Why is it so hard for same-sex couples to get a divorce? In 1996 Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage that occurred in another state. In 2013 still many same-sex couples travel to other states other than where they reside in order to legally be recognized as a legitimate couple. However, it is this very same Defense of Marriage Act that prevents same-sex couples from filing for divorce; if a state does not recognize same-sex marriage, then under Federal Law, the state merely sees these individuals as strangers.

Currently, in order for same-sex couples to be legally divorced the couple must reside in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages. If the same-sex couple does not reside in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, then they will have to move to a state that does and establish residency. The period of time to establish residency varies from state to state, California requires two years while Massachusetts only requires a year before a divorce can be granted. And that’s to only get a pre-trial court date.

Unfortunately, any divorce is messy and becomes messier when children, property, and taxes are involved in dissolving a marriage that is neither legitimized by nor legal in most states.

If you want to hear more about gay divorce check out this podcast: Throwing Shade #71

Cherry Luu is a guest contributor at InQueery & has a background in Mental Health.
You can follow Cherry’s personal and business life adventures on Instagram

For our first segment of InQueery News, Leo, Katie, and I wanted to focus on San Francisco’s notorious LGBT pride celebration, which will be held on June 29-30 this year. We had all been to a number of past pride celebrations, and in anticipation of another year, we decided to reflect on those experiences while thinking more generally about the event and some of our plans for this year’s festivities.

Then, we moved on to some headlining LGBT news, such as: NBC’s “Michelle Obama confronts gay-rights heckler at fundraiser”; CNN’s “Lutheran’s Elect Openly Gay Bishop”;The Guardian’s “Archbishop of Canterbury: gay marriage bill will undermine family life”; CBS Sports’ “Adrian Peterson:A gay teammate ‘wouldn’t bother me that much’”; The Washington Times’ “Illinois lawmakers vow to revive bill allowing gay marriage”; and The Huffington Post’s “Education Bill Rewrite Would Protect Gay Students”.

Leo Brown is the Editor at Large at InQueery
You can follow Leo Brown’s personal and business ramblings on Twitter at @mrbrownisin

Katie Tims is an Editor & Staff Writer at InQueery.
You can follow Katie’s personal and business ramblings on Google+

Benjamin Marmolejo is a Staff Writer at InQueery & studies English at UC Berkeley.
You can follow Benjamin’s personal and business ramblings on Facebook

Gay Media and Movements: Portrayals of Queer Life and the Movements that Accompanied It (The 60′s)

After the premiere of the polarizing yet popular show GLEE, many critics were split on how a primary character’s sexuality was handled and portrayed. Some critics like WetPaint writer Mariella Mosthof felt it was appropriate to ask “is Kurt too gay?” (at the time of writing this article, the percentage stood at 34.57% agreeing that Kurt needed more masculine qualities). While this line of questioning may have seemed offensive to some, it also sparked a debate between members of the LGBTQ community and straight allies about what appropriate representation looked like in regards to the community and what social responsibilities, if any, the media has in the [seems of how] way LGBTQ characters are portrayed.
With a wave of new television shows portraying LGBTQ characters and personalities, it’s sometimes easy to forget that not long ago the very thought of placing an individual whose orientation or lifestyle didn’t fit the commonly prescribed heternormative values on television was seen as shocking or unacceptable. In order to understand the gravity of the statement above, we’ll need to go back to a time where LGBTQ characters were just starting to be introduced to the general public in the form of consumable media and contrast the movements that were happening around the decade they premiered in. The events and media shown are by no means a complete collection of LGBT media and events, but are carefully selected to provide an accurate portrayal of how LGBT people were viewed in the world and treated in the media.

