Unimaginable?

The day after the massacre in a gay nightclub in Orlando left 49 people dead and more than 50 more critically injured, my hometown newspaper ran a banner headline that read "UNIMAGINABLE." This sentiment was widely shared by many following the brutal assault by a single individual targeting the LGBTQ community.

But was this truly unimaginable? Certainly it was shocking and horrific, especially for those of us in the LGBTQ community. But certainly it was imaginable if you have been paying attention.

The last decade has truly been one of tremendous strides for gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Many states have passed laws granting full civil rights to the LGBTQ community. The Supreme Court has recognized same sex marriage and more importantly have found that gay people are afforded the equal protection of the law recognizing that the fundamental rights due all Americans under the Constitution also apply to gay Americans. Less than a decade ago, it was unimaginable for a major party candidate to campaign in support of gay rights. Now, candidates (some in both parties) fall all over themselves to garner the support of the LGBTQ community, and make their support of gay rights a central theme of their campaign.

But, as progress has been made at unexpected speed, the backlash against the LGBTQ community has been just as swift. The past couple of years have seen hateful laws passed in many states such as HB2 in my state of North Carolina, which enshrine in the laws of our states outright discrimination and second class status to LGBTQ individuals. In a majority of states it is still legal to discriminate on the basis of sexuality and gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations. And pure unadulterated hate speech has been directed at the gay community from judges, lawmakers, and most especially Christian religious leaders.

Here are just a few examples of the hateful statements made about the LGBTQ community from our nations leaders in the past several years, right up to the present.

The recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a wealth of hateful things to say about the gay community. Scalia defended laws banning "homosexuals" from serving as teachers, or allowing discrimination against them in employment or housing saying "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive." In other opinions, he compared homosexuality to murder, polygamy, and cruelty to animals.

Current U.S. Senator and recent Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has compared the LGBTQ community to terrorists, calling their opposition to discriminatory laws a "jihad." Not to be one-upped, Republican commentator, former governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Cruz wasn't "homophobic enough" to be President.

Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, has likened gays to Nazis claiming LGBT activists are going to "start rolling out the boxcars" and carting away Christians, a reference to the Holocaust. Brian Fischer of the American Family Association has called the rainbow symbol the "mark of the beast" and has called for gays to be put to death. Fischer has also gone down the Nazi path calling LGBTQ activists "jack-booted homofascist thugs who want to use the tyrannical and totalitarian power of the state to send men of faith to jail, and that frankly sounds a lot more like Nazi Germany than the United States of America"

Nationally recognized Christian evangelical leader Franklin Graham, son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, has said that Satan himself is behind the so-called "gay agenda." Among other inflammatory statements, Graham has stated "The architect behind this [gay rights] offensive is none other than Satan himself. The Scripture says that the devil, our archenemy, is bent on as much destruction as possible." 

And just recently evangelical pastor Pat Dobson encouraged followers to shoot trangender individuals in bathrooms stating “If this [transgender people in bathrooms] had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot.Where is today’s manhood? God help us!”

Of course the rhetoric coming out of the Republican leadership of the North Carolina General Assembly in defending its horrible House Bill 2 which undid several anti-discrimination statutes across North Carolina which had protections for LGBTQ individuals, and outlawed any protections for LGBTQ individuals in the state of North Carolina has been extremely troubling. House Speaker Tim Moore (who is the former business partner of the author of this blog post) has repeatedly stated that gay and transgender individuals are a public safety issue, claiming that Charlotte's ordinance allowing transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity was a threat to women and children in their bathrooms. Senator Phil Berger and Governor Pat McCrory have stated the same or similar comments repeatedly.

Of course this was nothing new for Speaker Moore. His entire political career has been based on passing bills and laws that attack the rights of the LGBTQ community. As a student at UNC- Chapel Hill while Speaker of the Student Assembly, Moore made a concerted effort to defund the campus gay rights organization, using his power of appointment, and gerrymandering of campus districts to accomplish this, something he has also done in the state's General Assembly as Speaker of the House.

So, why is it that Orlando is unimaginable? Rather than beyond belief, it shouldn't surprise us at all. In fact, the Orlando massacre can be seen as a truly American crime, where the intersection of anti-gay rhetoric, easy access to guns, and a steady diet of media fueled hate combined in an explosion of mass violence resulting in the massive loss of life of 49 mostly LGBTQ, mostly Latino Americans.

And the response has been uniquely American as well. The refusal of many media outlets and politicians to even acknowledge this as a direct targeting of the gay community, the quick linking of this to Islamic terrorism despite little evidence of that fact, the quick co-opting of the tragedy to push everything from anti-immigrant policy, to gun control, to military retaliation, and the inevitable spiking of gun manufacturers stock prices after a mass shooting, are products of this same homophobic American culture that spurred the shooting in the first place.

Now it is being reported that the shooter may himself have been a closeted gay man, having apparently been active on gay hook-up acts and even possibly previously frequenting the Pulse nightclub itself. This, too, is an inevitable outgrowth of everything set forth above. As our society, our politicians, and our religions make out the LGBTQ as the enemy, the "other" which is to be feared and hated, many LGBTQ individuals develop a self hatred that causes them to act out against that which they fear about themselves. 

