The Babyboomers and Millennials: The Generational and Religious Divide

Last week, I wrote about the decline of organized religion in the U.S.. In addition last week's article looked at how Babyboomers, Millennials, and Gen Z, have influenced this decline which began in the 1960's. This week, we'll get a more specific, starting with the Babyboomers and continuing with the Millennials.

Babyboomers (1946 - 1964) were the product of a society which experienced, on the one hand, one of the most prosperous economies in the country's history, and on the other hand, perhaps America's most violable period.  It was a traditional childhood and youth in one sense but would ultimately led to violent rejection of traditional values, anti-war protests, clashes over race relations and civil rights, which, between 1955 and 1975 took the nation from one which trusted the government to one which had utter contempt for the government.

It was during the 1960's and early 1970's that many Boomers turned their back on organized religion, although there was a brief and intense resurgence as noted by the popularity of musicals like "Godspell" and "Jesus Christ Superstar" which attempted to find a new relevance and interpretation in religion. At the same time, "Fiddler on the Roof" attempted to revive Judaism's historic belief in its traditions and values while plays, like "Hair" and  "Oh! Calcutta!" explored society's changing morality, especially its sexual morals.

The same, or similar expression of disconnect found expression in music, art, and even TV shows like "All in the Family", "The Smother Brothers Comedy Hour", and Rowan and Martin's "Laugh In".  Even network comedies like "Get Smart", "Love American Style", and others carried a anti-establishment undertone. It's not surprising then to expect that religion too would be affected.

Rock groups like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, among others  had a profound effect on that generation's view of organized religion (in a sense, their "message" came to replace that of the pulpit's).  Groups like these introduced society to the Eastern philosophies, mysticism, yoga, acupuncture, mantras, meditation, holistic and herbal medicine, and Swami whose names we couldn't pronounce.

In addition, first cohort Boomers (1946 - 1954), were largely Left leaning politically. They promoted an idealistic vision of socialism, and began viewing the Cold War as nothing more than propaganda war by Wall Street over who controlled what natural resources and allowed military bases. 

By the late 60's, Boomers started moving to communes as a socialistic experiment and to "get back to nature". They joined small collectives, growing their own food, sharing chores, making their own clothes. Those who, for whatever reason, weren't able to join in, however, started forming neighborhood associations and block watches to take care of their piece of the New American Dream

They also started petition drives and formed boycotts against "unfriendly" or "anti-nature" corporations which wanted to pave over the "bunny fields". From thus the concept of the "NIMBY"---Not In My Backyard was born and remains very much alive today. It was also the birth of consumer advocacy,citizen lobbyists, grassroots environmentalism, and community activism.

The Boomers involvement with protecting the environment, especially air and water, ultimately resulted in the passage of the Clean Air and Water Act and creation of the EPA (1970) just as they had done earlier with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, which was later expanded in Title VII to include other categories such as gender and age discrimination.

Meanwhile, the second cohort of Babyboomers (1955 - 1964), which embraced many of the same ideals as their older siblings, tended to be less optimistic. They had been more deeply affected by the outcome of the Vietnam War (in part, due to the nightly "body count" on the evening news) and America's failure to secure victory after a nearly 20 year war and the loss of almost 60,000  (mostly young) men and women amid a mountain of lies by the military, Congress, and the Presidency which just seem to grow.

Lies, such as Watergate, caused  Boomers, along with much of America, not just lost its faith in the government and it's institutions, but even its religion was affected as we headed into the 1980's thanks to the rise of the "Televangelist" and the political activism of the "Moral Majority". Sadly, we've never recovered and as I wrote last week, the trend has turned into a death spiral. 

Babyboomers, who rejected materialism in the 1960's went on to be the wealthiest generation up to date, giving us the "Go Go 80's", shopping malls, timeshares, and modern day "greed is good" robber barons like Carl Icahn, T. Boone Pickens, and Ivan Boesky.  Boomers have been behind trends such as healthy eating and fitness craze, disco and mullets (my apologies), McMansions, wine clubs, along with countless others. 

As they age, many of the things Boomers have clung on to will begin to fade (and not just vinyl records or eight tracks). We're talking about traditional brick and mortar businesses (even banks, schools, especially universities are at risk), cable only TV, home ownership, big cars, professional football and, perhaps, boxing (due to head injuries) along with baseball (which is cited by Millennials as "too slow"), and  organized religion just to name a few.

A study by the University of California at Santa Barbara's sociology department indicated that around 42% of Boomers dropped out of organized religion all together, yet 33% never dropped out. Those individuals tended to be conservative, fundamentalist, and were Reagan supporters. However, 25% are slowly returning. Of those, the majority are leaning to liberal and less traditional churches or religious institutions. Their biggest hang-ups? The need for less formality, pro-choice, and LGBT acceptance.

Today, about 88% of Babyboomers describe themselves as "believing in God" or being "pretty sure" God exists (God or some sort of "higher power"). 83% said that religion still had a positive impact on their life. The survey didn't define "religion" as being formal or the same as a less structured "faith system".

When it came to attending some sort of religious service during the year, 71% said they did (but only 38% was weekly). However, when asked if they attended some other religious program (such as bible study or prayer group), 57% said no. When asked if they prayed, 77% said they did; 61% daily and 16% weekly. When asked if they meditated, 56% said they did. Of that, 45% was weekly, while 42% didn't ("prayer" and "meditation" were viewed as being separate from each other)

The same poll asked Babyboomers if they felt a sense of inner peace or spiritual well being. Only 14% said no. 84% did, at least some of the time.  44% also said they didn't read religious scripture of any sort. Just 38% did so weekly while 17% did so occasionally. Of those who did, 35% thought it was literal word of God. 29% said it could be...maybe...or shouldn't take literally. 29% said it wasn't the literal word.

When asked about Heaven and Hell,  74% thought that Heaven existed in some form. 26% didn't think it existed or weren't convinced. As for Hell, 59% believed it existed. 41% didn't think there was a Hell or wasn't sure.  So, how does this compare to the Millennials?

Millennials (1980 - 1996) are, for the most part, the grandchildren of the Babyboomers. They seem to have inherited much of their grandparent's distrust of the government, institutions, and organized religion. However, Millennials are also more dismissive of Boomers (the common Millennial phrase "Ok Boomer" is usually intended to be a polite dismissal of something a Boomer has said or done). 

Many believe that the current social and financial hardships they face as a generation are the direct result of Babyboomers, which they view as greedy and inconsiderate (typical of the "Me Generation). Millennials are the first generation whose quality of life didn't meet or exceed their parents.

Boomers  benefited from their parent's level "living wage" jobs, lifelong employment, employer provided healthcare and retirement (which was often the result of unionization). While Boomers attended college at higher numbers than any previous generation, their debt level was relatively low, especially compared to Millennials, due to many programs which have since been discontinued, including the original GI Bill.

