How news outlets covered the State Department’s visa policy change

Under a new State Department policy that went into effect October 1, the United States will issue a G-4 visa to a partner of a staff member of US-based international organizations only if the couple is legally married. Among other organizations, this includes the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

Per the State Department’s website: “Effective immediately, U.S. Embassies and Consulates will adjudicate visa applications that are based on a same-sex marriage in the same way that we adjudicate applications for opposite gender spouses.”

This has ramifications for anyone who worked for a US-based international organization and wanted to obtain a G-4 vis for a partner. But this has noticeable consequences for same-sex couples. In many countries, same-sex marriage is not permitted. Furthermore, there are some countries where same-sex relations are still illegal, and in some countries, punishable by death.

From an NBC News article:

For all new G-4 applications filed at the State Department after Monday, the same-sex partner must be a legally married spouse. For U.N. workers who are in relationships currently recognized by a G-4 visa but are not legally marriage, their partners will have 30 days after the new year to either get married or exit the United States.

David Pressman, who was the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Security Council for special political affairs in the Obama administration, said the G-4 action is harmful in part because the United Nations is “composed of probably one of the most diverse workforces of any organization in the world.”

“If that’s how you advance equality between same-sex and opposite sex partners, then we have an enormous problem on our hands,” Pressman said. He described the policy as a “creative and cynical way to use the expansion of equality at home to vindictively target same-sex couples abroad.”

Here’s a look at how a handful of news outlets framed the issue. I’ve included screenshots of the headlines, as well as links to the articles.

First, the aforementioned piece from NBC News: U.S. to partners of U.N. LGBTQ staff: Get married, or get out
U.S. to partners of U.N. LGBTQ staff: Get married, or get out

CBS News: U.S. says same-sex partners of UN staff will have to marry or leave
U.S. says same-sex partners of UN staff will have to marry or leave

ABC News: Trump administration halts visas for unmarried same-sex partners of foreign diplomats
Trump administration halts visas for unmarried same-sex partners of foreign diplomats

Washington Post: State Department changes visa rules for same-sex partners of foreign diplomats
State Department changes visa rules for same-sex partners of foreign diplomats

New York Times: U.S. Bans Diplomatic Visas for Foreign Same-Sex Domestic Partners
U.S. Bans Diplomatic Visas for Foreign Same-Sex Domestic Partners

Wall Street Journal: Trump Administration Halts Some Same-Sex Visas for Foreign Officials in U.S.
Trump Administration Halts Some Same-Sex Visas for Foreign Officials in U.S.

Los Angeles Times: U.S. stops issuing visas to same-sex partners of foreign diplomats unless they are married
U.S. stops issuing visas to same-sex partners of foreign diplomats unless they are married

CNN: US halting visas for same-sex partners of diplomats
US halting visas for same-sex partners of diplomats

New York Magazine: The U.S. Just Made Life Harder on LGBT Diplomats and U.N. Staff
The U.S. Just Made Life Harder on LGBT Diplomats and U.N. Staff

And here are some headlines from LGBTQ-themed publications:

INTO: The Trump Administration Is Denying Visas to Unmarried Same-Sex Partners of U.N. Diplomats
The Trump Administration Is Denying Visas to Unmarried Same-Sex Partners of U.N. Diplomats

them: The State Department Says Gay Diplomats Have To Marry Their Partners Or Leave
The State Department Says Gay Diplomats Have To Marry Their Partners Or Leave

LGBTQ Nation: Trump administration will deny visas to same-sex partners of diplomats
Trump administration will deny visas to same-sex partners of diplomats

The Advocate: Trump Reverses Clinton Policy, Strips Visas From Same-Sex Partners of Diplomats
Trump Reverses Clinton Policy, Strips Visas From Same-Sex Partners of Diplomats

Headlines have the challenge of distilling the essence of a story down to a few words while not giving away too much of the story. This story is a hard story to sum up in a short headline, because there are so many ways to frame the situation:

  • The State Department has a new policy affecting people who want G-4 visas
  • People who work for US-based international organizations who want visas for their partners will have to get married to get those visas
  • People who work for US-based international organizations who want visas for their partners will have to get married to get those visas, but there will be complications for some people
  • People who work for US-based international organizations who want visas for their partners will have to get married to get those visas, but same-sex couples face potential dilemmas that opposite-sex couples won’t face
  • UN workers who want to get G-4 visas for their partners will now have to marry their partners to get the visa
  • UN workers who want to get G-4 visas for their partners will now have to marry their partners to get the visa, even if they are in a same-sex couple and they live in a country where same-sex marriage is not legally allowed
  • UN workers who want to get G-4 visas for their partners will now have to marry their partners to get the visa, even if they are in a same-sex couple and they live in a country where same-sex relations are agains the law

Each of those statements is true, though some of them are descriptive and precise, and some are broader. Ultimately, the least clunky of them is that first one: “The State Department has a new policy affecting people who want G-4 visas.” But that fails to capture the totality of what’s happening, and what’s at stake.

Part of what makes it difficult to convey the news in brief, compelling and accurate language is that it’s difficult to refer to the people affected without being at least somewhat clunky. News organizations and the journalist who write for them have struggled on how to refer to couples in same-sex relationships. For years, “gay marriage” has been treated as interchangeable with “same-sex marriage,” and “gay couples” has been seen as acceptable to mean “same-sex couples.” This colloquial way of referring to same-sex couples is limited, though, as it implies something that we can’t know for certain: the orientations of the people in same-sex couples. In the US and other countries that permit same-sex couples to marry, the orientation of the couple is not a factor. The couples can comprise gay people, bisexual people, pansexual people, queer people, and so on. Even straight people.