The 60′s

Leading from the 50′s into the 60′s, the homophile movement at the time worked from fresh gains that added a great deal of visibility to LGBT men and women. The work of Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956) was often cited in regards to his research on the sexual behaviors of men and women and the prevalence of homosexuality. Kinsey released Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948 and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female in 1953 to the shock and surprise of many as it offered insight into concrete statistics that same-sex attractions were more natural than previously thought (Brown & Fee, 2003). Thanks to Kinsey’s research, the homophile movement was galvanized and subsequently, the first gay secret society was formed. The Mattachine society (founded by Henry Hay) held their first meeting November 11th 1950. The secret society organized to protect gay men, their rights, and give them a safe space to meet. This countered Jospeh McCarthy’s movement that created the ‘Lavender Scare’ which relegated LGBT people to a status that was worse than a communist (Out.com, 2013). While LGBT people lost their jobs in great numbers due to the lavender scare, Henry Hay decided to resign from the group in 1952 due to his perception that he was more dangerous inside of the group than out of it (Katz, 1978). Regardless of Hay’s decision to leave the group, the American public was largely uninformed about LGBT issues, and as a result, sought to place LGBT people in the same category as others who were both dangerous and exhibited abnormal sexual behaviors as evidenced by “Boys Beware” (1961).

This documentary was released in the early 60′s and was produced by the ‘Sid Davis Productions’ company. In this film only gay men were portrayed and their portrayal was astoundingly negative. Gay men were likened to rapists, murderers and pedophiles as they would try to lure away unwitting high school-aged boys away from their after school activities and parents. In one scene a teenager named Mike is lured away from his basketball session by a gay man who goes on to murder him. This is told through the narrator who ominously states that “Mike Merritt traded his life for a newspaper headline” (Davis, 1961). Because gay men had been likened to murderers and pedophiles in both this video and in the sphere of the general public, it became necessary for the homophile movement to address those perceptions and work to change minds.
Protests and riots broke out in support of gay rights by homophile groups across the nation which inspired more LGBT people to come out. This wave sparked a backlash against the community by law enforcement officials who would raid bars that would knowingly serve homosexual patrons. To protest the discrimination faced, Dick Leitsch, also a member of the Mattachine society sought to challenge New York’s policy on outlawing the serving of liquor to gay patrons. In 1966, he organized a ‘sip-in’ in which he would attempt to order drinks from bars after making an open proclamation disclosing his sexual orientation. He was able to successfully order a few drinks, then hit a roadblock at a gay bar by the name of ‘Julius’. When he was denied liquor, he sued the state of New York which agreed with his case and stated that the open discrimination of LGBT people must end. (Simon, 2008). Still, even with this proclamation, New York’s attitude towards homosexuality seemed to be more progressive than the media treated it as evidenced by a documentary released by CBS the following year.

In 1967 CBS released a documentary on the condition of homosexuality and the social ramifications of it. It was a prominent documentary at the time because of its clinical take on homosexuality and the tone it took towards the LGBTQ community. In the documentary homosexuality is seen as a mental illness that is not only dangerous, but also looked down upon by the community and punishable by long incarcerations. The overall feeling of the documentary can be summed up by the sentiments of one unnamed individual who commented at LINK 30:08 in response to a civil rights march:

Well I’m a I’m a [sic] country boy I guess because I couldn’t believe this. I mean I didn’t know this was a problem over here, or at least I didn’t think anybody had a sign out about it. But I just don’t understand, how weird. I mean you people are getting a much more cosmopolitan than I thought you were over here because this is really filthy. Let’s face it, homosexuality is a problem and uh, these people are really advocating that we don’t solve the problem, they’re advocating that we tolerate the problem. And I think these people are a fit subject for a mental health program.

Still, among the individuals who commented on the state of LGBTQ mentality, there were a few dissenters (though small in number) who did defend homosexuality as a completely natural phenomenon that should be accepted by society as a whole. One such person added that the view that homosexuals were trying to destroy the institution of the family was “nonsense” (Wallace, Peters & Morgan, 1967). Following the documentary, protests erupted over a new threat to the homophile movement that further stigmatized LGBT men and women.
This stigmatization was due to a classification made by the DSM II that was published in 1968 that claimed homosexuality was a mental disorder. Many arrived to protest the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, but their voices often went unheard. Those who discriminated against LGBT people were vindicated as the new categorization allowed psychiatrists to attempt to ‘treat’ members of the LGBT community while the general public was given more of an excuse to simply shun them (Teo, 2011). As discrimination against LGBT people increased, so did visibility and unrest with the status quo. It was only a matter of time before the LGBT community stood up for itself as it did in the following year.
Following a year of great social injustice, LGBT people claimed a victory on the night of June 27th, 1969 in the Greenwich Village of New York. Police arrived at the Stonewall Inn to make their usual arrests of LGBT patrons when a select few decided to resist arrest. What ensued was a full-blown riot where patrons fought back against the officers, released their fellow patrons from the squad cars, and pelted the officers with rocks, bottles, and any other blunt objects to be found. The riot was so intense that Tactical Patrol Force was called in to control them, yet failed. The rioting lasted for five days and the chants from the participants of the riot that mocked the TPF hung in the air as they shouted: “We are the Stonewall girls/ We wear our hair in curls/ We don’t wear underwear/ We show our pubic hairs” (Wright, 1999). Following the riot at the Stonewall Inn, the LGBT community was energized to further their visibility in the world and demand equal treatment under the law. The following portrayals of LGBT people in the media weren’t as damning as what had come before it, and handful of films even sought to humanize the community and undo the damage that had been wreaked by the negative depictions of LGBT people in the press. One such film followed a little over the one-month anniversary of the Stonewall Inn riots.

The Gay Deceivers was a film released in 1969 about a heterosexual pair of friends who pretend to be same-sex lovers in order to avoid military service. This film was unique for its time as it attempted to portray same-sex relationships in a more positive light. Michael Greer (an actor in the film) sought to decrease the negative stigmas attached to such pairings. In the promotional clip above, the depiction of gay couples is still stereotypical as it pairs together two men who occupy traditional opposite-sex gender roles, but the film marked a milestone in both cinema and consumable media as it aimed to steer clear of the fear-based tactics used to portray homosexuality. While the depiction may have been stereotypical at best, it represented a departure from the portrayal of LGBT people as dangerous and corrupt (Polsky, Lasky & Wish, 1969).
While the 60′s were a volatile time for members of the LGBT community, the social progress that was made could easily be reflected in the media. The 60′s as a decade transitioned from a fearful and dangerous portrayal of homosexuality to a largely stereotypical and comical one. Behind the lens of the cameras lie another story where members of the community would meet in secret for fear of persecution, fight against the system that attempted to push them further in the closet, and riot against those who threatened to their very livelihood. As a result, the 1960′s were cemented in history as the decade where the gay-rights movement rapidly began to pick up traction and furthered the ambition of those who took the battle further into the 1970′s.

J.J. Medina is a guest contributor at InQueery.
You can follow J.J.’s personal and business ramblings on Google+

References
• Brown, T., & Fee, E. (2003, June). Alfred c. kinsey: a pioneer of sex research. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447862/
• Davis, S. (Producer) (1961). Boys beware [Television series episode]. In Davis, S. (Executive Producer),Boys Beware. Retrieved fromhttp://youtu.be/ECilAeLLATc
• Katz, J. (1978). Gay american history. Avon Books.
• Simon, S. (2008, June 28). Remembering a 1966 ‘sip-in’ for gay rights. Retrieved fromhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91993823
• Out.com. (2013, 04 26). 9 things to know about the lavender scare. Out magazine, Retrieved fromhttp://www.out.com/entertainment/popnography/2013/04/26/9-things-to know-about-lavender-scare
• Polsky, A. (Writer), Lasky, G. (Writer), & Wish, J. (Writer) (1969). The gay deceivers trailer[Theater]. Available fromhttp://youtu.be/APHMaBnVo64
• Teo, K. (2011, September 19). Exploring psychiatric disorders and homosexuality. Retrieved from http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=33097
• Wallace, M. (Writer), Peters, W. (Writer), & Morgan, H. (Writer) (1967). The homosexuals [Television series episode]. In Morgan, H. (Executive Producer), CBS reports. CBS. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/OciJt-8URfM
• Wright, L. (1999, July 1). The stonewall riots – 1969 — a turning point in the struggle for gay and lesbian liberation. Retrieved fromhttp://socialistalternative.org/literature/stonewall.html

We at the Pacific Center are incredibly proud to have celebrated our 40th anniversary this past May 9th at the beautiful, historic Bellevue Club! We have devoted our many years to fostering community, providing mental health services for couples, individuals and families of all backgrounds. Our accomplishments have not been without help. The event honored long-time staff as well as newer employees that have been invaluable to the Pacific Center’s growth and quality of services. We also awarded devoted volunteers Rita Herring, Bob Compton and LaTricia Kani King at the ceremony for their outstanding volunteership. The event, titled Fabulous at 40, began with no-host cocktails followed by dinner and a program including guest speaker Cleve Jones and a special performance by the Oakland East Bay Gay Men’s Chorus. We offer our sincere appreciation for and satisfaction with the turnout and response from the community. Many thanks to all who helped put the event together (especially volunteer staff), attended and otherwise have supported the Pacific Center in any of these past 40 years!

Leo Brown is the Editor at Large at InQueery
You can follow Leo Brown’s personal and business ramblings on Twitter at @mrbrownisin

Katie Tims is a Staff Writer at InQueery.
You can follow Katie’s personal and business ramblings on Google+

“Family isn’t what it looks like; it’s what it feels like” – Doni DeBolt, executive director of AASK, daughter of the organization’s founders

For the past 40 years, Adopt A Special Kid (AASK) has been helping people form families in the Bay Area by connecting children with would-be parents. Since 1973, the organization has placed roughly 3,400 children in permanent, forever homes. The parents and the children that make up these homes are often “non-traditional,” meaning there is a conscious effort on the part of the organization to serve older, biracial, and LGBT individuals and couples as they create a family through the foster and adoption process.

AASK owes a great deal of its success to the staff’s support of the organization. Social workers employed by the organization are highly trained and offer one-on-one support to the new or prospective parent(s). A point of pride for the organization is its dedication to the principle that one social worker should guide the adoptive parent(s) through the process from beginning to end. By doing so, the individuals adopting are better able to communicate with their social worker through this difficult process.

To serve the community even more effectively, the organization offers a 24/7 parent crises call line, Camp Always, a summer camp for the children fostered or adopted through AASK, as well as a scholarship program for the children once they reach college age. Tina Phillips, a representative of AASK, summarized the organization’s sense of community by saying, “we hold your hand through the entire process.” The individual attention the parents receive at AASK helps them navigate the ups and downs of parenting.

AASK, since its inception, has been dedicated to helping members of the LGBT community fulfill their desire to become parents. Unfortunately, this is an option that many within the community feel is denied to them. Phillips speaks to this when she says,

So many LGBT people feel like they cannot become parents and [are] excluded from that dream. We are working hard to do outreach to the queer community so they know they do have options and opportunities.

While there was an estimated 110,000 children living in same-sex households in 2012—a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000—these children make up less than 1% of the total child population in the U.S. Parents that identify as LGBT and children with an LGBT parent can claim a minority status. There is also a certain amount of legal ambiguity that comes along with being in a family that began with an LGBT couple because of the relative newness of the practice. However, as Phillips alludes to, AASK and organizations like it have a duty to the children first and foremost:

AASK helps people from all walks of life, some who didn’t imagine they could be parents, to become the most successful parents they can be and help their children reach their fullest potential.

By establishing these children in loving, stable homes, they are given an opportunity to succeed and, most importantly, be a part of a loving family. The makeup of that family, what it looks like, is unimportant in comparison to the needs of a child.

One LGBT family, made up of Sara, Felicia, and their two sons, highlight the importance of the children over all else when going through the adoption process. The family grew with the addition of the two boys, who were adopted by the couple through AASK. When asked about their experience and decision to foster the two children—two boy cousins who entered the couple’s lives at the same time—Sara referred to the choice as one that felt “easy and right” to make. Their adoption experience illustrates the child-focused nature of the adoption process. While there can be challenges to LGBT adoption, on a personal as well as legal level, speaking with this family, one does not get a sense of that struggle. This is possibly due to the length of time: the adoption process was something they went through a few years ago. Or this may reflect the strides made in this area. LGBT adoption is becoming more widely visible and accepted by the general public. Also, after an individual or couple decides to adopt, they find that the process is focused on the child, not the parent(s). AASK makes a conscious effort to find the best, most loving home for the child, regardless of the makeup of that family. Because of this, it is best to take the advice of Sara and Felicia, two people that have gone through adoption, and “believe in magic” even if the process seems difficult. Adoption is difficult, but with support, effort, and a little magic, there is no reason why the dream of parenthood cannot be fulfilled by anyone that chooses to accept that responsibility.

For more information about AASK:
Informational workshops usually held the first Tuesday of the month 7-9pm at 201 Edgewater Road, #103 Oakland, CA 94621

Amanda Luna is a regular contributor to InQueery.
You can follow Amanda’s personal and business ramblings on Google+

un·doc·u·queer (un-dok-yu-kweer) /adj./ Undocumented & queer.

Among many facets of an individual’s identity, to be both queer and an immigrant without paperwork can present pervasive challenges. The marriage equality movement often fails to include the challenges of being undocumented. Meanwhile immigration reform leaves untouched the need for queer voices.[1] Consequently, this intersection of identities rarely receives the consideration it deserves.

As a white male whose parents are not immigrants, I must make clear the fact that I do not understand the intimate nature of being an immigrant, let alone being undocumented. I first heard the term undocuqueer last fall through an exploration of personal stories, activists’ statements, and political events. Since then I’ve been attempting to understand what’s at stake in this movement.

The marriage equality movement fails to recognize that mixed-status marriages (i.e. citizen and non-citizen) are also without equal rights and protections. Since marriage presents access to citizenship, undocumented individuals sometimes marry for the sake of becoming a citizen. In instances such as this, marriage may not be about love or the citizen partner may abuse the inherent privileges and power of their status. Furthermore, reporting abuse also becomes complicated, making leaving the marriage troublesome when citizenship is connected to the legal relationship. Finally, with immigration being a contested topic, families might intervene in mixed-status relationships and threaten one or both partners so as to avoid marrying and thus conferring citizenship upon the undocumented partner.

In essence, undocuqueer folks must come out twice: once as queer and again as undocumented. Both identities are not always fully accepted in the immigrant’s new home and being undocumented complicates the experience of being queer. Namely, the United States may not forever be their new home and with the knowledge of deportation being a real possibility, being queer could mean being sent back to persecution. Consider the personal statement of an individual named Mohammad, an Iranian immigrant:

My mom often says, “why stay here, just go back home and we will figure something out?” Of course, she doesn’t know that I also happen to be gay and so returning home to a country that has publicly killed people for being gay is just NOT an option.[2]

Being queer in a country that has laws against your orientation doesn’t seem safe. In fact, it forces some people to flee (maybe even immigrate without the appropriate paperwork).[3] Though the United States grants asylums, claims based upon persecution related to being queer “are particularly difficult to file, argue, and win — even with substantial evidence of persecution and ill-treatment.”[4]

Immigration to the United States for the purpose of safety is nothing new. In other instances, marriage across nations usually grants citizenship rights. Yet, binational same-sex couples are ignored. Even in recent immigration reform, the right to citizenship by marriage has not been extended to homosexual relationships.[5]

Though the issues of immigration and marriage equality are not the same for everyone, the passion for fairness and its fearless pursuit runs deeply in both. In fact, being both queer and undocumented has, for some, “opened the path to express themselves…because they see it as one struggle: Undocumented and Unafraid; Queer and Unashamed."[6] As our country moves toward greater justice for all of humankind, it is important to not forget about the intersection of identities that results in this type of unseen suffering. To think that immigration affects only someone’s paperwork would seem unfair. To imagine that marriage equality is simply about a ceremony misses the point. Wherever and whomever, someone chooses to live and love, they should have the right to do so fearlessly.

Jonathan Baio is a guest contributor at InQueery and studies Chemical Biology at UC Berkeley.
You can follow Jon’s personal and business ramblings on Google+