 Millennials are, as we all know, more diverse than Boomers, especially along race, sexual orientation, and ethnic lines, not just as a group, but among their personal relationships. As a group, they tend to have far fewer friends than their grandparents at the same age. They're also more likely to have more health issues like high blood pressure, diabetes, Crohn's, and depression. They are also more likely to have an addiction problems. Millennials are more likely to marry later in life and have fewer children whereas Boomers had more children. Boomers also tend to divorce more often, even as they age.

When it comes to the importance of religion, just 38% of Millennials said it's very important. 29% said it was only "somewhat" important while 33% wasn't impressed with it. 28% attend religious services regularly. 38% did so just a few times a year and 34% said they never do.

Asked about prayer, 36% said no thank you. 39% said they prayed daily while 35% did so occasionally. By contrast, 42% meditated (though only 27% did regularly) while 58% didn't.  When asked if they participated in some sort of religious activity, a whopping 62% said no. Only 18% did on a weekly basis. The remaining 20% was a "hit or miss". 

When asked if they read religious scripture, 53% said no. Only 25% did so weekly. When it came to believing what they read, it didn't fare much better. 20% thought it was the literal word of God while the remaining 80% weren't so sure, which included 44% who said it wasn't. Heaven and Hell? 68% believe in a Heaven; 32% not so much. As for Hell, 56% said yes but the rest didn't think so.

The downward trend of religion seems to have begun in the 1960's, although the seeds were certainly planted much earlier; likely the outgrowth of the private hell brought home by the veterans of WWII and Korea. Babyboomers were said to have been the most spoiled group in recent history; totally devoted to materialism in their childhood yet by their 20's embracing a idealistic form of socialism, and again returning to "conspicuous consumption" and corporate greed by their 30's. Now, once more, returning to the nomadic spiritualism of their youth as they enter their senior years.  

Perhaps it was an attempt by their elders to buy them things they themselves couldn't afford during the Great Depression or during the war years. A vain attempt to buy happiness which left a spiritual void in their children. Maybe the same could be said of the Millennials. They too were spoilt by their parents and grandparents, only to be left feeling hollow inside.  

Millennials have a sense of anger at what they see as misused consumption by their elders, leaving them in no mood to be lectured by a generation which seemed to have had it all and blew it. Now they find themselves adrift financially, politically, and spiritually.  However, with no societal anchor to be found with their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents, the deciding fate of organized religion and perhaps society itself lays with the Gen Z, the new kids on the generational block.

 

Religious composition of Baby Boomers

Generational cohort by religious group

Why Millennials distaste for Babyboomers is justified

Religious composition of younger Millennials

 

 

'Try Acting Less White' : Diversity Training Webinar Gone Awry

 

We've all heard the advertising slogan, "Things go better with Coke". Well, they may want to update that. Apparently not everything goes better with Coke. I'm talking about a online training webinar entitled "Confronting Racism: Understanding What It Means to Be White, Challenging What It Means To Be Racist" which was promoted by the popular soft drink manufacturer and hosted by LinkedIn.

The online training webinar, allegedly a project of Robin D'Angelo, author of "White Fragility" and was being hosted by LinkedIn, has been removed because of the immediate blowback and negative publicity it caused.  The story about the webinar was broke by Karlyn Borysenko, a psychologist and activist against critical race theory, which is the basis behind "white privilege" and institutional racism.  

According to Borysenko, she was sent the screen shots from an anonymous whistleblower at Coca-Cola who claimed that the webinar was part of the company's mandatory diversity program, "Better Together", and had been acquired through the business oriented website, LinkedIn, for their use.  

The webinar implied that all whites were naturally born racist, which was reinforced by societal norms. The course encourages white employees to "act less white" and adopt certain undefined behaviors such as being "less oppressive", "less certain", "be less arrogant, and to "break with apathy" in dealing with blacks in general according to some of the webinar's slides (you can read the slides through the links below).

 It also encourages employees to "break with white solidarity" which seems to imply that whites act as some monolithic front when it comes to dealing with racism. Another one of the slides evidently told employees to be "less white" in their daily dealings.

The webinar also appears to imply that racism is a one way street; that only whites are capable of racism. If the term "white" was replaced with "black", "Hispanic", or "Asian", we'd be seeing 24 hour news coverage complete with faux outraged politicians, celebrities, sports figures, and all the empty talking heads on the various news channels condemning the webinar. Lawyers would be lining up around the block to go after Coca-Cola, LinkedIn, and no doubt, the content writer. 

LinkedIn has removed the webinar. Ms. D'Angelo has stated through her representative, Caitlin Meyer, that she was not aware that she had been included in the webinar or that the slides had been "re-edited" in the manner presented (particularly as a training course on anti-racism). She also stated that the content presented in the webinar did not properly reflect her work.

As for Coca-Cola, they acknowledge having a diversity training program entitled "Better Together" which was linked with LinkedIn's educational products, but it denies that the courses are "mandatory" (according to Ms. Borysenko, several employees she spoke with said the programs were, in fact, mandatory).  The soft drink conglomerate promised that it would continue to "refine their curriculum".  

So, what happened? Ms. D'Angelo denies that either the webinar nor its content was the result of her efforts. In fact, she seemed to be a bit put off by the content of the slides mentioned. LinkedIn, which hosted the webinar, yanked it and thus far hasn't commented. Coca-Cola appears to have got caught with its pants down and minimized any responsibility of the content judging by their brief statement.

There's nothing unusual about companies offering courses on race relations or diversity. I took diversity classes in graduate school and again when I was an adjunct professor. Even when I was enrolled in community organizing training, diversity training was part of the curriculum.

I never had any issue with diversity training. When I was growing up in the deep South during the 1960's and the Civil Rights movement, our classes were already highly diverse. They included Native Americans, Hispanics, Greeks, Irish, Italians, Asians, and had quite a number of black students too.

We had Hindus, Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Buddhists, rich kids and the children of migrant workers. None of us cared. We learned together, got in trouble together, played together, occasionally fought with and beside each other. We accepted our differences as well as our similarities as just a part of life. That's just the way it was, and that's the way it's always been for me.

I've known people from across the spectrum. Most were just acquaintances; people I encountered throughout my comings and goings. A tiny few were close friends, and others I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. If you treat people the way you want to be treated, you shouldn't have any problems. I believe that's all most anyone really wants.

As for diversity training, it's to help expose people to different races, cultures, religions, and values. Anything which can help us get along together I'm all for. However, I do have an issue with trying to blame any race or singular group for our problems. Usually it takes two to tango.

Racism is not a solo sport. It works both ways. Yes, there are white racists, but there are black, Asian, and Hispanic racists too. Hatred is, sadly, open to all. Racism and discrimination have always existed, and to some degree, will likely continue to exist for some time to come.