Similarly, this policy change affects anyone in a same-sex couple wanting a G-4 visa, whether they are gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, etc. This might seem like hairsplitting and nitpicking, but there’s a good reason to pay attention to the language. From a traditional copy editor’s perspective, it’s more precise and accurate to say “same-sex couple” and “opposite-sex couple” than to say “gay couple” or “straight couple.” I can’t imagine too many people have written corrections for incorrectly identifying the sexual orientation of a couple who got married, but anyone who aims to be accurate — and correction-free! — should keep this in mind.

But beyond that, it’s more inclusive to say “same-sex couple,” because “gay couple” only speaks to gay couples. “Same-sex couples” includes so many more people. Bisexual people and others who identify as neither straight nor gay can feel erased or ignored if the default blanket description of “not straight” is just “gay.”

For similar reasons, the term “straight marriage” is also limited and inaccurate. There can be — and are — opposite-sex couples comprising people who don’t consider themselves straight.

Sign up for the LGBTQ+ Experiment newsletter here.

Beyond the rainbow: Other LGBTQ flags (and communities)

The rainbow is no stranger to gay pride celebrations. It is as natural to the LGBTQ rights movement as the pink triangle, as inevitable a symbol to be seen at parades, festivals and rallies as red T-shirts and black armbands.

But when the rainbow came in social media form, it was previously associated with self-identified LGBTQ individuals and organizations, more likely to be seen in the gay districts and liberal enclaves of big cities or universities.

The rainbow has come to the mainstream, to corporations, to LGBTQ allies, and, well, everywhere.

Within hours of the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision granting same-sex couples the right to marry nationwide, Facebook unveiled a previously internal-only tool that allowed users to apply a rainbow filter over their profile picture. The filter, inspired by the pride flag hanging over Facebook’s campus to mark Pride Month, had been developed by two Facebook interns over a 72-hour hackathon. In the following weekend, more than 26 million Facebook users applied the filter to their profile picture.

I’ve not seen any data on whether those users were LGBTQ or were allies, whether they were showing pride in the Supreme Court decision or showing support for the myriad couples now able to get married, or all of the above. I know that personally, in my Facebook feed, most of the users with a rainbow profile picture were indeed straight, cisgender allies, making the phenomenon that much more noteworthy and that much more overwhelming.

Much has already been written about the rainbow-fied profile pictures. Some have speculated that the tool was another experiment to gather information on its users. Others have lamented that changing one’s profile picture has zero effect on anything and amounts to nothing more than self-righteous attaboy backslapping. And gay reporter/writer Peter Moskowitz said the use of rainbow profile pictures was an appropriation that cheapened the struggles of the gay rights movement. As Moskowitz wrote:

I’ve earned the right to claim pride through years of internal strife over my sexuality. Others have died in the name of gay pride. More still have been jailed, have been disowned by their families, and have sued their state governments for it. Gay pride is not something you can claim by waving a flag. The rainbow symbol is easy to co-opt, but the experience it represents is not.

That’s why it wasn’t comforting to see hundreds of my Facebook friends’ profile pictures draped in rainbows. It didn’t feel like they were understanding my struggle; it felt like they were cheapening it, celebrating a victory they had no part in winning.

Some of the rainbow-colored faces were people I would never talk to about being gay – a relative with conservative politics, high school buddies I didn’t come out to because I feared losing their friendships. They weren’t necessarily homophobic, but they weren’t great allies either. They didn’t march during pride celebrations; they didn’t participate in the “day of silence”; they didn’t even bother to inquire about my life. If they were true allies to me or the LGBT community, where were they before Friday?

Moskowitz’s Washington Post piece has been widely circulated, and resonated with many in the LGBTQ community. I didn’t share Moskowitz’s sentiments, though I did feel more than a twinge of sadness.

I thought of a gay friend I had who passed away a few years ago. He died of natural causes, but had attempted suicide years earlier, when he had been a lonely, alienated high school student. He felt isolated and alone at his high school because he was gay. With my late friend in mind, I did not see the profile pictures as an appropriation or as an attempt to jump on a bandwagon. Instead, I saw them as the digital equivalent of the “safe space” stickers I used to see around campus when I was in college. I saw the profile pictures as a way for straight, cisgender people to indicate they were supportive of their friends.

That said, however cynical Moskowitz’s take might seem, he does invite us to look at the history of the rainbow flag and other LGBTQ banners whose storied background many of us didn’t understand before the flood of profile pictures a few weeks ago.

Gilbert Baker first created the Rainbow Flag after Harvey Milk asked Baker to make a flag for a march he was organizing. The rainbow seemed a natural symbol, as it had been associated with the gay rights movement ever since the Stonewall Riots in 1969, which coincided with the week of Judy Garland’s death. The first flag, made in 1978, had eight colors:

hot pink, red, orange, yellow, green, turquoise, indigo/blue and violet — but it gradually lost its stripes until it became the six-color version most commonly used today. Each of the colors has its own significance, he says: hot pink for sex, red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight, green for nature, turquoise for art, indigo for harmony and violet for spirit.

The flag lost its hot pink stripe when Baker approached the Paramount Flag Company to begin mass producing them – the hot pink fabric was too rare and expensive to include. The flag lost its indigo stripe before the 1979 Gay Freedom Day Parade. The committee organizing the parade wanted to split the flag in half and fly each part from the light poles along both sides of Market Street, so it became a six-striped flag.

The rainbow flag is the most commonly known flag associated with LGBTQ issues, but certainly isn’t the only one. It’s not even the only one that you can overlay on your profile picture.

