When I got home from work on Wednesday I was flooded with news of Obama signing DADT into law and immediately got on YouTube to watch the full video for myself. It was validating to hear my President recognising that sexual orientation is not a character flaw so significant that it undermines a person’s potential to demonstrate courage and valour and to see him sign those sentiments into law.
It’s staggering to think that 14,000 people were discharged from service for being gay. I welled up when Obama spoke of Captain Jonathan Hopkins being discharged only to receive emails from his soldiers saying they had always known he was gay and thought he was the best commander they ever had. He was removed from service because of his sexuality and not his leadership qualities. In spite of everything he worked for and the achievements he made, his country told him that he was not worthy of service because of who he was.
This echoed with a video I watched recently about Jane Castor, the Tampa Police Chief. She says she fundamentally wants to be remembered as a good police chief, but at the same time recognises the significance of her position as the first female chief (and as a lesbian). These aspects of her self make her significantly more vulnerable to criticism. She says “If a male in this position fails, then he fails as an individual. If I fail, I fail for all women.” She can’t change her gender or her sexuality (although she could have chosen to keep it hidden). Regardless of how she defines herself, she will be judged by how others may ultimately define her.
Discrimination is unfair treatment based on prejudice. The particular trait identified for prejudice can include almost anything, as demonstrated by Jane Elliott’s “blue-eyed/brown-eyed” experiment. If you haven’t seen this before, I recommend you watch it. It clearly demonstrates just how easy it is to discriminate; we all do it and some believe it is an innate human trait. It is for this very reason that protecting everyone against institutionalised discrimination is of particular relevance to humanity.
Take some time to consider this:
How do you identify yourself? How do you prioritise your unique genetic traits, personality characteristics, educational and/or professional achievements or your relationships to other people to define who you are?
How to you portray this identity to others? In what ways do you express yourself through your appearance or the way you speak, etc.?
Do any of your identifying traits limit what you can do in certain situations? If so, have you ever changed the way you portray yourself or hidden certain aspects of yourself in order to reduce conflict or achieve an objective?
Is that lying?
Growing up, I ignored so many aspects of my self because I somehow knew they were wrong. I don’t ever remember anyone sitting me down and directly saying GAY IS BAD, but I inherently felt ashamed of the feelings I had and my attraction toward women. I knew that what I felt was ‘different’ and so I buried it away, out of reach from everyone, including myself. I wasn’t lying; I was simply adapting to my situation in the way I felt was most appropriate to ensure my own ‘survival’. By changing that situation (i.e. studying abroad in Australia) I was able to express those hidden aspects and it fundamentally changed how I looked, spoke and interacted with people. I liked who I was in that situation and I did what I needed to do to ensure I could be that person most of the time.
We all adapt to our context in some way. When I go to work I wear office attire, I am confident, making eye contact with everyone, speaking clearly and directly and ensuring my body language is welcoming and professional. At parties I like to drink myself merry and usually end up dancing badly and/or singing loudly. At home I lounge around in sweatpants and eat my dinner off my lap in front of back-to-back episodes of Man v Food. All of these are me, and yet not one of them completely defines who I am.
So adapting to a situation is normal and healthy; BUT, there is a threshold of acceptability with regard to asking people to sacrifice their integrity. It is not healthy or right to force someone to portray something other than who they are for a long period of time. Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) made a poignant observation in the 2 December DADT hearings: DADT undermines the fundamental principles of the military, namely honesty, integrity and trust, and forced gay and lesbian soldiers into a situation of “I don’t want to lie, but you won’t let me tell the truth”.
This is almost word-for-word how C describes how she feels going through border control in the USA. Immigration officers at every airport assess the potential risk of each entrant based on the information given to them. If they feel any individual is trying to undermine the system in any way, including trying to enter the USA deceitfully, they can refuse that person entry.
In particular, officers try to assess if a person’s situation is such that they are at risk of overstaying their visa. C’s ESTA visa is valid for 2 years and she is entitled to multiple entries, provided she stays for no longer than 90 days at a time. If an immigration officer interpreted the fact that C is the same-sex partner of an American citizen as a potential risk factor, she could be turned away at any time. This isn’t as big a risk as being discharged from the military, but the principle is exactly the same.
C only travels to the USA with me once or twice a year and we only ever stay for short periods of time, so I think we’re safely under the radar. We have evidence of our lives in the UK and can demonstrate that we are not intending to live in the USA, so it is unlikely that an immigration officer could find suitable grounds to refuse her entry. Yet we still adapt ourselves to reduce any risk every time we enter the country.
In October 2009, the immigration officer at O’Hare asked C the purpose of her trip. If she had been completely forthcoming she would have said “I’m here because my mother-in-law has sustained a critical head injury. She’s in intensive care and my partner is beside herself with grief. I’m here because I want to help look after the people I love”. Instead, she responded: “I’m here for a shopping trip.”
I don’t want to lie to you...
My brother asked me recently why I hate America. I answered him honestly – I don’t. I just find it impossible to respect a country that doesn’t respect me. From the moment our plane touches down in the USA, we are forced to lie about who we are. This is the exact same principle as DADT; it is unfair and wrong. We may not be soldiers sacrificing our lives in the name of the USA, but we are both human beings (and I am an American citizen).
When we return to the UK, bleary-eyed at Heathrow, I stand in the Non-EU passport line while C breezes through the EU/British passport line. When I get up to the counter, I hand over my foreign-national identity card that clearly states I have definite leave to remain as the spouse of a UK citizen. The immigration officer scans my card, asks me how my trip was and I cross the border to my adopted home country, integrity intact.
I will never suffer anxiety about trying to get across the UK border because my rights here are validated. My love here is validated. My status as a human being here is validated. These are the basic principles of life – not special privileges. We are expected to assume the same responsibilities as everyone else, so are we therefore not deserving of the same respect entitled everyone else?
References:
White House video of Obama signing DADT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS26CciE0VQ
Rachel Maddow’s summary of the DADT hearings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Be72P9Y0eM&feature=related
When your partner was going back and forth between the states - did she ever mention your relationship? I'm reluctant to mention it as I dont want to give USA immigration any ammunition to question me - even though I dont think anything else about my life would make them think i intend to stay in the states. Even at UK immigration in march, my girlf mentioned she was visiting me and got asked a load of questions.. and this has made me a bit scared about my next visit to the states next month.
ReplyDeleteanyway... sorry, just rambling and thought i'd ask..
We are fortunate enough to have always lived together in the UK. That said, we haven't ever mentioned our relationship to US officials, even though we can both clearly evidence that we reside in the UK and have no intention of staying in the US. Whenever we visit, C either says she's visiting friends or over on holiday to do some shopping. While she comes over maybe twice a year and never for more than 3 weeks per visit, we're always nervous that they'll start to question her more seriously at some point. I don't know what I would do if she was refused entry.
ReplyDeleteDoes your girlfriend have any immigration status in the UK (apart from tourist)? I've heard they are stepping up the questions at the UK border, though this seems to be 'in general' rather than specifically directed toward same-sex couples. It may be wortwhile for her to carry evidence of her life in the US with her when she travels.