Racism and discrimination have been a part of the human condition since the beginning. Both developed out of our tribal beginnings. It was likely due to our sense of competition, be it for shelter, resources, or reproduction. We are hardwired to seek out the familiar and reject what's different. We also seek out approval and reaffirmation of our beliefs and values, which became, over time, our traditions and eventually, part of culture and self-identity. 

We've never stopped being, in some way, tribal. We've never stopped being competitive, be it in school,  the workplace or the playground. Over time we've learned to suppress our suspicions and cooperate. It proved to be mutually beneficial for our survival. We've adapted. We've changed. Be it our values, traditions, or even cultures.

Adaptability has been our secret power. It's what has enabled us to survive everything from wooly mammoths, cave bears, and saber tooth tigers, to plagues, wars, and climate change.  Experiencing and accepting diversity is part of that adaptability. However, trying to claim that racism or discrimination is a one way street isn't. It's an attempt to project our successes or failures onto someone else.

The barriers of the past are for the most part gone. Yes, it's taken time; far too much time. There are still barriers out there. Women are still not treated the way they should in the workplace for instance, yet they make up almost 58% of the workforce. They are too often denied supervisory or senior management positions. They still aren't paid the same as men for doing the same job.

People who are LGBT are still frowned on. Personally, I don't care what your sexual orientation is. In fact, it's none of my business any more than mine is theirs. I certainly don't think it has any part to play in academia or the business world. The only thing that matters is their personal conduct and their professional performance.

The same goes when it comes to race, religion, or ethnic heritage. If you can practice your faith without disrupting business or being anything less than professional with another employee or customer, so be it. If, because of your ethnic heritage, religion, or culture, you can't (or won't) work with someone else of a different heritage, religion, culture or gender, you might consider your other employment options.

If you believe you are "entitled" to a job or promotion because of the color of your skin or gender, then I don't think you're the right person for the job. I'm not a fan of quotas. You should be hired or promoted because you're the right person for that position.

People should be hired or promoted because they have proven experience as well as the right education and skill set. Most of all, because they have the right attitude to get the job done and can be counted on.  By the same token, companies should never hire or promote anyone just because it looks like a good PR opportunity. Ultimately, they do both the individual and the company a disservice.

Finally, this. We all belong to one race---the Human race. We are the lone survivors of millions of years of evolution. Just 300,000 years ago, nine humanoid species walked this earth.  We're all that's left, and we have the wherewithal to wipe out every living thing on this planet (with the possible exception of cockroaches) within a matter of minutes.

Though we're just a single race, we belong to different branches on the same family tree. We have our differences, just like they are differences between cousins within the same family. Some of us have darker skin or lighter hair. Some have blue eyes, and others have green eyes or hazel eyes, while the majority have brown eyes.

 Some are taller, shorter, or carry an extra layer of fat to protect us from the cold. We are male or female. We have different shaped skulls or shaped eyes. And yes, there are subtle differences in intelligence just like there are subtle differences in athletic ability or immunity.

We have different cultures, traditions, values, and religions. That doesn't mean one is worse or better than the other. It just means we developed these civilizing factors based on differing environments and experiences.

However, we also have much more in common than not, such as our love for our children, appreciation for our elders, a need to protect things and individuals which we value, as well as a distain for certain types of behavior such as theft, murder, or lying. 

Diversity training is suppose to expose us not just to dissimilarities, but also to our similarities. It's meant to teach us as much as about what we have in common than not. I don't know who was responsible for this webinar (which, it would seem, were altered to enhance our differences and encourage racism rather than consign it to junk heap of the past).

I'm a little disappointed of the relatively few whites who objected to the webinar and lack of coverage by the media. Had some other race been used, I have no doubt that there would have been just as many (if not more) whites objecting as the race in question and it would have been all over the news.

Yet, it appears that few minorities objected to the webinar's message that white employees needed to be more subservient and to act "less white" or that whites only should be required to take diversity training. If diversity training is about anything, it's learning to get along. Thus, shouldn't everyone participate?

When it comes to racism, or discrimination in general, we need to have each other's back. This is especially true when you realize that America is no longer a single race dominated society.

America is becoming a nation of minorities with no single group having a singular dominance. Whites and Hispanics will hold a near parity, followed by blacks and then Asians. However, within a few decades, Asians may dominate in some areas; blacks in other areas.

We will either survive together or we will perish together. We don't have to like each other. We don't have to associate or live with each other in our private lives. But, if we want to survive, then we had better start treating each other how we want to be treated. That begins by accepting that racism goes two ways, and neither are acceptable.

 

Critical race theory

'Try to be less white': Coca-Cola hit with backlash over 'confronting racism' training course

Whistleblower: Coca-Cola Uses Antiracist Training That Tells Employees  'Try To Be Less White'

Coca-Cola Facing Backlash, Say 'Be Less White' Learning Plan Was About Workplace Inclusion

Coca-Cola slammed for diversity training that urged workers to be 'less white'

 

Censoring Gender Pronouns: No Disrespect Intended

Sometimes I just have to sit back and marvel at the level of stupidity some people engage in. Take for instance a recent measure Berkeley City Councilmember Rigel Robinson and City Manager, Dee Williams-Riley, introduced on July 16th of this year. The Councilmember proposed eliminating all gender related terms and descriptions. That means no more "he", "she", "him" or "her" pronouns, but wait...there's more.

Also included with the proposal was a list of terms that he wants removed from all government documentation and usage. For instance, terms like "manhole", "policeman", "chairman", and "manpower" are now to become "maintenance cover", "police officer", "chairperson", and "human effort" or "human power". By the way, In some locales, there are proposals to fine you if you don't comply with these changes.

In addition, words like "salesman", "craftsman" and "journeyman" are to be replaced with "salesperson", "craftsperson", and "journeyperson". "Maiden" (as in maiden name) is now going to be "family name", which isn't too bad I suppose. However, "fraternity" and "sorority" are now going to "social group", but if it pertains to college clubs, then it will be "Collegiate Greek system residence". "Heirs" are going to become "beneficiaries" while "watchmen" become "guards", but there's more silliness to come!

"Men and women" are to be removed and replaced with "people". "Master" is now "Skipper", "Captain", or "central". The term "sportsmen" is out. In its place is "hunter" (in California, I'm sure the term "brute" or "animal abuser" can be substituted). Both "sister" and "brother" will become "sibling". Out too will be the use of phrases such as "sir" and "ma'am" which won't play here in the South.

You will be expected to ask beforehand how someone wants to be addresses such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Miss" or perhaps "Moon Visitor 12" since undoubtedly someone is not going to want to be limited to the mere two gender roles nature has bestowed on us (I believe we're up to 74 "genders" now). People will be identified by their non-gender specific roles in documents rather than "he" or "she".