Michael Page created the bisexual pride flag (above) in 1998 to represent bisexual people at Pride rallies. Page’s reasoning for his design:

The pink color represents sexual attraction to the same sex only (gay and lesbian), the blue represents sexual attraction to the opposite sex only (straight) and the resultant overlap color purple represents sexual attraction to both sexes (bi). The key to understanding the symbolism in the Bi Pride Flag is to know that the purple pixels of color blend unnoticeably into both the pink and blue, just as in the ‘real world’ where bi people blend unnoticeably into both the gay/lesbian and straight communities.

You can even overlay the bisexual pride flag onto your Facebook profile.

Monica Helms, a transgender woman, a created the transgender pride flag (above) in 1999. The reasoning for her design:

The stripes at the top and bottom are light blue, the traditional color for baby boys. The stripes next to them are pink, the traditional color for baby girls. The stripe in the middle is white, for those who are intersex, transitioning or consider themselves having a neutral or undefined gender. The pattern is such that no matter which way you fly it, it is always correct, signifying us finding correctness in our lives.

You can even overlay the transgender pride flag onto your Facebook profile.

The International Bear Brotherhood Flag (above) was introduced by Craig Byrnes in early 1996 to represent bears, “a term for rugged gay men who often exhibit body hair and can be heavyset (though this isn’t always the case).” A similar but different flag had been designed by Steve Heyl and Jim Maxwell in early 1992.

Of course, these are but a few of the flags associated with communities within the LGBTQ movement. There are many other flags.

The rainbow flag, which may or may not have just experienced its “tipping point,” has become the most well-known flag associated with gay rights. If you hadn’t seen it before two weeks ago, you’ve certainly seen it now.

Will the other flags be as ubiquitous?

LGBTQ advocates have long said that same-sex marriage was but one of many issues affecting the community. Transgender issues have gained more visibility in the mainstream press, for a variety of reasons. Laverne Cox was featured on the cover of TIME and Caitlin Jenner appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair. Islan Nettles’s murder and Leelah Acorn’s suicides have highlighted the threats and pressures facing the transgender community, especially transgender women and and transgender women of color.

This week in LGBTQ news, April 7-13

In case you missed it, here are some of the biggest news pertaining to LGBTQ issues to come out of the last week:

ACLU filed suit in North Carolina
The American Civil Liberties Union launched a new legal assault on North Carolina’s constitutional ban on recognizing same-sex marriage, urging a federal judge to quickly negate it to help children and gay couples suffering from urgent health problems. The civil rights group said it was seeking to speed up a decision in lawsuit filed in 2012 by citing the urgent health needs of a child who suffers from cerebral palsy who was adopted by one of the lesbian couples involved in the case. The ACLU also filed a new lawsuit on behalf of three other lesbian couples struggling with health conditions made more difficult because they lack legal recognition of their marriages performed in other states, said ACLU staff attorney Elizabeth Gill.

For more context:
ACLU sues for faster action to overturn North Carolina same-sex marriage ban [Charlotte Observer]
‘We don’t have time to wait,’ 78-year-old gay plaintiff says [News & Record]

—————

Federal judge ordered Indiana to recognize couple’s marriage
A federal judge ordered Indiana to recognize the out-of-state marriage of a gay couple before one of the women, who has ovarian cancer, dies. The decision, specific to the couple, who married in Massachusetts in 2013, doesn’t affect other lawsuits challenging Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriages.

For more context:
Indiana must recognize couple’s marriage [The Boston Globe]
Judge grants request to force Indiana to recognize couple’s same-sex marriage [The Indianapolis Star]
Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman’s marriage [The Chicago Tribune]

—————

Tom of Finland stamps announced, Harvey Milk stamp ceremony at White House announced
Itella Posti Oy, the Finnish equivalent of the United States Postal Service, announced it will release new stamps featuring the sketches of Touko Laaksonen, better known as Tom of Finland. Per the announcement:

His emphatically masculine homoerotic drawings have attained iconic status in their genre and had an influence on, for instance, pop culture and fashion. In his works, Tom of Finland utilized the self-irony and humor typical of subcultures.

During his career, Tom of Finland produced more than 3,500 drawings. The two drawings on the stamp sheet were selected by graphic artist Timo Berry, who designed the stamp, and Susanna Luoto, the Finnish representative of the foundation named after Tom of Finland operating in Los Angeles.

The stamps will debut in the fall. Unless you’re my mother or my nephew, click here to see the stamps. But if you are my mother or nephew, then please, do not click there.

—————

Chelsea Manning to serve as honorary grand marshal of San Francisco Pride Parade
Chelsea Manning, an imprisoned U.S. Army private charged in a massive leak of U.S. secrets to the WikiLeaks website, will serve as an honorary grand marshal in this year’s San Francisco Pride parade. Parade organizer Gary Virginia said Friday that Chelsea Manning — formerly known as Bradley Manning — was chosen to make amends for a controversy last year. Manning was named an honorary grand marshal ahead of the 2013 parade, but had the honor revoked. Virginia apologized, saying that decision was mishandled.

For more context:
Bradley Manning won’t get Pride honors [San Francisco Chronicle]
San Francisco gay pride rescinds honour for Bradley Manning [The Guardian]
Chelsea Manning parade retraction still creating tension on SF Pride board [San Francisco Examiner]

—————

Open letter to Pope Francis urges him to change church teaching on homosexuality
The head of a homeless shelter for LGBT youth published an open letter to Pope Francis in The New York Times Sunday, asking him to change the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality.

