, that the marriage equality debate has stolen all or most of the thunder. But, now that I think of it, I’ve decided I agree with you that the marriage equality debate doesn’t have to be an impediment to ENDA. It does seem utterly retarded to allow gays to openly serve in the military now and marry in some states, and yet allow it to be open season on gays in the workplace. No one is talking here about sexual misbehavior in the workplace because that’s just plain unprofessional. No one supports that, not even us. Gays can be let go simply upon discovery of who they are even when they have done nothing wrong at work.

      -----------------------------
      What I’m going to say now is obviously off topic but very worthwhile. This is something I suggest all gay people and others sympathetic to our side do for now on…. Just as we have trained ourselves to say “marriage equality” rather than “gay marriage” because the latter term connotes special rights in some people’s perceptions, let’s all stop using the term “traditional marriage” and put our opponents on the defensive by calling it “marriage INequality” for now on. And let’s hope the term “marriage inequality” goes viral just as the re-definition of the word “Santorum” did.

      Delete
    2. How perfect it will be when the first associations people will make when they hear the term "marriage inequality" is unfairness and bigotry, which defines the essence of our opponents.

      Delete
    3. i like that dave. O, the rants i went on in my classes....on many topics but i had to be careful of certain issues because i do try to moderate myself a bit, i want to be constructive and destruction is so easy. i can be extreme and apparently im still an idealist because i dont think its right to accept things that my older contemporaries just shrug off as 'thats life.'
      bryan, i hope that i was clear in that i strongly agree with you and jay and fully support marriage equality-on its own and as a precursor to other inequality issues. my only distinction-as a child of divorce and an outsider, i have said for years that, since the churches want to be all in our faces about it, 'marriage' should be let go as a religious term-let the churches fight over it all they want (they can kiss my hairy tattooed and pierced texan body parts)- as far as the state and the law are concerned they should all be civil unions. we have enough history that i think that when any couple, or other arrangement with consenting adults that are able to contract, should have a list of terms they choose from that define the parameters of that relationship, in terms of their legal obligations. i also think they should renew it every year or let it die a peaceful death. partly i think people enter too casually into certain kinds of relationships and i personally feel that if you cannot have certain conversations then you are not ready to be in a relationship where that is relevant. especially if you want to involve children and i think its more relevant for those who can get drunk and 'accidently' knock each other up, and i really do by no means intend this a any kind of bash against. like i said, i can be extreme and sometimes i revel in it a bit too much.

      Delete
    4. Having a choice of labels to define your relationship under the law? I’m okay with that one. But yearly renewals? For those who in their hearts intend marriage, I think that aspect would make their relationship feel less “marriage-y” and less permanent, which is NOT at all what they would want. After a number of years being married, some people on their own like to renew their vows, but that’s purely love and emotion at work, which is how I feel it should be. Not some legalistic, repetitive thing they have to do like renewing their vehicle registration every year.

      If we’re going to do something like this, let’s not carry it so far that the term “marriage” disappears under the law. For many of us here, terms such as “domestic partner” or “civil union” feel inherently second class and unequal. Marriage carries much more emotion to it, which is what I think most entering it want. It certainly is what I want. By accident, I see Youtube videos of gay marriage proposals and guys who get proposed to are just as likely to cry as when a woman is proposed to. It’s such an emotionally overwhelming experience that you just can’t help it. “Will you be my co-civil unionist?” or “Will you be my domestic partner?” just doesn’t carry the same emotional punch. It’s uniquely “Will you marry me?” that consistently brings on the happy tears.

      Delete
    5. i was making a distinction between the legal and personal aspect. i have no problem with 'will you marry me?' in that situation i myself will use 'marry.' it should be an option on the certificate to say 'marriage' instead of civil union-which i did not say. i think, myself included, that we have unrealistic fantasies of what marriage is that cannot be addressed until we get into that situation and that if you are not willing to let go of those things and be real about it and make the decision yourself to stay in the relationship regardless of any opportunity cost then gtfo. in as responsible a manner as possible according to the terms you have chosen (in conversation i usually add -you f*king child because those are the 'adults' im addressing)
      i just think that the governments interest does not involve regulating who i marry so long as we are both consenting adults. i stand by the yearly renewal. if it is 'love' motivated then there is a mindfulness of the situation involved that for many easily and frequently gets lost in the 'supposed to do.' our relationships are not and should not be dependent on recognition from outside but they should be supported by that recognition, equally and without bias. obvious exceptions excluded-animals, children, the not competent (while i can be an elitest a*hole and frequently rant about the fact that we allow morons and drug addicts to breed but dont allow loving, caring, long term couples to marry and adopt because they happen to be same sex, i am actually using the legal definition here). especially for same sex partners, many religions dont condone it so for those that embrace that aspect they are not a preventive just non associative, that whole equal rights thing.
      under my scenario it may also be a good idea to limit the number of contracts one can enter into but i think that may undervalue the role of religious institutions.