I should point out that while this ordinance was introduced in a city council meeting, the notion of using non-gender related terms is spreading to businesses. Signs are being posted asking patrons not to refer to someone as "Sir" or "Miss" or using a gender specific pronoun in calling someone (I suppose adjectives such as "fat son of a bitch" which uses two gender defined terms while "damn bitch", or "lazy bastard", which use one each, are still perfectly acceptable).

Given how tied we are to the commercial world and all the products we buy, some items are going to have to change. For instance, Gordon's Seafood is going to have to lose the beaded fisherman while StarKist Tuna will have to change the name of its mascot, "Charlie" to something gender neutral. I suppose the same will hold for "Uncle Ben" and "Aunt Jemima". "Mr. Clean" will have to become "Gender Free Clean". Gone will be "Mr. Coffee" as well, along with a long list of other gender specific products.

Then there's the matter of entertainment. With today's recycled ideas, particularly comic book heroes, it looks like there needs to be a lot of changes starting with "He-Man", "She-Ra", "Batman", Batgirl", "Wonder Woman", "Superman" and "Supergirl", and "Hellboy". We need to do away with "Ant-man", "Aquaman", the "Scarlet Witch", the "Watchmen", "Ironman", and especially the "X-Men" which is quite gender specific.

However, to their credit, the folks over at Marvel must have seen this coming. They recently took the progressive step of taking one the most uber-macho Norse gods, Thor, who was also a super popular superhero, and turned him into a female. That's right. Odin's son was given a "gender reassignment" by the good folks at Marvel. How well this is going to play remains to be seen, but it's not expected to go over too well. No word yet on Dr. Jane Foster. Meanwhile, we await the introduction of gender neutral and transgendered super heroes.

Of course, if you haven't guessed by now, I'm joking, at least about some of this. However, what the Councilmember Robinson and others have done are very real, and it is spreading. We've seen where male athletes have entered women's sports as "transgendered" athletes and completely dominated their competition. There have been naturally born female athletes in MMA and wrestling who've not only be decisively beaten, but severely injured by their much more powerful "Y" chromosome carrying "female" opponents.

The situation has become so bad, that female athletes have started refusing to compete against these "transgendered" individuals, and rightly so. They have appealed to the various sanctioning bodies and demanded that "something" be done; perhaps create a separate league for these individuals or to require them to compete at heavier weight classes to even the odds a little. Meanwhile, female athletes are increasingly refusing to compete against transgendered competitors; not because they are transgendered mind you, but because they still have their masculine strength and speed, and that creates an unfair and often unsafe advantage.

In terms of businesses, the line between male and females has started to blur. In some places (such as New York, Chicago, and San Francisco) it's not uncommon to see guys wear makeup or instead of cologne, using perfume. Guys getting manicure and pedicures aren't uncommon, nor are seeing guys at spas getting facials. It's not over unusual to see guys wearing styles traditionally identified with women (including certain fabrics and colors).

Certain television shows such as "Rue Paul's Drag Race", "Project Runway", "Under the Gunn", "Project Accessory" and many many others have essentially "normalized" homosexuality (one of the biggest icebreakers was "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" which was about how to teach straight males to dress well). I guess you could even say "gay is in". Today, it's seen as no big deal. In fact, in some cities being straight can actually hold you back professionally. Who would have thought?

We've read or heard about dozens of gay actors and actress from the "Golden Era of Hollywood" who would never in a million years come out; it would have instantly destroyed their careers. Same goes with musicians, writers, producers, directors and so on. Nowadays, some of the most popular and powerful individuals in Hollywood (and Broadway) are gay; individuals such as Jodie Foster, Zachary Quinto, Neil Patrick Harris, Robin Roberts, Jim Parsons, Elton John, Wanda Sykes, and countless more.

Personally, I have no particular issue with individuals who are gay. Unlike some, I don't think people "choose" to be gay, at least not per se. I think you are born with that tendency already there. Why that is I have no idea. Science has reported that testosterone levels throughout the world have been on the decline. Plus, we have to remember that with a increasingly old population, testosterone levels decrease at a rate of about 1% per year after age 30 (testosterone peaks at about 20 years of age). But testosterone levels may have nothing to do with it since it's only one part of the gender equation.

I think one of the main reasons is simply acceptance. It was kept in the "closet" for so long, and now it's out, and with it, a certain power in numbers. According to Gallup, around 4.5% of the US population is gay, that is, LGBTQ, which is less than what many American's think, especially if your opinion is based on the corporate media's projection of gay influence in America. Naturally, that figure doesn't include those who've "experimented" or with those who support gays in some way.

Nevertheless, we've become a much more open society, and with that, there has been a trend toward a more socially liberal society (this trend basically got started in the late 1950's and has continued since despite periodic---and brief---shifts to the Right socially). Given the Millennials are strongly trending Left socially while their younger siblings may be headed even further Left, we can expect this to continue for some time to come.

Socially conservative (including those who identify as religiously conservative) will remain a vocal opponent, however, their numbers are on the decline and expected to continue in that direction for the foreseeable future. Of course, there will be pockets around the country where conservatives will dominate the political and cultural landscape and all things gay will remain more or less suppressed.

As for me, while one's sexual orientation makes little difference to me, I will continue to address males and females accordingly (as an aside, I believe there are two genders--male and female. What you do with yours is your business, but that doesn't mean I have to go along with you). At the same time, don't attempt to force me to conform to something I disagree with. If you have a problem with that, then you have my apologies but not my sympathies. If you chose, for whatever reason, to openly live as someone of the opposite gender, I commend your courage.

However, I was brought up to say "please" and "thank you" as well as "no sir" and "yes ma'am". If I interact with someone who is obviously a female, I will treat them accordingly, which means opening doors, pulling out the chair, and all of the other things you'd expect from a Southern gentlemen. Obviously that means referring to you with the appropriate feminine pronouns. By the same token, if you are by all indications a male, then I will treat you accordingly, and includes using all the gender appropriate grammar. Where I come from, that's the proper thing to do. No disrespect intended.


Berkeley Municipal Code Revision Related to the Use of Gender Neutral Language

Berkeley City Council Votes to Ban Gender Specific Words

Berkeley Municipal Code Revision Related to the Use of Gender Neutral Language

Gay Hollywood: 41 Out and Proud LGBT Stars

Why modern men are losing their testosterone

Americans Still Greatly Overestimate US Gay Population

Pardon Me, But Is This Seat Taken? A Few Words About Restrooms and Sexual Identity

As readers of Another Opinion should know by now, there are simply some stories I can't resist commenting on and this is one of them. Recently, the topic of who is allowed in what restroom has come to "head" (military humor intended) when several states having either passed legislation or has legislation pending that would prohibit transgendered individuals and those who identify opposite of their given birth gender from using a public restroom of the gender they identify as. The laws require individuals to use the public restrooms of their gender at birth. As a result, some companies such as PayPal and Deutsche Bank and entertainment types (most notably, Bruce "The Boss" Springsteen and Ringo Starr cancelled concerts in North Carolina, while producer Michael Moore has requested that none of his films be released in North Carolina, so I guess this may be more about symbolism than actual relevance) have decided not to do business there. Could this be, at its heart, an example of political correctness taken to its extreme or is this a legitimate concern or is there something else going on here?

Well, imagine that you're out in public, perhaps at the mall shopping, and you have to go to restroom. No big deal right? You simply find the nearest appropriate restroom. However, what if you're a transgendered individual---a guy or gal who psychologically considers him or herself the opposite gender and may (and most likely) even dresses the part. What do you do? If you're a transgendered female, someone who considers themselves an ordinary male, they would simply go into the men's restroom and do your business. Odds are they would use a stall; shut the door as any considerate individual would do and no one would be any wiser. Now, what if you're a transgendered male who thinks of themselves as a woman? They would most likely be dressed as a woman, and so naturally they would head to the ladies' restroom---or would they?

First off, women's restroom don't have urinals (don't worry, I "Googled" it to be sure), but that doesn't matter since they would likely head to the nearest available stall, shut the door, and get on with the business at hand. Now unless someone happens to catch a glimpse, no one would likely ever know, except perhaps by a close examination of a stubble while washing hands or the absence of an "Adam's Apple" by an extra observant woman, which might give it away. However, some individuals take hormone shots to reduce any male features, but those are usually expense and may be more than some are willing to pay for. So, thus far, it seems like there's little chance of anyone taking much note, so what's the hubbub?

I think the issue lies primarily with the women who fear either being accosted by a gender bending male in drag, or worse---a pedophile dressed as a woman entering a ladies' restroom. As most people know, little children---boys and girls---tend to go in the women's restroom with an accompanying female. Sometimes, if they're old enough, they may go alone. Of course, some young boys go to the men's room unaccompanied as well. This could set up the possibility of either child molestation, voyeurism, or worse...perhaps much worse. Of course, most restrooms---men's and women's---have changing tables for infants in them, but that still doesn't lessen the concern for any parent. While the odds of something happening are probably quite low, all it would take is just one instance of something happening to spark a serious backlash. So, the question is what to do, as a parent with children, a woman, or as a transgendered individual?

First, women tend to be more vulnerable to attack since men usually have stronger upper body strength. Secondly, women with children are obviously more vulnerable, while young children alone are the most vulnerable of all (I should point out that while this is something of a concern to men, it's much less likely to be viewed as a "threat" and more of simply an uncomfortable one). True, cameras , more security staff and/or more vigilant employees would help cut down on the threat, but what about the simply removing the threat altogether as these recent laws are attempting to do? Simply by banning any anatomically male or female from the restroom of the opposite sex would eliminate much of the threat, but what about the rights of the transgendered individuals to freely use the restroom? Tell them to "hold it" until they get home? We both know that's not going to work, and as local laws practically everywhere dictates, there has to be equal access to public restrooms, anyone attempting to institute a ban for one segment of the population is opening themselves up to a lawsuit (there are, of course, certain exceptions to restroom availability to the public---but not employees---which has to be uniformly enforced).

Well, one possible solution would be to mandate a certain number of single occupant/gender neutral restrooms like you might find in a office or medical building which either gender may use. This would allow anyone regardless of gender or gender preference to use the restroom in privacy. This has proved to be successful over the years and is employed pretty much everywhere. What if this idea was expanded? Perhaps multiple stall restrooms could be employed, such as having a certain percentage of restrooms designated for women, men, and all genders. The obvious downside to this could be that it indirectly discriminates as "Separate by Equal" , which the Supreme Court struck down back in the 1960's as unconstitutional since it would keep them from using the restroom of their gender choice. It could also be argued that by, even unofficially, designating a restroom for anybody, the fact that transgendered individuals are limited to only one restroom, could be viewed as sexual discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, plus I would imagine they could also plead some form of "psychological trauma" by feeling "singled out" and "put on view" by a restroom restriction.

While this might be an problem for employers, who may have to consider single occupant/ gender neutral restrooms, how would it work in public facilities like malls? Again, single occupant/ gender neutral restrooms could be used in any small business location such as a restaurant or clothing store, whereas in a place such as a mall, sporting venue, or other large facility, few, if any, would pay any attention where you were going into or out of a men's or women's restroom as opposed to a either/or one (of course, these absolutely must be clearly marked), but this obviously doesn't eliminate the possibility of someone simply ignoring the signs on the door or wall, and walking into the restroom of their choice. Then again, existing laws anywhere in the US doesn't preclude someone from doing the same thing.

So, what does this all boil down to and is there any solution all side can be happy with? If you look at where most of the new laws or pending legislation are, places like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Georgia, they are in the deep South, which is traditionally very conservative----politically, socially, and religiously. That's not going change no matter how many transplants move to the South. This then would be make the issue more of a cultural one; one where people's actions are governed more by a defined sense of right and wrong with not a lot of gray in between; you're a male or female. You don't get to choose. Period. They are perfectly willing for the most part to accept national reticule and economic boycotts if they believe what they're doing is right. This mentality has, and will continue to result in butting heads with the federal government. Nothing new there. There is also the nature uneasiness, primarily among women, of knowingly being in the restroom with stranger of the opposite sex. There is the fear of an invasion of privacy, of rape, molestation, voyeurism, and of potential pedophilia. No amount of judicial rulings or legislative decisions will ever change that. It's hardwired into us. In fact, there's an almost automatic revulsion at the mere thought of it, and even among harden criminals, it's considered the lowest of the low.

Federal, state, and local laws already make sexual discrimination illegal, and that includes sexual orientation. There's no getting around that. At the same time, judicial rulings dating from the 1960's have struck down most "separate but equal" laws, though these have usually pertained to matters of race but some enterprising attorney could...and will likely...try to apply the same legal theory to sexual orientation and the use of public restrooms. There is also the fact that the LGBTQ community is large and very politically active, especially in the media and entertainment industries. This can bring a lot of pressure down on not just the states or legislators in question through lobbyists and lawsuits, but by creating a negative public image and promoting some form of economic impact, such as jobs or tourism.

Lastly, there is the human element. Everyone of us is born a male or female. As we grow and mature, and that includes emotionally, physically, intellectually, and chemically, we begin to establish our own individual identity, which includes our sexual identity. Some, and there are many, who would argue that anything other than heterosexuality is simply "not natural" and those who "deviate" have somehow made a conscientious "choice" ; that by the same token, they can be "cured" if only they'd make a different "choice". I don't think it's, for the most part, a matter of "choice". I think for most, it's a bio-chemical. Something in the brain says one thing while biology says another. Perhaps it's a matter of acting on what your brain is telling you. I don't know. I'm strictly a hetero kind of guy, but I can say that I have never met someone who was gay---or bi, lesbian, or transgendered---that said it was simply a choice they made one day. The only "choice" they made was in not fighting who they were. As an aside, homosexuality has been around since the beginning of civilization in one form or another and with varying degrees of acceptance.

Yet, none of this changes the central question at hand---should someone not biologically male or female be allowed to use the same restroom or other facilities of the opposite gender? If so, how do we adapt as a society? How do we adjust to our natural instincts to protect ourselves, our children, and our loved ones who we perceived---rightly or wrongly---to potentially be threatened? I think the only answer to adopt some form gender neutral/single occupant restroom for small businesses, offices, and/or medical buildings as well as designate certain, multi-occupant, restrooms gender neutral for transgendered individuals and those simply not bothered by who is standing (or sitting) next to them. It's not a perfect solution. Perhaps there never will be. There have been and will always be those individuals who will dress and act according to a certain gender for the wrong reasons just as there has and will always be those who have done so because that's who they see themselves as. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about trying to force our prejudices or beliefs---whatever they are ---on others just because we agree or disagree.

For the last 20 or so years now, we've been dealing with an enemy who has no tolerance for other religious beliefs or social attitudes outside of their narrow parameters and has no qualms about murdering to enforce their own moral guidelines. Unfortunately, this same mentality reared its head a mere 83 years---within the lifetime of our parents or grandparents or great grandparents as it has down through Man's history. Perhaps this is some inherent indication that such deviations are not "natural" or "normal" within our species and it's our hardwired instincts which cause us to lash out periodically at any social or biological deviance, even under the guise of a divine mandate. Naturally, that's not to imply that individuals with strong religious or moral convictions are plotting to throw people off roofs or roast anyone, but neither should they be forced to abandon their beliefs either. As long as we value the individual, free choice and all the baggage that carries, we have to seek a middle ground that everyone can accept. That's the compromise that civilization must make if it's to survive.



North Carolina governor says he wants bathroom law partially changed....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/12/deutsche-bank-halts-north-carolina-expansion-due-to-transgender-bathroom-law/


Corporations push for LGBT legislation in North Carolina
http://walshfreedom.com/corporations-push-for-lgbt-bathroom-legislation-in-north-carolina/


Sex Discrimination, Gender Identity, and Title VII
http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl17/824/


New Title VII and EEOC Rulings Protect Transgendered Employees
http://transgenderlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TitleVII-Report-Final012414.pdf


Parents Outraged Over Transgendered Bathroom Law
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/uncategorized/parents-outraged-over-transgender-bathroom-law.html


Florida Law Would Make It A Crime For Transgender People To Use Public Bathrooms
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/florida-transgender-bathroom-law_n_6645910.html


Georgia, North Carolina bills are about LGBT discrimination. Period.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/opinions/georgia-religious-freedom-law-threatens-lgbt-rights-holbrook/index.html

Let's Talk Race Relations

There's been a lot of talk of recent about race relations. Most it has come from the perspective of primarily the black community complaining about the decline in police and community relations as the number of violent incidents involving black youths and police officers increase (though related incidents such as protests, rioting, and looting are downplayed or ignored). There is also a lot of chatter about the Oscars and the fact that for the second year in a row, all of the nominees are white. Therefore, as a result, many entertainers---the majority of which are black but not all---intend to boycott the event, while there's anticipated to be several outbursts when the TV event airs live on February 28th. Other issues have been raised which has been given a racial twist; perhaps too many for the space I have, but hopefully we can at least touch on a few.

A discussion about race has often been seen as akin to skipping through a cow field. Despite the scenery, odds are pretty good that you're going to step on something and at the very least, there's going to a stink by the time you're done. As I stated above, much of the talk has originated from members of the black community while very little has come from whites, which gives the impression that whites either don't care or are supposed to just not say anything. So, with that in mind (along with the cow field analogy), let's take are shoes off and go for a stroll.

I grew up in the deep South during the 1960's while the Civil Rights movement raged all around me. I was interested in the movement,

though a bit puzzled too. When I was in the 6th Grade, I had a older black teacher---Mrs. Knight. I don't know much about her except that she seriously hated Republicans (more on that shortly). Where we lived was mostly a low income military oriented neighborhood; most everyone was either in the military or recently retired from it. Just a mile or so away was an area of town called "Sweetwater" which was predominately black and poor; dirt poor. My neighborhood and Sweetwater shared a common 7-11 Convenient store, so it wasn't uncommon to see blacks and whites standing in line together to buy lunchmeats, bread, chips or Icees. I also had several friends who happened to be black. In fact, most of my friends were poor---black and white, along with some middle class kids. Some were Irish or Italian Catholics, Protestants, Asian, Native American and even Hispanic (there were very few Hispanics there at the time). We all had fun, talked, played. and did the usual stuff kids do.

Throughout school in fact I had classmates who were a mixed lot. No one cared. No one refused to sit by or play with or talk to any of the other kids because of it. There was never any discrimination when we went to lunch or the restroom. Nothing. The only difference any of us noticed was that some got off at different bus stops or walked a little further than others. Now, Mrs. Knights was a bit different. I don't think it was that she didn't like white children. I just think she hated Republicans. Strange isn't it? We had a 5th/6th grade "Presidential Election". I wanted to be "Robert F Kennedy". I had been following his campaign and I just plain liked him. I remember staying up that fateful night in June and watching live as he gave his last speech in the Ambassador Ballroom before exiting to what would be his death. I had previously watched as he announced the death of Martin Luther King just a month before and all the subsequent riots just as I watched the murders at Kent State by the Ohio National Guard and the Chicago police riots during the Democrat Convention as well as the Weathermen, sit-ins, Anti-Vietnam War protests, SLA and Patty Hearst (little did I know then, but I would later serve on the security detail in her wedding) as the '60's morphed into the '70's. It was exciting and dangerous times and I was totally engrossed in all of it.

Anyway, with RFK assassinated, I was technically "out" of the race. However, when we later got around to the general election, I noticed no one had chosen Richard Nixon, so I did. Well, that didn't sit well with Mrs. Knight. She loudly proclaimed---repeatedly---that she wasn't going to have a "Republican in my classroom" (which naturally sealed the deal for me). Well, a lot happened and let's just say that Mrs. Knight was "invited" not to return the following year and I "won" the election. Throughout my life, I've had friends of all races, religions, ethnic groups and sexual orientation. It really never made any difference to me. I've always found that there's good and bad in every group. When I was in college, I took courses in diversity training and employment law. I spent, as part of my work career, being a employee representative. I would sometimes catch employers saying or doing something which I thought wasn't right, and I never hesitated in saying or doing something about it. Obviously, I didn't endear myself to management very often. I even served on public boards which represented predominantly black and/or poor residents as well as seniors, women and the handicapped. I always thought everyone was entitled to a fair and honest chance---until you prove me wrong.

I served on a two police related projects. One was police and community relations committee which arose from some incidents similar to Ferguson and Cleveland. The other was a police advisory board and a special merit review board. In both instances, I would hear first hand---without the media spin---about situations police officers, EMS or the fire department would engage in every day. Frankly, I don't know how they do it. I'd sit and listen as they recounted encounters---occasionally with terrible outcomes---and watched their expressions as they relived each moment; searching in their mind's eye at the same time whether there was something they could have done differently. I think I can safely say that none of these officers started out at the beginning of their shift with the thought that someone would be harmed by the time it was over.

I don't know what really happened in Ferguson, Staten Island, in that park in Cleveland or any of the other places. I've read the stories. I watched on TV. I saw the raw video footage (when available). I read the testimonies. Often, there is far more to what happened than what the media tells us (and remember the media is about ratings because ratings drive revenue and the media tends to report from a particular political perspective). Do I agree with the outcomes? Most of the time, yes, after I sorted through the available evidence, but on occasion, no I don't. One some occasions, the verdict is just wrong. I don't know if it's a cover-up, just an ill informed jury or review board with an agenda. But I can say this---when a police officer tells you to stop, you stop. When you're asked for information, you provide it without any lip. You don't act aggressively or start waving your arms around or acting like you're going to run. You keep your hands where the officer can see them. I've often heard that some parents---especially black and Hispanic---teach their children not to trust or respect the police.

Well, that's a good way to get your children into trouble down the road, if not worse. If you think you were treated badly, report them (get their name and/or badge number). Better yet, hire a lawyer. Yeah, you might lose, but at least you won't be in the morgue. On a related matter, I think it's a pretty stupid idea that if you feel the need to protest, to loot or burn down local businesses (not to mention cutting fire hoses or throwing rocks, bottles or Molotov cocktails at cops, EMS or the fire department). What's even stupider is expecting taxpayers to clean it up or prohibit businesses from not moving out, making the situation worse than it was before. Just plain ole stupid.

As for the Oscars---grow up. Just because all the nominees are white doesn't mean there's some conspiracy going on, especially in uber-liberal Hollywood of all places and not when the President of the Academy for Motion Picture Art and Sciences, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, is both female and black. It sounds to me like a bunch of spoiled kids not getting their way. Perhaps the reason there were no black nominees or black oriented pictures nominated was because no one turned in a performance that any of the randomly chosen Academy members who voted thought was worthy of a nomination. Maybe there weren't any pictures which were of sufficient quality compared to the others which were nominated. Ever think about that? Are we now supposed to have a quota system of nominees based on race and/or gender instead of performance or quality?

Listen, there are the BET Awards and Miss Black America Pageant and I'm willing to bet no white, Asian, or Hispanic was either nominated or won...ever. There is the Hispanic Choice Awards, arts and entertainment awards program for Hispanics, as well as a "Miss Latina" beauty pageant and I'm pretty certain no Asian or non-Hispanic person received an award or even a nomination! By the way, there is also a "Miss Asian American" and a "Miss Native American" beauty pageant too. There is a Black Achievers and a Hispanic Heritage Award programs as well as a Black Heritage Month and a Hispanic Month (sorry Asians and Native Americans, no month for you...yet). In fact, there are television and radio shows and networks as well as movies dedicated to Asians, blacks, and Hispanics only. There are magazines and Internet sites dedicated to practically every group out there. The Grammys are open to every group and every group has won at some point. There is even a special category for primarily a black/urban/Rap genre. There are special categories for Latin music, but not one dedicated for white, Asian, or Native American performers. There are numerous professional or social organizations and associations available for the LGBT community, for Asians and Hispanics, as well as for Native Americans and blacks. There are grants and funds available for practically every group as well. However, there is one overarching exception to all this...whites.

Whites are the only group which are not allowed to be self-represented. In the past, it was argued, that was because whites were a racial majority or that they held key positions, therefore special hiring quotas were put in place, which later applied to women as well because they were a minority. Perhaps that was a good thing since it served notice that individuals could not be kept out because of the race, gender or other factors including sexual orientation or religion. However, it didn't always ensure the best candidate was hired or was awarded the government contract.

Nowadays, of course, whites aren't a majority. They are close to being on par with Hispanics. Within the next 20 years, Hispanics will hold a slight majority. Meanwhile, blacks are now the third largest racial group in the US (behind Hispanics) with Asians closing in. In fact, white males are an official minority while women make up a significant presence in the workplace---47%---though they still lag behind in certain fields such as science, mathematics, and engineering (and women still---despite various laws--- are not paid equal to their male counterparts regardless of race and still lack many of the key leadership positions in business). So, where was the outcry from the Hollywood types for the lack of Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans that weren't nominated? I don't recall seeing any of their faces. Did you?

The point I'm making here is threefold. I couldn't begin to care less if one group has its own awards or radio and television networks. It doesn't impress me that there is a specific music or movie genre dedicated to a particular group, or even if there are associations and funding aimed to benefit a specific minority. I don't even care if everyone has their own beauty pageant! However, if you're going to allow one (or more) to have them, then you need to allow all to have them. There are events where everyone participates, but there are equivalent events which by their nature discriminates legally, but everyone has been conditioned to say and do nothing. It's almost common to hear whites called "racist" (like the Oscars or political talk shows for example) or there's a disagreement of opinion (sort of like saying "and your momma too". Same goes for "white privilege"). So, let's quit with the double standard when it comes to race and calling people "racist" or claiming "privilege" just because you didn't get your way or someone disagrees with you. We're either all equal or we're all "entitled" equally.

Secondly, you can dislike cops or the legal system all you want, but when you're told not to do or to do something law enforcement (and EMS or the fire department) or a judge, simply do as you're asked and keep quiet unless you're asked for information. Pay attention to what's going on around you. Keep your hands where they are visible and no exaggerated movements. While we're at, if you don't like your prospects, then instead of blaming society or others, try paying attention while you're in school.

I've heard too much about certain minorities harassing, bullying, or beating up fellow minority students because doing well in school is viewed by these losers as "acting white" or "trying to be white" as if failing in life is some commendable achievement to be proud of. Get a good education while you can, especially if it's free. If you're out of school and things aren't working out, consider going back and making a change with your life. Remember, you get only one chance at this life. This isn't a dress rehearsal. Education is still the best path to a better and healthier life, and there's no better revenge than living well.

Lastly, there really are no real differences between people except how they present themselves and how they treat others. If you act like a thug or jerk, odds are pretty good that's how people will perceive you and that's how they'll treat you. If you treat people like they're different, there's a pretty good that's how people will start to act. Everyone deserves the same equal chance to prove themselves, be it as a neighbor, employee/employer, or as a friend. It's up to them what they do with that chance.


