---

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls the U.S. to "stand against efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide": Whether you love her or hate her (I've always adored her myself), you've got to appreciate Sec. Clinton standing up for us. Now I wonder if "worldwide" includes the U.S.?

---

WH defies court order -- top openly gay official's dept seeks to bar partner health benefits: From Pam's House Blend:

"This is yet another black eye for this administration that will force them to rationalize this maneuver. Mike Signorile:

If the Obama administration, which now has less than 30 days to respond, tries to fight this, not only will it undoubtedly cause another (and much bigger, in my opinion) firestorm within the LGBT community, but it's not clear that it actually can fight it, let alone win:

[Judge Kozinski's] order last week demanded that the executive branch reverse course, and gave the Administration 30 days to enroll Golinski's wife as her health-insurance beneficiary. He made clear that if it doesn't, he's ready to use the powers of his court to enforce his decree. University of California law professor Rory Little, a former Justice Department prosecutor and chief of appeals, called the order a "bombshell." "This is like exposing the tip of a huge iceberg that nobody knew even existed," he told TIME. "It's a fascinating question: Do the courts even have the power to do this? Where does it leave things procedurally? Where can the Administration appeal? I think there are five or six lawyers in the [Solicitor General's] office scurrying around right now trying to figure out what to do with this."

Again -- the sorry truth is that is the Office of Personnel Management led by John Berry, an openly gay man, is pushing for this. His marching orders are to deny a fellow member of our community -- a federal employee -- rights ordered granted by a federal court. Unbelievable. "

---

Courage Campaign pulls out of 2010 Prop 8 repeal effort: The move to repeal Prop 8 has been up in the air for quite some time - a 2010 effort vs. 2012. Today the Courage Campaign announced that its review of the political landscape, organizing and funding does not yet support a 2010 initiative.

Identity Crisis: does the Movement require that we check a box?

I recently read an article written by Karla Jay, radical lesbian feminist and current professor of English and Gender Studies at Pace University, in which Jay tackles a subject countless of us have heard bandied about by former and current activists alike: Gen Y apathy.

Jay makes some good points regarding not only the effects of our technologically driven lives on current activist apathy, but also the struggle to empower young leaders to make strides where their predecessors began 40 years ago (to be fair, I think there is a point to be made for the rise of young leaders during last year's presidential elections as well as the work of young leaders in the surging fight for Equality). But, one of the things that stood out to me in Jay's letter was her take on the refusal of some members of the LGBTQ community to identify as LGBTQ. Of the students she has observed, Jay says, "(t)here’s a Stonewall Coalition at the university, but you don’t need that because New York City has so many queer bars and you have the fake I.D. to get in. You’re oh-so-out, though most of you can’t apply the LGBTQ words to yourself in my queer courses." Her take on this movement away from identifying appears to be an accusation of sorts. Slipped within a diatribe on activist apathy, the feeling behind the sentiment is certainly fueled by an amount of distrust of the "label-less."

Jay's reaction to observing a certain reticence among queer students to identify as LGBTQ calls forward an issue that is key to the current Equality movement. Is this movement away from labels destructive to the unity and cohesiveness of the LGBTQ fight for equality? And is accepting a label on your sexuality really necessary for gaining access to your rights?

Murdered LGBTQ activist Harvey Milk epitomized the sentiments of the 1970s LGBTQ equality movement in his speech "That's What America Is!" when he urged LGBTQ Americans to come out to their families, their friends, their neighbors, and their coworkers. His work with other LGBTQ activist leaders under the slogan "Come out, come out, wherever you are!" resulted in the defeat of anti-gay legislation in California and a shifting tide in the fight for LGBTQ equality. Coming out and identifying as LGBTQ was seen as a political tool to win allies and to put a face to the people being affected by anti-LGBTQ sentiments and legislation. They capitalized upon the feminist political thought that "the personal is political" and used it to humanize the LGBTQ community.