      Delete
    6. Can you imagine how much of a fuss there is going to be the first time a veteran gets fired for being gay and it makes it on the news? Like when the integrated troupes came back to segregation.

      Delete
  7. The experience of the Canadian LGBT community is that rights are not given away by politicians but are fought for by picketing, raising money, demonstrating, launching court cases, and by lobbying. I cannot think of one advance made in Canada that was not a result of activism of one kind or another. Politicians do not see any up side to catering to us so we have to fight for and take what is ours.

    As an outsider I am not a stakeholder in the fight for LGBT human rights in the United States. I am rooting for a second Obama term though. I'd say a majority of Canadians are. We're mostly centre/left of centre here and the thought of a right-wing president is a little frightening in these uncertain times, particularly with an ideologically motivated right-of-centre prime minister in Ottawa. And we want to see the USA take the lead it should have taken all along in LGBT rights. Much of the world's LGBT population lives in fear and oppression. The US could set a great example for places like Uganda and Russia.

    I do feel that if going slowly on this issue will help Obama get a second term, it's a small price to pay. Nothing gives me the willies like the thought of Mr. Romney with his hand on the buzzer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bryan,

    I just saw your sub-video on the agaycollab channel and, since I don't have a YouTube account and can't comment there, I'll do it here.

    The ending was hilarious with you all tied up. Jay does such a good job at that. Try not to be so obvious as to how much you enjoy that!! :=D :=D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bryan,

      If you're really, really good, you might even get to lick Jay's boots! :-D
      Guess I kinda outed myself as to some of my online video viewing habits, didn't I? :-D :-D

      Delete
    2. lmao! as an inappropriate troll, i think we're all a bit purvy on something...and i totally went all little girl over that vid.

      Delete
    3. Well, that vid shows us that somebody over at the Leffews has a good sense of humor. Can't tell whether the bondage thing reflects more Jay's humor or Bryan's or maybe both equally. And I'm not at all shy about trying out my style of humor on them. Can't tell yet how well it's going over though.

      Delete
    4. i think jay is the dad doing the garden-hose penis jokes where bryan is more the guy cackling in glee as everyone flees the area. admit it bryan, you dutch-ovened jay more than once...
      ok, sorry about the off topic.

      Delete
    5. Apologizing for being off topic? Don't bother. I'm the number one offender for that one around here. They ought to put out wanted posters for me. Maybe Jay can come tie me up too!! :-D :-D Don't tase me, bro! :-D

      Delete
    6. lol, well its more that i dont want to devolve too far. plus i was expressing my opinion of their sense of humor which can be both inaccurate and woefully callous on my part. as far as the tazing is concerned...my brother is still an ass and still in tehachapie(i probably misspelled it), just waiting for the right confluence of jay's bad day and my brother's bad day. seriously, yes i did pictures included. he has no heart conditions if that helps. the look on mom's face when she found out was priceless and she was so shocked she could not process. i do actually have a halo...its still in the box never been opened...the horns however are firmly in place...herne would be proud.

      Delete
    7. It's a little hard to tell from your comment, but the tazing reference was intended only for Jay because he's a cop and necessarily would have to use a tazer sometimes in his line of work. Jay's being a cop is the only thing that makes the tazing reference make any sense here.

      Delete
    8. yes it was directed at jay originally because he is a cop. the answer though is: sort of but not really; i think its hilarious... which was the point of sharing. i sent a link to my brothers fb giving jay 'permission,' like he needs it but nonetheless, slash requesting he taze my brother if the opportunity arose and jay was feeling prickly.bryan is, however, free to join in too id love to see him shoot lightning from his hands-yes i know its a darkside power but that does not mean a jedi couldnt do it, look at luke.
      see i dont think like others, hence the confusion. its work sometimes for me to be coherent to others and im a bit callous of it.
      i could be wrong but i thought they both would enjoy the joke for what it is..they have bros too.
      i can also understand the not liking it for the situation to require actually tazing someone but my bro is an ass and has survived much and jay kind of reminds me of our sperm donor in temperament. sans the crap making It sperm donor(and It). (yes, i have daddy issues and i dont see them going away completely ever.)

      Delete
    9. There was a news story from perhaps a couple years back where some college student was getting pretty disruptive at some public event with some politician there and he got tazed. Immediately before he got zapped, he yelled at the police officer, "Don't taze me, bro." So I was using a widely known quote from the news. The prior news story and re-using the quote as I did above is how I intended to make it funny.

      Delete
    10. that was awesome, it just redirected my train. you should search for the 'brorape' mocumentaries on youtube. they are hilarious.