I write to you as a Roman Catholic, a former Benedictine monk and as a gay man who has spent over 30 years serving the homeless, first as a member of the Catholic Worker Movement, and now as the founder and Executive Director of the Ali Forney Center, America’s largest center for homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth based in New York City.

I write on behalf of the homeless LGBT youths I serve. I ask you to take urgent action to protect them from the devastating consequences of religious rejection, which is the most common reason LGBT youths are driven from their homes. At the heart of the problem is that the church still teaches that homosexual conduct is a sin, and that being gay is disordered. I hope that if you understand how this teaching tears families apart and brings suffering to innocent youths, you will end this teaching and prevent your bishops from fighting against the acceptance of LGBT people as equal members of society.

Read the full ad here.

—————

Alan Simpson announces support for same-sex marriage
Former US Senator Alan Simpson has filmed a same-sex marriage commercial that will air in Wyoming and other western states. Simpson says as a Republican he believes one of the party’s core values is the right to be left alone. He says whether people are gay or lesbian or straight, if they love someone and they want to marry, they should marry.

Obama’s stance on gay marriage in 2008, and what that means in 2014

This past Friday, Mike Huckabee referenced Obama’s 2008 views on gay marriage when speaking to Laura Ingraham on “The O’Reilly Factor”:

The position that I hold is the position that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden held in 2008. Barack Obama held it until 2012. And my question that I would love to pose to the president is this: Mr. President, please explain that when you said in 2008 at the Saddleback Church forum that you stood for traditional marriage and you did so because you were a Christian and because it’s what the Bible taught, please answer: Were you lying then, are you lying now, or did the Bible get rewritten?

View the video below:

Huckabee’s not the only one referencing Obama’s stance in 2008. In the last few weeks, in the wake of Brendan Eich’s resignation as CEO of Mozilla, several pundits and bloggers have referenced Barack Obama’s views on same-sex marriage in 2008 when he was a candidate running for president. The unifying question was this: If Brendan Eich had to resign as CEO of Mozilla because he gave $1,000 to support Proposition 8 in 2008, why does Barack Obama get a pass for saying in 2008 that marriage should be between a man and a woman?

It echoes a similar question posed by Larry Elder of WND a few years ago, who asked why Rick Santorum was being scrutinized for his views on same-sex marriage, but Obama was getting a “pass” when, in Elder’s estimation, Obama had similar views as Santorum had.

DID Obama share the same viewpoint as Santorum, Eich or Huckabee? Well, how comparable Obama is to Eich, Huckabee or Santorum depends on how narrowly or broadly you define his views in 2008.

Indeed, in 2008, at Saddleback Church, Obama did say, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian… it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Click the YouTube video below to watch in full.

In that video, after saying that he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, then-candidate Obama said he supports civil unions. He also said he does not believe in a constitutional amendment defining marriage. As recently as 2012, a month after Elder’s column comparing Obama to Santorum, Santorum voiced opposition to civil unions for same-sex couples while saying that he couples could work through the existing legal system to use contracts to get each of the rights associated with marriage.

Thus, to compare someone’s views on same-sex marriage to Barack Obama’s view in 2008 simply on the definition of marriage as a man and woman doesn’t tell the whole story on Obama or that other person’s viewpoints on civil unions. To only stop at the man-woman definition of marriage is too narrow and potentially misrepresents both Obama and the people to whom he’s being compared.

Specifically, if we’re comparing Obama and Brendan Eich. Eich was pressured to resign because he gave $1,000 to support Proposition 8. Obama, in 2008, did say, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.” But in 2008, Obama also said that Proposition 8 was “divisive and discriminatory.”

It’s unknown why Eich supported Prop 8, or what his personal views are. When the donation became public knowledge, he said he didn’t want to discuss Prop 8 on his blog or on Twitter. He said he wanted to focus on the company, not his personal beliefs.

[W]ithout getting into my personal beliefs, which I separate from my Mozilla work — when people learned of the donation, they felt pain. I saw that in friends’ eyes, [friends] who are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered]. I saw that in 2012. I am sorry for causing that pain.

Hampton Catlin, a developer who couldn’t legally marry or start a business with his partner until the Supreme Court ruled last year that backers of Proposition 8 lacked standing, had blogged that he and his husband Michael would be pulling their product from the Mozilla Marketplace. Many came to see them as the figureheads of the boycott. After Eich’s resignation, Hampton Catlin wrote:

I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems.

It’s heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that.

We absolutely don’t believe that everyone who voted yes on Prop 8 is evil. In fact, we’re sure that most of them just didn’t understand the impact the law would have. That’s why so many people have changed their mind in 4 short years – because they saw the impact and pain that the law caused to friends and family members.

People think we were upset about his past vote. Instead we were more upset with his current and continued unwillingness to discuss the issue with empathy. Seriously, we assumed that he would reconsider his thoughts on the impact of the law (not his personal beliefs), issue an apology, and then he’d go on to be a great CEO.

The fact it ever went this far is really disturbing to us.

Many think that Eich got a raw deal and it was unfair that he was pressured to resigned. But has Obama gotten a clean pass on his statements?

If Obama or anyone who voiced opposition to same-sex marriage ever got a “pass,” it certainly wasn’t an across-the-board pass from the LGBTQ community. A quick Google search of the terms “Obama” “gay marriage” shows quickly that prominent sites and blogs about LGBTQ issues — The Advocate, The Bilerico Project, GoodAsYou and Towleroad — show that Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats did not get a “pass” on their stances on same-sex marriage or other issues. Bill Clinton, the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, didn’t receive a pass last year when he wrote an op-ed denouncing the law.

When former Florida governor Charlie Crist announced his support for same-sex marriage in an interview this past winter, he, too, compared his previous stance to that of Obama in 2008, but when comparing himself to Obama, he didn’t simply stop at the man-woman definition of marriage:

The President and I had the same view: we supported civil unions. I saw the interview he did with Robin Roberts last spring [in which he expressed support for same sex marriage]. I’m sure you’ve seen it. It’s powerful, because you can tell he’s speaking from the heart.

I can’t speak for the President, but I suspect that to some degree, like me, he felt his support for civil unions was political. And so he’s finally saying, ‘Enough is enough. I’m over this. I’m not going to play the political angle anymore. I’m tired of it.’ Which is just the way I feel. You get to a point in your life where you say, ‘I’m just going to tell it.’ And here I am… I’m telling it. And I don’t care what anyone thinks.

Similarly, Richard Socarides, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, conceded in a New Yorker piece last year that Bill Clinton’s signing of the Defense of Marriage Act was fueled by politics rather than personal views.

As the tide turns and public opinion changes, more and more famous politicians who opposed same-sex marriage will announce a public change in their stance on the issue. They might use the word “evolved,” like Obama did, or they will cite a family member is the reason for their change of heart, like Republican Rob Portman did in March 2013.

And as they voice their support for same-sex marriage, will their previous stances be compared to those of Barack Obama in 2008?

This week in LGBTQ news, March 31-April 6

The Brendan Eich news was by the far the most-covered piece of LGBTQ news this past week, so to mention anything else before delving into that feels like saying, “Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?” So, here’s what happened:

Brendan Eich, Mozilla and OkCupid
Ten days after being appointed CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich resigned. On Monday, a week after Eich’s appointment, dating site OkCupid greeted Firefox users with a message asking that they switch browsers before visiting the site. In an interview published Tuesday on CNet, Brendan Eich said:

[W]ithout getting into my personal beliefs, which I separate from my Mozilla work — when people learned of the donation, they felt pain. I saw that in friends’ eyes, [friends] who are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered]. I saw that in 2012. I am sorry for causing that pain.

By Wednesday, OkCupid had removed its message to Firefox users, but the next day, Eich resigned.

Hampton Catlin, a developer who couldn’t marry or start a business with his partner until the Supreme Court ruled last year that backers of Proposition 8 lacked standing, had blogged that he and his husband Michael would be pulling their product from the Mozilla Marketplace. After Eich’s resignation, Hampton Catlin wrote:

I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems.

It’s heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that.

We absolutely don’t believe that everyone who voted yes on Prop 8 is evil. In fact, we’re sure that most of them just didn’t understand the impact the law would have. That’s why so many people have changed their mind in 4 short years – because they saw the impact and pain that the law caused to friends and family members.

People think we were upset about his past vote. Instead we were more upset with his current and continued unwillingness to discuss the issue with empathy. Seriously, we assumed that he would reconsider his thoughts on the impact of the law (not his personal beliefs), issue an apology, and then he’d go on to be a great CEO.

The fact it ever went this far is really disturbing to us.

Friday, the National Organization for Marriage called for “Americans to remove the web browser Mozilla Firefox from their personal computers to protest the company forcing out its CEO over his support of Proposition 8.” NOM President Brian Brown said, “This is a McCarthyesque witch hunt that makes the term ‘thought police’ seem modest. We urge all consumers to remove Mozilla’s Firefox web browser from their computers as a sign of protest.”

For more context:
*Brendan Eich Steps Down As Mozilla CEO [The Mozilla Blog]
*OkCupid’s Firefox protest refreshingly innovative [The Boston Globe]
*Gay marriage, Mozilla’s Brendan Eich, and the role of a CEO [The Los Angeles Times]
*The Hounding of a Heretic [Andrew Sullivan, The Dish]
*Dear Andrew Sullivan, ‘Left-Liberal Intolerance’ Did Not Bring Down Mozilla’s CEO [Michelangelo Signorile, HuffPost Gay Voices]
*The New Gay Orthodoxy [Frank Bruni, The New York Times]
*Quinn: Brendan Eich, Mozilla’s former chief executive, needed to tell us more [San Jose Mercury News]

—————

In case you missed it, here are some of the OTHER biggest news pertaining to LGBTQ issues to come out of the last week:

Judge struck down part of Ohio gay marriage law
A federal judge said Friday that he will order Ohio to recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Judge Timothy Black made the announcement in federal court in Cincinnati following final arguments in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the marriage ban. He said he will issue the ruling on April 14. This would only pertain to marriages performed out-of-state, and would not force Ohio to perform same-sex marriages.

—————

Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Mississippi governor Phil Bryant signed the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which supporters said would protect religious freedoms but opponents thought could open the doors to discrimination against gays and lesbians. The bill has been compared to similar legislation that was passed in Arizona earlier this year before ultimately being vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer.

For more context:
*Melissa Harris-Perry’s letter to Phil Bryant about putting rights in God’s hands [MSNBC]

—————

Alabama representatives vote for US constitutional ban on gay marriage
The Alabama House of Representatives Wednesday approved a resolution calling for a convention to put a same-sex marriage ban in the US Constitution. Representative Patricia Todd, Alabama’s first openly gay legislator, said on the House floor, “I respect your opinion about the way I live my life and who I love, as I respect yours. I am appalled that this chamber would have resorted to something like this to make a point.”

The concept of an amendment to the US constitution to ban same-sex marriage is not new. Two days after the US Supreme Court issued its rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 in June 2013, Representative Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, along with 28 other Republican members of the House of Representatives, proposed the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would amend the US constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman only. In February 2004, President George W. Bush announced support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

—————

Five years of gay marriage in Iowa
Thursday was the fifth anniversary of the day that Iowa’s Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in a unanimous decision that made Iowa the third state — and the first in the Midwest — to allow same-sex couples to wed.

For more context:
*2009 Iowa ruling seen as gay-marriage harbinger [USA Today, The Des Moines Register]
*Iowa gay marriage ruling a turning point for justices [USA Today, The Des Moines Register]
*Same-Sex Marriage in Iowa at Five Years: Is The Trend Towards Acceptance? [KCRG]

—————

Gay Boy Scout leader removed from troop
The Boy Scouts of America removed an openly gay troop leader in Seattle, saying he made an issue out of his sexual orientation. The organization told Geoff McGrath in a letter Monday it “has no choice” but to revoke his registration after he said he was gay while being profiled by NBC News. The BSA has allowed gay scouts to participate in the organization since Jan. 1 of this year.

For more context:
*‘Extremely Disappointing’: Scouts Boot Openly Gay Troop Leader [NBC News]

This week in LGBTQ news, March 24-30

In case you missed it, here are some of the biggest news pertaining to LGBTQ issues to come out of the last week:

New Mozilla’s Proposition 8 donation leads to calls for his resignation
Mozilla’s newly appointed CEO, Javascript creator Brendan Eich, is coming under fire for his 2008 donation in support of Proposition 8. Two developers who are married and launched a tech startup together have called for a boycott until Eich is removed as CEO. By the end of last week, some Mozilla employees asked that he step down.

For more context:
*Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO [Wall Street Journal]
*Should it matter that Mozilla’s new boss donated to California’s anti-gay marriage proposition? [BizJournals.com]
*Owen Thomas’ open letter to Brendan Eich [ReadWrite.com]
*Brendan Eich’s post about Inclusiveness as Mozilla [BrendanEich.com]
*On Mozilla’s Support for Marriage Equality [Mitchell Baker’s blog]

—————

World Vision announces it will allow same-sex marriage for employees, then reverses stance
On Monday, World Vision President Richard Stearns announced that the Christian relief charity’s code of conduct would now allow employees of its American branch to enter into same-sex marriage marriages. The company lost more than 3,000 donors, and by Wednesday, reversed the decision.

For more context:
*Analysis: World Vision’s gay marriage flip-flop reflects evangelical angst as culture shifts [Salt Lake Tribune]
*World Vision’s reversal on marriage policy for gay workers is start of a conversation [Seattle Times]

—————

Stay on same-sex marriages in Michigan extended, but those marriages will be recognized
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder said the state won’t recognize more than 300 same-sex marriages performed before a court halted a decision that opened the door to gay nuptials. The announcement came a day after an appeals court indefinitely stopped any additional same-sex marriages. By the end of the week, US Attorney General Eric Holder extended federal recognition to the marriages of about 300 same-sex couples that took place in Michigan.

For more context:
*Bill Schuette: Defending traditional marriage is defending the state constitution [Detroit Free Press]
*Nancy Kaffer: Gov. Snyder needs to take a stand on issues like gay marriage [Detroit Free Press]
*The history of same-sex marriage in the US, 1970 to now [The Boston Globe]

—————

US police to get training on how to respond to transgender crime victims
The Justice Department launched a program Thursday to train local police departments to better respond to transgender individuals, help police identify hate crimes and build trust with a community that law enforcement officials say is too often reluctant to report crimes.

For more context:
*Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and HIV-Affected Hate Violence in 2012 [The Anti-Violence Project]

—————

Gay marriage begins in England, Wales
As of Saturday, same-sex couples in England and Wales are now legally able to get married. The law was passed by Parliament in July, and Prime Minister David Cameron has been a vocal supporter.

For more context:
*UK’s first same-sex marriages go ahead as PM speaks of ‘powerful message’ [The Guardian]
*Cameron toasts Britain’s first gay marriages [Reuters]
*David Cameron: I never expected gay marriage to cause such an uproar [The Daily Mail]

How BostonGlobe.com’s gay marriage interactive graphic came to be

Today is the first day that Hawaii allows same-sex marriage. The state was the 16th to approve allowing gay marriage, and becomes the 15th to begin performing them. Illinois’ state legislature approved same-sex marriage a few days before Hawaii, but that law won’t go into effect until summer of 2014.

For the last four months, I have been editing and updating this BostonGlobe.com interactive graphic about the history of same-sex marriage in the United States. In short, there’s a sticky navigation that stays with you when you scroll through the timeline, show maps and tallies that change as states allow gay marriage, ban gay marriage or allow civil unions or domestic partnerships. The timeline includes links to archived stories, copies of bills and statutes, and PDFs of past Globe front pages.

The landscape as of 1996:

As of the 2004 election:

As of today, when Hawaii becomes the 15th state to allow same-sex marriage:

This sticky bar is just part of the graphic, of course, as the timeline is what triggers the changes in colors.

 

—————————

 

HOW THIS STARTED

I conceived this project right after the Supreme Court ruled on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. In the days that followed, we had many stories about what impact these rulings could bring. These stories usually included maps that more or less looked like this:

Those maps can be tricky to read, because they cram five different types of states into one map:
*States allowing gay marriage
*States allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage
*States banning gay marriage by constitutional amendment
*States banning gay marriage by constitutional amendment, but allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships
*The default states, not identified, which have no constitutional reference to gay marriage

These maps are helpful to glean the overall splintering of the issue, and can be used to parse out laws state by state, but are still busier than need be. I wanted was something easier to read, and after talking with Boston Globe AME for Design Dan Zedek, I decided three separate maps would work best. But even then, I thought the map alone didn’t show how much the map has changed over time.

To truly get at the heart of the story, I thought, we needed three interactive maps that changed over time.

It was late June and I set myself an August 1 deadline. I picked that date because that’s when Rhode Island and Minnesota would begin performing same-sex marriages.

So, I set to work on a variety of tasks:
*Researching gay marriage laws and milestones, both on national and state-by-state levels
*Compiling links of past stories on the milestones, both to add to the timeline and to CQ the dates I had found
*Compiling photos from those events
*Building the framework for this responsive graphic using jQuery, JavaScript and CSS
*Testing it to see where it broke
*Refining, revising, refining and more revising

As I revised this, former Boston Globe Graphics Director Javier Zarracina was very helpful in giving me advice on tweaking the design. He was also very accommodating in giving me the time to work on this project.

—————————

 

HOW THIS EVOLVED

I reached the August 1 deadline.

For the Metro section of the paper that day, Boston Globe Assistant Design Director for News Robert S. Davis conceived a tease graphic that could anchor the page and promote the online graphic:

Once I launched this on August 1, I would update this whenever new developments occurred. The summer and fall of 2013 saw a bunch new developments, of course, as federal agencies and state agencies began changing policies to be inclusive of married same-sex couples. I ended up having more than 100 events on the timeline. Thus, per the suggestion of Robert Davis, I divided the news stories into “key events” and “other.” The page now loads with only the key events, but the sticky nav with the maps includes a link to click that shows all the events.

This project has spawned the most unwieldy-looking Excel file I’ve ever used:

I mean, just looking at that gives me a headache.

 

—————————

 

HOW THIS TECHNICALLY WORKS

Using Shan Carter’s great resource, Mr. Data Converter, I turned that beast of an Excel file into a JSON file. The jQuery reads that and appends a main div on the page with a div for each event, including nested divs for the headline, the text, the photos, the captions and the links.

The maps are SVG, taken from a template that Chiqui Esteban created for our department. When the timeline is scrolled through, the color and tally changes are triggered by div IDs when those IDs are near the top of the screen.

 

—————————

 

HOW I FIND STORIES FOR THE TIMELINE

The obvious ones — “Illinois to approve gay marriage,” for example — present themselves. The less obvious ones come from the AP wire, Google searches and a great app that has been invaluable in this process.

Zite functions like Google News in that you can have personalized categories for your news feed. Furthermore, it lets you give a story a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down,” like Pandora.

I check Zite throughout the day, particularly on its feed for “Same-sex marriage.” It often has things that are on my radar, but it has also allowed me to find stories that I wouldn’t have known were coming.

Gay news blogs have also been invaluable. I never source a gay news blog, but I will often follow their links to news sources that I can source: The Associated Press and other newspapers. In the same vein, Twitter has also been a good way to find stories. The #gaymarriage hashtag brings up a lot of opinions, but it has helped me find stories in other states.

 

—————————

 

WHAT’S NEXT
What’s next is that I’ll keep updating this as gay marriage news continues to happen. Naturally, you’ll need to check BostonGlobe.com to see the updates.

Florida Times-Union’s National Coming Out Day coverage

Today, Oct. 11th, is National Coming Out Day in the U.S. The Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville, my former paper, featured three vignettes on local people and their coming out stories.

The piece, written by reporter Mary Kelli Palka, begins with this:

Throughout the United States today, people will openly support equality to mark National Coming Out Day. Others will first share that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. But people don’t just come out one day of the year. They tell people all the time – family members, co-workers, new people they meet. Sometimes they’re met with support and love. Sometimes they’re not.

Here’s how the package started on A1:

And here’s an inset of that package:

Photographer Bruce Lipsky shot that photo of Charlas “Charlee” Dehling, the first person profiled in today’s piece. Dehling has a great quote:

“[Staying in the closet was] fueled by fear of being ridiculed, rejected, passed over, being held back in my ambitions and self-preservation,” she said.

Later, Mary Kelli writes:

Dehling said she’s telling her story not as a rally cry to get others to come out. Instead, it’s a rally cry for normalcy. She just wants to be treated like everyone else, with the same rights as people who are heterosexual.

To read the full piece, go here. To read Florida Times-Union reporter Kate Howard’s piece for Coming Out Day in 2010, go here.

Did your publication do something for Coming Out Day? Feel free to send it. I’ll gladly post it up here.

RELATED

MORE POSTS ABOUT THE FLORIDA TIMES-UNION

What did your headline say? Same-sex marriage? Or gay?

The New York State Senate passing a bill allowing same-sex marriage was huge news, as was Governor Andrew Cuomo’s signing that bill into law later that night. Most New York papers gave that story big play on A1 on Saturday. Depending on which paper you saw, you either read that the bill allowed “same-sex marriage,” or that it allowed “gay marriage.”

I used to be a hardliner about using those terms in newspapers. I argued that “same-sex marriage” not presumptuous the way “gay marriage” was, and that it was more accurate. Here were my reasonings:

  • “Same-sex” refers to the genders of the couples, rather than the orientations of the people in the couple. If a man marries a man, we know they’re a same-sex marriage. But we don’t know that they identify as gay. They might identify as bisexual. Or, they could identify as straight. Or one could be gay and one could be bi, or one could be straight and the other gay. That seems like a stretch, but it could legally happen. As far as I know, the states that allow same-sex marriage don’t use gay tests. In all of the U.S., a lesbian could marry a gay man, but many wouldn’t think that makes it a “straight” marriage.
  • If a lesbian did marry a gay man, and thus both people were gay, could that be a “gay marriage”? Don’t say it can’t happen, because I know of at least two cases where it has happened.
  • There’s no law against the marriage between two gay people. As stated above, a gay man could marry a lesbian. The law is that two people of the same sex can’t get married, but as far as I know, the law doesn’t say that two gay people of the same sex couldn’t get married. I think two straight men would find it just as hard to get married in Missouri as two gay men.