For me, I believe that coming out and identifying remains a powerful weapon for LGBTQ equality. It is easy to demonize a faceless enemy that you have been warned against your entire life. It is much harder to hate someone you know, someone you truly love as a person, for being who they are, be it Black, Muslim, gay, or part of a host of other stereotyped and persecuted groups. Coming out is not only beneficial for the LGBTQ persons in question, but it forces the people around them to confront and become aware of their own reactions towards the LGBTQ community, homophobic or otherwise. However, when we don't come out, we allow the people around us to NOT have to confront these issues. We allow them to live in a space wherein they can believe whatever they want about the LGBTQ community without facing any challenge from us, while we avoid being open and secure about our own lives.

How does this tie in, then, to those who are out, but do not identify as LGBTQ? Personally, I can completely understand the desire to not identify or label oneself. Labels carry the burden of carefully cultivated stigma and stereotypes that probably do not apply to the individual, and it is frustrating to know that assumptions are made about you based on what "box" your sexuality most fits into. Not only do labels inherently limit sexual expression and identity, but they can become a means of parceling out our community along faction lines. In a Utopia, no one would need labels, because one's sexuality would not define one's ideals or morals in the eyes of peers. Sexuality would just be, and that would be that.

However, it is important to remember that we do not live in a Utopia. I respect anyone's decision to not allow themselves to be labeled. At the same time though, I believe there is room within this to still work to disseminate an understanding of our community to our peers and to forward LGBTQ equality. The practice Karla Jay described, that of participating in LGBTQ social life without having to represent the LGBTQ community within a broader social context IS, I believe, a loss to our community. At the very least, identifying with the LGBTQ community, even if not under one of its specific labels, is important in that, like coming out, it forces those around us to recognize us as part of a disenfranchised and underrepresented community. It makes each and every one of us social activists in our smaller communities by giving us a broader identity with which we can associate. In this way, even those of us who do not consider ourselves activists, become ambassadors for our queer community.

We are living and existing in a time of change, and I for one think that it is more than alright that we be a little confrontational.

Anonymous Posts(11.23.09–11.29.09)

Every week, we collect anonymous entries sent in using the link on our sidebar and post them all on Monday. We post anything as long as it doesn't contain personal attacks or hate speech. Feel free to submit your thoughts and questions :)

Hey y'all. No anonymous posts came in this week! That is disheartening and frankly unacceptable, Readers. I expect everyone to step it up in the next week, our last before we break until next semester!

This post, though, was received over the summer when the blog was down:

#1:

I was watching the movie He's Just Not That Into You the other day, and there were a couple things that made me think about my love life and the dating scene of the gay (LGBTQ) community. The scene that tripped a sort of domino effect of reflection was one in which two gay men are explaining to a straight man the courting techniques that differ between gay and straight people. They basically demonstrated that gay people need only a glance before "it's over" -- the message is sent and the two people are either in bed, shredding each other to pieces or they've mutually decided against it. While I could understand the attempt at comedy, I couldn't help but feel insulted. Millions of people had seen this movie. Who knows how many of them internalized this lie as truth? The notion that gay people are some other species, with separate dating tactics and forms of communication, is the very one that has kept us from achieving equal rights and equal treatment. The movie was otherwise quite gay friendly, so it just didn't make sense that they should include this demeaning segment at all. If I'm so different from these heterosexual characters, why is it that I related so pathetically to their plight and heartache? Why is it that this woman's desperation to find someone, anyone to love her, struck me as so familiar? Why was this man's temptation so relatable?

Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of having to explain myself as a human being. My attraction to another person is the same as my straight friends'! My own mother says she "doesn't understand." She has been supportive and accepting, but it saddens me to hear that she needs a breakdown of where my feelings come from and what they mean. "Just think of when you were dating at my age. Got it? Ok, there's your answer." Is the best our society has to offer a separated embrace? An alienated acceptance? What I don't understand is the need to classify us as a separate entity. In the U.S. especially, the tendency for segregation is a recurring one. This dangerous practice of drawing lines between religions, ethnicities, sexual orientations is what creates so much tension. Why can't we all be united under one label of "Americans," for example, each with his/her own idiosyncrasies and strengths? It is possible to retain one's culture and still be part of a different collective body.