Scott Bixby wrote a piece for Daily Beast about one of the most heinous practices of the Trump administration's attitude toward LGBT citizens, the recent trend at the State Department to stall, and in some cases deny, the children of LGBT couples their birthright citizenship even though they are the legal children of American citizens. You should click over and read the whole thing, but one of the couples highlighted, Allison Blixt and Stefania Zaccari, were legally married at the time of their son Lucas's birth, but because Zaccari, who is from the United Kingdom, was the birth mother, Lucas was denied his birthright citizenship despite his parents being married and his being the legal child of an American citizen.
Before you start to try to win an argument with no one on technicalities, stop for a second and realize that in the United States, we have a policy at the State Department that assumes "the assumption of parentage." Basically it says that we assume that the children that are the product of a marital union are the offspring of the two parents. This is discriminatory, because it is now only applied to heterosexual couples.
Let's assume, for a second in this situation, that Allison is actually Allen. Allen is married to Stefania, and their son is born. The State Department, under the policy of "assumption of parentage" would assume that their son is Allen's, a US citizen's, son, and as a result they would give him citizenship even if he was born abroad. We have no way of knowing, for example, if the son is in fact Allen's biological son, or the child from a different relationship that Stefania has. We also don't know if they used in vitro fertilization or some form of a sperm donor, and the State Department doesn't demand DNA testing or anything of the kind of Allen, as they simply assume that he is the biological father. This is discriminatory on the face of it-either heterosexual couples also have to jump through the hoops that are being forced upon LGBT people, or the "assumption of parentage" needs to apply unilaterally. They profile people in the article where both parents are US citizens, and still because of using a surrogate, the children are not allowed to be US citizens.
This should make you angry. But what should make you angrier is the fact that this is something that is considered a political issue, rather than an assumed human right. I am gay-identified, and one of the things that I didn't think much of when I came out of the closet was the amount of straight people who said "I'm okay with you being gay" in some fashion or another, implying that "not being okay with you being gay" is somehow a valid option. Even now, when I know better, I don't think any ill will toward people who said it, unprepared for such a conversation, but I do correct people when they say it now. (If you're a straight ally, you're about to get a lecture, possibly one you don't need, but just et me have my say this into the universe & know that I'm speaking at a societal level and not about a specific person, but also keep an open mind in your role in it cause we're going to come back to you, because discrimination like this is damning and cannot stand)
This "it's okay that you're gay" concept goes hand-and-hand with having to get permission to be gay from straight people and is what drives policies like the one proposed by the State Department. It's also what causes Don't Ask Don't Tell or the ban on transgendered soldiers or a ban on gay marriage or a ban on gay adoption or...you get my drift here. Getting a piece of the pie is not something that you should bestow-it's something we should have had to begin with. One of the great shames of American democracy is not just that black people or queer people or women or the disabled were discriminated against & denied their rights-it's also that when they asked, demanded those rights, pointed out the unfairness of the law, it was up for political debate whether or not they had deserved them. People, human beings, and their existence were a political issue, one to kick around and speculate and vote upon whether or not they were worth giving rights to, worth acknowledging as equals.
Legalized discrimination like that used by the Trump administration here, like that continually brought up by Republicans against LGBT citizens, is unconscionable, it's dangerous, and it's ultimately about erasure. It's about making LGBT people disappear and be out-of-sight, out-of-mind. It's not about religion or personal belief-that's just the bludgeon that is used to excuse this sort of behavior. Religious beliefs wouldn't work in the reverse. If I came up to a heterosexual person and said, because of my religion, I don't think you should have the right to keep your job, you'd call me an idiot and move on without a second thought (and you'd be right to). I come back again and say, because of my religion, I should be able to deny you the ability to buy your groceries, or rent a unit in my apartment building, you'd say I was insane. If I said that you should pay higher taxes because you can't get married, that you should go to jail because you had sex with the person you call your spouse, that your children aren't really yours, you'd call me crazy...you'd likely call me cruel & hateful. And again, you'd be right. But these are the policies that LGBT people have had to endure, in many cases still endure, every day in this country because while those rights are assumed in your universe, to the point where you don't think about them, LGBT people, people like Allison Blixt and Stefania Zaccari, have to worry about those laws being misused to take away their loved ones every single day.
This is the reason why I don't really talk to people in my life who I know voted for Trump, or simply didn't vote. I can't say that I avoid it entirely; love and friendship are formidable opponents to principle, & there are things we struggle to give up even when we can't understand the reasons of the people around us. But I'm not going to be silent, or pretend it's right when presented with the actions of their consequences. LGBT rights were on the line in 2016, the progress you cheerily greeted me with via text and hugs and shared articles was on the line, and if you didn't do the very least you could do to continue that progress, know that this is what you caused. Your gay brothers and sisters, friends and family, paid the price of your antipathy. Policies like these aren't just wrong, they're dehumanizing. You're told you're less then enough, you learn to hate yourself-it's the only natural response to such attacks. There is a consequence to your actions if you don't vote to stop someone like Trump, who made little secret of his hatred for queer people on the campaign trail, and now as we enter 2020, his policies match that metric. If this makes you angry, if it hurts you to know the pain that is caused here, you can change that. You can choose to have uncomfortable conversations when people say "it's just my religious beliefs-it's not meant to be personal" or "there's no real difference between the two candidates." You can correct them, you might even change their minds, but you'll know you're earning that term of ally rather than just "being okay with it." We're about to enter Pride month, a time of celebration in the LGBT community, but only join us if you're willing to admit that the discrimination felt by Allison & Stefania's family is not just the result of bigotry, of hatred trying to erase their bond, but also of antipathy, of people who looked the other way in hopes that it would turn out all right. It didn't-this is what happens when you just stay silent.
No comments:
Post a Comment