C'est Moi, Catie

Stop reading and start questioning

I haven’t written in a long time – things in my usual area of interest have been moving along pretty well recently, with the impending repeal of DADT, and the unconstitutionality ruling of Prop 8.

But one thing this morning got me a little more riled up than usual: John Langbert, an openly gay father of three, has been stripped of his leadership position for his son’s Boy Scout troop. One issue: how is this not a headlining story? While I’m sure (and sad to say) that this kind of thing probably happens all the time, we should be leveraging the fact that this one is on CNN! More people should be interested, concerned, and CNN should be highlighting this story that deals with not only the errs of one of America’s defining institutions, but the social/judicial foundations that allow it to be so.

That being said, the most frustrating, heartbreaking part of Langbert’s story is the semblance of ease with which the Boy Scouts of America are able to justify what has happened. Here are their reasons as to why this man, who has done nothing wrong except for admitting his homosexuality, has been stripped of his leadership title:

“We do have a policy that avowed gays and atheists are not allowed to be a registered leader or member of Boy Scouts of America,” said Pat Currie, Scout executive with the Circle Ten Council. “It’s a longstanding policy.”

“This is not meant as a social commentary,” [Deron] Smith said. “We do not have an agenda that we’re pushing. We don’t discuss this with our kids. We’re simply an organization that feels like this is the right thing for our membership and we move it forward and we simply focus on our mission. It’s really that simple.”

Besides how ridiculous these arguments sound (to me at least, I guess), what’s almost more crazy is the matter-of-fact candidness they’re delivered with – the Boy Scouts are so comfortable in their reasoning, so sure that it makes sense, that they’re simply releasing them to the media with no remorse or logical justification. They’re just saying, as so many arguments in this arena are made, “That’s just the way it is.”

How long is that going to be OK? This is the place where policy-makers, people in power, and the millions of people who vote, need to take action by asking WHY.

There is a concept in positive psychology called the “Infinitely Regressive Why”: (from Happier, Tal Ben-Shahar), “When we question why we want certain things… we can always question their value with another ‘why?’”

If we start questioning WHY certain policies are in place, and WHY they came from certain foundations, and WHY those foundations came to be, I think we could find some pretty interesting and extremely eye-opening answers, that 9 times out of 10 will be rooted in hate, bigotry, and most importantly, misunderstanding.

Once we understand the deep-seated beliefs behind certain questions:

• WHY do you want to keep marriage between a man and a woman?
• WHY should gays not be allowed to serve in the military?
• WHY is your policy to keep gays and atheists out of leadership roles?

… we will come up with not only intriguing answers, but also the answer to the most important question: HOW are we going to fix this major social and judicial wrong that is discrimination against gays? HOW will we make those who hate, or even just “disagree,” understand, and start to affect change?

Positive psychology (or at least my take on it), holds that the key to affecting change within yourself and across your life is to truly understand how you feel – by starting at the surface and asking WHY – why, why, why, why, why. The final, simplest answer is likely something that affects not just your feelings and behavior in that specific situation, but across the board.

When we start questioning – constantly and infinitely – why things run the way they run here, then we can affect change, right misunderstanding, and start to love.

An anecdote…

I love Lady Gaga. Ask anyone. She is an insane performer and an equally amazing singer… two things I really respect (and wish I could do myself).

But my love for her is more than that. She is the epitome of what I would like to believe I am fighting for. A friend of mine tonight was sort of teasing me for liking (loving) her – “She’s too out there … She’s over the top … She’s gotta tone it down a little.” Then things got a little more serious, and a comparison was made between Gaga and an “equally” controversial performer: Eminem. Laughing, my friend said, “I mean, if Eminem had to tone it down, then doesn’t she have to tone it down?” Of course, he was referring to her “hanging herself” performance at the VMAs (I replied that you can’t win them all). He remarked that there were parallels between the two: “[They are both p]eople who don’t go with societies morals [norms, let's say].”

I had to take this opportunity to finally get to say what I’ve always wanted to say about Eminem (that is, ever since I grew up and realized all those people protesting outside his concerts were right!!)…

I get the hanging thing, and how that could be (and was) offensive to some people. But Eminem uses his relative influence over people (listeners) to reinforce already negative stigmas toward already horribly oppressed people, e.g. women, gays, you name it. While I’m sure he has a million reasons for why people should not take him so seriously, or feel so offended, I can’t support his ability to even defend himself. In the spotlight, he is aware that his sentiments will be repeated: at his concerts, in the car. Hate breeds hate; this is a fact.

You go, girl

Further, Lady Gaga has a mission. We can all agree that she’s controversial and she certainly isn’t “normal.” But that’s the point – and I think her agenda is bigger than people give her crazy outfits and envelope-pushing performances credit for. She actually wants to change people’s ideas of what is ”normal.” The simple idea of “normal” is oppressive. This is why she doesn’t respond to the hermaphrodite rumors, or dismiss gay rumors, or conform to “fashion norms”… ever.

Yeah, I love her. And her heart-pounding, crazy music that makes me want to dance in the library. BUt more importantly is one thing we should all take away from her: Her message is truth… and it’s progress.

Sorry to my friend… Hope you don’t mind me using your Devil’s Advocate skills to make a point.

The Locus of Moral Decay is… Tiger?

Does anyone remember Republican South Carolina governor Mark Sanford? You know, the one who left his post for five days to visit his mistress in Argentina? And told the quietly curious American people that he was hiking in the Appalachians? Well, earlier today, the South Carolina subcommittee created to investigate this situation decided that Sanford’s actions do not merit impeachment, per the SC constitution.

But wait a minute… last time I checked, lying about your whereabouts to your constituents (perjury?), lying to other governmental officials (obstruction of justice?), and leaving office for an unwarranted, extended period of time (abuse of power), were all offenses that are punishable by impeachment. Oh and not to mention adultery. But maybe the law has changed since 1998.

Excuse me if I’m being aggressive, or angry, but isn’t it people like Sanford who “cheapen” the “sanctity of marriage” when they abandon their wives and children for mistresses and ignore their familial and political duties? What about “American heroes” like Tiger Woods who find sleeping with a potential 10 mistresses to be nothing more than regretful “transgressions”? Is it the liberals’ fault that Larry Craig was caught with his pants down, or that Paul Stanley extorted a 22-year-old girl? How can we hand marriage AND political or social power over to people who fill the “tradition” of marriage with lies, cheating, and the squashing of good-old “family values”? And further, how can we let them get away with it? Especially when we condemn others for immorality before they even get the chance to let their children down??

The longer we make second-class citizens out of a potential 10 percent of the American population, the longer we cheapen the institution of marriage that is denied to them. It’s not American to give rights to only one class of people – and it’s even worse if we don’t punish those who clearly exploit those privileges we have given them.

When will liberals be satisfied? When second-class citizens are not created and perpetuated by elite majority legislation, and decidedly first-class citizens are not allowed to keep their plush social rungs in the face of “reprehensible,” “arrogant” and “indefensible” actions.