We need not look overseas or to Islamic culture, or immigrants to find the enemy which caused the Orlando massacre. The enemy is right here among us. The hatred that is expressed on a daily basis from all corners of America is the cause of this violence. And those that perpetuate it, whether it be by hateful speech, discriminatory laws, or mere refusal to stand against anti-gay activity, the blood of Orlando is on your hands.

Blood Wars

Since the 1980s the FDA has maintained a policy which prevents any male who has ever had sex with another male from donating blood. It is a policy which was enacted at the height of the AIDS scare and was done to calm fears about the safety of the nation's blood supply. Over the last several years this policy has come in for major criticism as it does little to protect the blood supply while openly discriminating against gay men.

Within the last month, the FDA amended this policy. While at first this sounded like good news, in fact the amendment did little to change the existing policy. The new policy says that gay men can donate blood, but only if they have gone at least one year without having sexual contact with another male.

This has rightly been criticized both by gay rights activists and by medical professionals, and for good reason. First, discriminating now against sexually active gay men does nothing to keep the blood supply safe. When this policy was first enacted, we knew very little about AIDS (or what was originally called GRID -- Gay Related Immunodeficiency Disease) or HIV. Because the virus first spread through gay communities, it became synonymous with gay men. However, with more than 30 years of study, we much better understand the virus and disease caused by the virus. While AIDS first spread through the gay community, it is spread through unprotected sex, direct transmission of bodily fluids, or use of infected needles. It does not discriminate based on sexuality, gender, or race. Spikes in rates of HIV infection have occurred among straight populations as well as gay populations.

To continue a policy which discriminates only against gay men ignores all of the information we have learned about HIV/AIDS. A monogamous gay man in a committed relationship is much less likely to contract HIV than a sexually promiscuous straight man. A straight woman in a relationship with a non-monogamous man is also much more likely to contract HIV even though she may be completely unaware that her partner is being promiscuous. Of course, because of this the blood supply is tested for HIV and for other blood borne illnesses such as hepatitis. This would be no different for blood donated by sexually active gay men.

In an NPR story about the FDA's decision, a member of the FDA in defending the decision said that nobody has the right to donate blood. And he is correct. However, if the FDA's purpose in continuing the ban on sexually active gay men is to help insure the safety of the nation's blood supply, the decision may end up having exactly the opposite result. That is because the one thing that it does guarantee is that the stigma faced by gay men will continue because of this policy.

Despite the amazing and groundbreaking advances that LGBTQ individuals have made in the United States in recent years in terms of civil rights, status, and acceptance, being gay in the United States still carries a stigma. LGBTQ people still suffer discrimination, harassment, and violence in large numbers. Open displays of affection, even minor ones such as a kiss or holding hands, often result in violence against gays. Transgender women and men especially suffer serious violence, especially trans women of color, of whom as many as 30 were murdered this year. Even absent violence, societal discrimination against gays still exists and in many ways is accepted in much of the United States. A majority of states do not have protections for LGBTQ individuals in housing, employment, or public accommodations.

This policy by the FDA adds to this stigma. It grows out of the paranoia of the early days of AIDS, when hospital wards were treated like we treat Ebola today. There was a tremendous fear of especially gay men as people in their ignorance believed AIDS could be spread by casual contact. Gay men were essentially ostracized from society, leading to radical activism by groups such as ACT-UP who rightly saw this as a fight for their lives, as the federal government was doing nothing to address the spread of the disease as it ravaged the gay community.

By continuing to ban the donation of blood by sexually active gay men, the FDA essentially says to the nation that gay men are still something to be feared, that we are not acceptable or normal in society, that it is ok to despise us, ostracize us, and discriminate against us. It perpetuates fear of gay men which leads to and justifies hate against us. It is this very fear along with all of the other societal pressures from family, church, and peers which causes gay men to remain in the closet. It is this stigma which causes closeted men to seek anonymous encounters on the sly rather than pursue healthy dating relationships. This policy inadvertently leads to the increase of the very risky behaviors which most easily spread HIV.

So, how do we get the FDA to change its policy. It will take the same radical action that led to changes in other policies on discrimination, marriage, adoption, and other civil rights for LGBTQ individuals. I imagine there are many who will hesitate about the idea of a boycott of blood donations, myself included. However, it is just this type of action, and probably only this type of action which is going to force the changes which are necessary. Fighting AIDS has always been a life or death issue for the gay community, until it becomes just as compelling issue for everyone else, especially those in the FDA making these decisions, it is unlikely that the new revised policy will change.

It is for this reason that I believe a national, vocal, and committed boycott of blood donation may be necessary in order to force the issue. I don't think it will take very long, and I wish there was some other way to bring to the forefront this issue, but a blood boycott seems to be the quickest and most effective way for change to occur.

It is time to end the stigma, break the closet, be loud, be proud. Our lives still depend on it. Act Up, Fight Back, Fight AIDS.