      Delete
    11. You might have noticed in the latest Depfox video on bullying (Friday) that Jay was reportedly sick in bed. With new blog posts usually appearing here every weekend, I bet what happened was Bryan was initially busy taking care of Jay and then caught whatever himself. Probably everyone there got it.

      Delete
    12. I have a special opportunity to see both The Right to Love and go to my first gay pride parade in Kansas City, Missouri on May 28th—Memorial Day. In light of some background information that I’m about to give, I would welcome anyone’s opinion on whether they would pursue this opportunity or let it go as possibly too much trouble. I live in Omaha, Nebraska and Kansas City is roughly 2 ½ to 3 hours away. In terms of my work schedule and when my days off fall, this opportunity couldn’t possibly be better timed.

      But there are some factors which could lean toward not bothering to go. I don’t know anyone in Kansas City, let alone gay people. And, having emerged recently from a 15-year period of taking care of my disabled mother (now deceased), I haven’t exactly been a social butterfly and, therefore, don’t know any gay people here in Omaha, let alone those whom I’ve befriended and can ask to go with me. So I necessarily would be going there alone. Kansas City is twice the size of Omaha, if not more, and it has really high skyscrapers and it’s super easy to get lost down there. I also would be driving WITHOUT the benefit of a satellite navigation screen in my car. Furthermore, it would be a lot more convenient to just wait and buy the DVD version of The Right to Love later this summer and just watch it on my laptop at home.

      On the other hand, there is that brotherly communal experience of getting to see it with gobs of “my own people” in a theatre I’d be missing. This could be a great day of being completely authentic and fully myself. I get the fun of being that way here, but even this can't compare to being able to do it in the physical world. And, if I were lucky enough to meet someone at Pride to go to the movie with, I’d have someone to snuggle up to in the theatre. And the advantages of going to the Kansas City Pride rather than any held in Omaha—and, yes, we do have them—are that their Pride presumably would be a lot larger and better than ours could be and there couldn’t be any adverse consequences to me in my new job in a not-so-necessarily-gay-friendly-workplace if I inadvertently got filmed and shown on the local news.

      So, my question to anyone here is if you had the very same opportunity I now have, but subject to the very same circumstances I’ve described above, would YOU nevertheless go or would you not bother perhaps because it is more trouble than it is worth?

      Delete
    13. fuck the excuses...GO! meet some new friends then your not there alone. most of my friends and all ('cept mom cause we were caring for my dad and we have not yet got out of that hole) of my family have moved away from where i am. i tend to have no option but to do anything by myself. yea its nice and funner and safer to not be alone but bring your dog or a taser. if it is a really bad idea for the job then change your look, dye your hair-or stop, change your facial hair, where different shades than normal, that way your hiding in plain sight.

      Delete
    14. also, getting lost can be fun. buy a good map/google that. invest in a new fangled smart phone with internet access and apps; it will tell you directions and will alter those directions based on what you do.

      Delete
    15. Kansas City presumably is some 200 miles from my home town, Omaha, so I can't imagine there'd be a need to alter my appearance. The sheer distance will give me all of any protection I need. Surely any news coverage would be local only. Simply not newsworthy enough to be carried either regionally or nationally.

      Thanks for your input though. I'm not 100% decided yet, but the balance now is tilted more heavily than before toward going. The Right To Love website describes it as a gay pride "festival." Not sure what is meant by "festival," but it might not mean a parade after all. Evidently, there are more details to be announced later.

      Delete
    16. Huh. So you're in the care-giving business too? What's up with your dad? Is this a he's elderly and you're one of his youngest kids kind of situation or something completely different? Perhaps untimely cancer or disability through some sort of accident? Is he ever going to be okay?

      Delete
    17. yes...and no. my dad came into our lives when i was 9 or so and within a fairly short amount of time moved in with us and became the dad my biologic could never be. i still remember the look on his face the first time i called him dad. i am the youngest of 11 kids that he is dad to, though most of the rest are estranged and have been for years; the youngest of them (excluding my brothers) is still old enough to be my parent if only barely. about 7 years ago, now, our christmas present was a cancer diagnosis, of the bone. i and my mom are cancer survivors and i still cry when i remember the hell my dad went through. my dad passed jan 11 2010. he was home, with his loved ones-as it should be. there is no dignity in cancer and the fuckers who came up with that damn pretty pink ribbon can F.O.A.D. cancer is neither pretty nor pink. yes he is ok. i was not and it was only because of an amazing friend that treated me like family nearly from day one that i am still alive. and everyone else pretty much ran away, the cowards.

      Delete
    18. concise i am not. i always wanted to be a story teller, though i suck at it.

      Delete
    19. I am so sorry for your loss. Sounds like the two of you were pretty close. I know you miss him terribly, but at least hopefully you can take comfort in that he isn't suffering anymore and is in a better place.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete