This article is against “queering the census” or rather adding an option on the census about sexual orientation. This argues that LGBTQ peoples are struggling for the same rights as heterosexual people and therefore categorizing non-heterosexual individuals would be against the idea of the LGBTQ community being ordinary Americans.
Instead of getting a part on the census where one can indicate sexual orientation, the lesbian and gay individuals can now check the “married” box if they believe that reflects the status of their relationship. On the census form they are allowed to participate an acknowlege their relationship as a marriage while legally they are not allowed to have this title.
President Obama filled out his census form and when asked about race he checked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” box despite being half white. The government is trying to encourage people to check whichever box they feel expresses them best, which for Obama was black/African American/negro instead of “multiracial” or “white.”
So, the census is a very big deal and highly publicized to the point where I do not want to do it because it is being shoved down my throat too much. But, some recent articles have taken a very critical view of the census and how it applies to the LGBTQ community and racial communities, specifically black peoples. The first article, “Don’t queer the census” has some good points about the LGBTQ community being just Americans instead of the “gays” or “queer” population. Not having a box to choose sexual orientation integrates queer people with the normative, heterosexual population.
Also, there are way too many ways for queer people to identify themselves (gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgender, I just like to experiment, etc) and trying to define queer people in specific ways is hard to do while including every definition and combination of definitions. Each individual has his or her own identity and sexual preferences, should we include on the census the type of person we are attracted to (big muscles, blonde, tan, really smart guys with glasses-this is for an example and not true as to who my type is, so if you qualify, don’t waste your time. Unless you’re the character Ben from Queer as Folk…)?
This somewhat segues into my next point about race on the census. Obama checked black/African American/negro. Yeah right. Obama is the whitest black person ever-he’s even half white! So, why is he checking this box instead of white or multiracial (which would make most sense)? He’s trying to appeal to the black community as well as any other liberal community (LGBTQ, democrats, lower class) that finds his race appealing and a good reason for him to be President. Now, I don’t really have anything against Obama (I’m a Hilary girl) and I think he’s doing OK as President (well, everyone looks good after Bush) but he needs to stop trying to appeal to an audience of black Americans, like by checking the black race box.
The race box is kind of annoying to me because I am not just “white,” I’m Irish and English and some other European countries. But, how come I do not get to express my heritage and background? Just because I am white I am simply an American and white is my race? Is black a race now? I thought that race was a cultural or geographical heritage or background, not simply the color of our skin. In a couple months when I’m sunburnt, can I check a “red” box?
Or, my great-great-grandmother was Native American, so can I check the Native American box? It seems that the race box is trying to access one’s background and heritage, but the boxes that are on the census do not really determine a person’s culture and upbringing. Obama may be half black and check the black box because that’s what he identifies with, but he is one of the most culturally white-black people ever.
I want to briefly mention the article about LGBTQ people being able to identify their relationship as a marriage in the census, but not legally. The census is allowing people to be very liberal with describing themselves and statuses (as liberal as possible with boxes) which may distort the results. While it is open-minded to be able to allow people to choose their relationship statuses and races based on how they feel they identify them, the results may also be misleading because multiracial people identify themselves as black and two lesbians living together identify as married when they legally are not. The census is taking a scientific, precise way of accounting for every American and making it more illogical and imprecise, which is good in some ways and bad in others.
The New York Times, “Gay NY Teen’s Harassment Suit Gets Federal Notice”
On February 4, 2010, The New York Times published an online article by the Associated Press about a homosexual harassment case in Mohawk case. Jacob, an eighth grade student, is seeking to halt harassment with the filing of a lawsuit against the Mohawk school district with the New York Civil Liberties Union. The Department of Justice also asked to intervene with the suit considering that Jacob was denied equal protections guaranteed under the Constitution and “under Title IX, the antidiscrimination law affecting schools that receive federal funding.”
The Washington Post, “More Tolerance for gay troops as end of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is debated”
On February 10, 2010, The Washington Post published an online article by Ernesto Londono about the lifting of “don’t ask, don’t tell” within the military. Soldiers and military officials have never had to outright say their sexual orientation, and even if “don’t ask, don’t tell” is repealed, many say they would keep things the way they are. There is a fear of being looked at or their work being evaluated on a different level merely because of their sexual orientation.
DC Agenda, “LGBT Democrats defend Obama at DNC winter meeting”
On Febrary10, 2010, DC Agenda published an online article by Lou Chibbaro Jr. about the support of President Obama by a portion of the LGBT community. They are satisfied with his efforts over the past year in regards to the LGBT and queer movement in the United States, though Congress is reluctant, or “slow” to pass many queer-related bills.
The Advocate.com, “First Openly Gay man recommended for Federal Judge”
On February 9, 2010, The Advocate published an online article by Julie Bolcer about an openly gay man, Daniel Alter, recommended to be a Federal Judge for the first time in history. Senator Chuck Schumer recommends him beyond his qualifications as a judge, but to make history in a positive way.
Many sources, including conservation ones, publish queer/race news. The underlining “problem” however, is from the perspective in which it is being written. The primary difference between primarily queer publications and mainstream news publications go beyond the depth of queer/race news, but to whom it is broadcasted and exactly how queer news is depicted. Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post use the word “gay,” often the unwanted term of LGBT individuals, to portray its news both online and in print. On the other hand, queer friendly news uses the term “queer” in articles to exhibit what the majority of the LGBT community finds appropriate.
Therefore, I searched both Queer-related publications, as well as mainstream news publications to have significant data to compare and contrast. I selected these specific articles because of the breath of information and the way it is presented. The queer-related publications show queer-related news in a positive, forward-moving light in all aspects, whereas the mainstream news publications focus on the LGBT community with relation to the law. The effect queer/race understanding within the way it is written and what the articles are truly about. Most people do not read queer-related publications like The Advocate and The DC Agenda, but rather The New York Times and The Washington Post. This forces readers to have a very skewed perception of queer-related news and knowledge, only referring to it as “gay” news, and not the LGBT acceptable “queer.”