Now, it might seem I’m being pedantic and splitting hairs. I totally understand that, which is why I don’t really make a deal about it anymore when talking to people in casual conversation. In general, I think we’re lax in conversation in way that we probably shouldn’t be in print. In conversation, I can ask for a “Kleenex,” even if you don’t have Kleenex brand tissues, because it’s become acceptable in conversation to refer to all tissues as “Kleenex.” “Dumpster” is no longer specific to the company, but can mean any large metal trash receptacle. We know what we mean.

But in print, we still hold to those rules. Every copy editing professor I had in college made it a point that if you don’t know it’s a Kleenex, call it a tissue. If you don’t know it’s a Frisbee, it’s a flying disc. I had one professor tell me of a correction a paper had to write when a reporter referred to a man as “African-American” when the man was not American at all. “We don’t make assumptions,” another professor told me.

I would mention all of these points to copy editor friends, many of whom agreed with me. But one smart copy editor friend of mine said, “Yeah, but ‘gay marriage’ sometimes fits in a head spec better than ‘same-sex marriage.'”

Thus, her paper’s policy was to use “same-sex marriage” in all copy, but give latitude in case “gay marriage” fit better in the headline. I’ve not explored too many other papers’ policies, but I would not be surprised if other papers have that policy, too.

And for the publications that use both “same-sex marriage” and “gay marriage” in copy, is there a policy for when to use one and not the other? Or is it OK to just switch them so as to not repeat the same term? I’d be interested to hear what discussions have gone on in other newsrooms.

I won’t deny that this dissection of language might seem anal-retentive. But I was a copy editor. It was my job to think this way.

Through GLAAD, Tracy Morgan could still redeem himself

Yesterday, I blogged that I wanted to see Tracy Morgan and Joakim Noah visit drop-in centers and halfway houses for LGBT youth. Both men have recently apologized for having offended the LGBT community. Noah called a fan “fa****” and Morgan described what he’d do if he had a gay son. Noah was fined $50,000 and Kobe Bryant was fined $100,000 for a similar offense.

After paying that fine, Noah said, “I made a mistake, learn from it and move on. That’s about it.”

I mused that I wondered how much he could learn from paying a fine that doesn’t go to helping gay youth. I said I’d rather see him use his time and effort to make a human connection with the kids who have to leave their homes because their families cannot accept that they’re gay.

It seems Tracy Morgan will indeed do just that. He will team with GLAAD and meet with residents of New York’s Ali Forney Center, which provides housing and support to homeless LGBT youth and families who have lost children to anti-gay violence. Additionally, Morgan will travel to Nashville, where Morgan will apologize to the audience he offended.

In a statement through GLAAD, Morgan said:

“I know how bad bullying can hurt. I was bullied when I was a kid. I’m sorry for what I said. I didn’t mean it. I never want to use my comedy to hurt anyone… My family knew what it was like to feel different. My brother was disabled, and I lost my father to AIDS in 1987. My dad wasn’t gay but I also learned about homophobia then because of how people treated people who were sick with that.”

To me, this is what “it gets better” could and should look like. I don’t want Joakim Noah’s $50,000 or Kobe’s $100,000 if those are just symbolic fines. I’d rather have them see the power of their words.

You might say, “Pat, why are you harping on this?” Because I’ve heard strangers call me “fa****.” Because I’ve heard people say gay slurs “in the heat of the moment” when they were looking for a synonym for “asshole” or “idiot.” I know what it’s like to know that there are some places that are safer for me than others. And until Noah makes an effort to show that he knows this is wrong and hurtful, I can’t help but think he’s ashamed he got caught and not feeling guilty because he did something wrong. I guess that shouldn’t matter, but as someone who has been called a fa**** by strangers, I think I still strive for a world where someone is not calling me that because they think it’s wrong, rather than a world where someone would want to call me that but won’t because they’d get called out for it.

Another way to look at it: When Joakim Noah got mad at that fan and called him a slur, he called him “fa****.” Why? Because the guy was doing something stereotypically gay? No, because the guy was doing something he didn’t like. That’s it. But why “fa****” and not the N word or a word for a religious group? Because he knows those words are offensive and he probably knows people who fit in those minority groups.

I think until more people know people who are gay, gay slurs will seem acceptable to them to use in “the heat of the moment” in ways that the N word or other words are not acceptable.

Joakim Noah said he paid his fine and “that’s about it, let’s move on.” Tracy Morgan, on the other hand, is allowing this to transform him and he’s reacting with humility and graciousness. He made a mistake, but he’s not being cavalier in his response. That these guys made a mistake didn’t bother me as much as the flippant “let’s move on” response. That goes for Tim Hardaway, too, whose remarks were way worse than Joakim Noah’s. Sometimes the way you handle your mistake can be more offensive than the initial mistake.

But in the case of Tracy Morgan, the steps he’s taking show that he seems to know the gravity of his words. I hope that Tracy Morgan can eventually be viewed as a champion of gay rights who came to the cause after realizing his mistakes. That would mean a lot more to me than Joakim Noah paying a fine and trying to forget it and “move on.”