United States Department of Labor, Women's Bureau
http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-10.htm


The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education
http://www.jbhe.com/features/65_gradrates.html


Bullying Bruises Grades for Black and Latino Students
http://www.livescience.com/15694-bullying-black-latino-grades.html


A Neutral Look at Police Brutality
http://graphs.net/police-brutality-statistics.html


The Justice Blog: Police Violence and Race
https://systemicjusticeblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/29/perceptions-of-race/


Who's Boycotting the Oscars So Far
http://www.thewrap.com/whos-boycotting-oscars-so-far-and-whos-just-mad-photos/

Irish 'Ayes' are Smiling

Well, Pope Francis is in a dither. It seems that Ireland has just recently become the very first country to officially recognize gay marriage following a national referendum on May 23rd. Ireland has been staunch Catholic since the early 400's. Just 100 years ago, Ireland didn't permit divorces and still remains opposed to abortions. Nevertheless, it appears that pink is the new green on the Emerald Isle. To be honest, with all the commotion going on in the world, like wars, depleting food sources, energy shortages, troubles in the Middle East, terrorism, climate change, decreasing supplies of fresh water, an unsustainable population rate, jobs, pollution, America's loss of its democratic republic to a increasingly fascist oligarchy, a failing global economic system, I wouldn't think gay marriage in Ireland would even be on the radar for the Vatican.

So, how many people does this ruling affect? Well, apparently not that many. Approximately 4% of Ireland's population claim to be either gay or bisexual, though some surveys hint that the real number could be closer to 10% since many have refused to answer the question. What may have added to the Pope's ire is the report that church attendance dropped, not just in Ireland, but throughout all Europe and the Middle East (church attendance in Europe is down approximately 40% over recent years). Of course attendance in the Middle East could be partially attributed to the recent persecutions of Christians in general and the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church in particular throughout not just the Middle East, but in Africa and parts of Asia or anywhere else where there is a rising tide of radical Islam. An estimated 24,000 Christians have been murdered so far by ISIS while another 700,000+ Christians are in flux as they try to avoid ISIS and other extremist Moslems; Moslems, by the way, who have declared Christianity to be "enemy #1" while dozens, if not more, churches are destroyed along with ancient historical sites. It seems that only the Catholics in Latin America has been immune from persecution...so far. On the "bright side", President Obama is poised to bring thousands of Moslems to the United States rather than these Christians who are under threat and facing a very real holocaust of their own.

Here in the States, gay marriage has been largely unpopular, especially in more conservative States, but there are signs that resistance against gay marriage is weakening. 37 States have legislation upholding gay marriage while 13 States have legislation prohibiting it. Ultimately, it will come down to the Supreme Court, which brings me to the heart of this article. The more conservative Christian churches and seminaries openly condemn gay marriage while the moderate and liberal religious groups have been mostly accepting if not at least more open minded. Among Millennials, who are replacing the Babyboomers as the largest voting bloc, gay, bisexual, or transgendered lives are a non-issue. That's something that the conservatives will have to get past if they are to remain a viable political power, at least on the national level. Otherwise, Millennials will leave the conservatives in the dust. In fact, Millennials are already forming their own socio-political identities which certainly leans Left and preferably non-partisan. Survey after survey show these Millennials to favor democratic-socialism while also reflecting a streak of libertarianism. In voting patterns so far, Millennials have tended to vote Democrat and Independent most often with Republicans coming in a distant third. It's not that they have any specific loyalty to the Democratic Party or Indies, it's just that they don't like the GOP's vision of America, which brings us back to the topic gay marriage. Unless the Republican Party (as well as other conservative parties and political groups) make a course change, they will---to quote Trotsky---wind up in the "dustbin of history". No one says they have to like it, but they do have to accept the reality of it. To borrow another quote, this time from the "Iron Chancellor", Otto von Bismarck, "politics is the art of the possible".

As for my personal opinion (and my apologies in advance if I step on any toes), I can't say that I have a problem with those who are gay, bisexual, or transgendered. I've always been heterosexual (so sue me). I've always thought that marriage was a relationship between a man and woman. It has been the backbone of civilization through the ages and it served a practical function. Civilizations such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Sumerians accepted a form of bisexual relationships, though the opposing sex arrangement was considered the most acceptable. This was also true of the Greeks who never sanctioned any sort of same gender marriage. In Roman, it was much the same, though not overt publically and was generally frowned upon.

When I ran for Metro Council in 2001, I was endorsed by the Fairness Campaign (the Fairness Campaign was a predominately LGBT organization which was promoting the Fairness Ordinance prohibiting anyone regardless of their sexual orientation--straight, gay, bisexual, or transgendered---from be discriminated against). I was one of the very few who answered the questionnaire and was willing to sit for an interview. I was quite truthful in both the questionnaire and interview. Briefly, I stated that I didn't believe in discrimination of any sort based on their sexual preferences or self-identity, race, religion, gender, or place of origin. As a result, I also received the endorsement of several other LGBT organizations such as The Letter. My opponent, however, was strictly against it though admitted in a interview that he hadn't read the proposed ordinance. Individuals were encouraged to call, email, and send threatening messages because of my acceptance of the endorsements. I recall trying to educate them, but it was mostly hopeless. Nevertheless, the ordinance passed by a substantial margin.

When I ran for the State Legislature in 2004, I received a similar questionnaire from most of the same groups. I again answered their questions exactly the same way, though some withheld their endorsement this time because of their personal hang-ups with the political party and not me. There were a few in the party leadership who disapproved but that was their problem not mine. Besides, I've always been secure enough with my own masculinity not to feel threatened. All the same, I was supported by the nation's top conservative gay, bisexual and transgendered political organization. As I explained at the time, I am strictly heterosexual and I believe marriage as such should be a union between one man and one woman. Nevertheless, I would not support any legislation which promoted discrimination in any form. To be clear (and here is my obligatory disclaimer statement), I've had numerous gay, bisexual, and lesbian friends; still do. I lived in San Francisco during the 1970's, at a time when individuals were just coming "out of the closet". I even stood on the sidewalk to watch the second "Gay Pride" parade (actually I happened to be at a Kosher deli eating a sandwich and walked out to see what the hubbub was all about, but that muddles the point). I even knew Harvey Milk, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who was assassinated along with Mayor Moscone in 1978. Milk was the first openly gay politician ever to be elected in California. While in the service, I discretely "protected" a couple of Navy corpsmen who were in a same-sex relationship. Had it come out that I knew and didn't report it, I would have been in some pretty serious trouble too. Still, had they been found out, they would have literally been booted out with a General Discharge within 24 hours. These individuals were good corpsmen with exemplary military records and I wasn't going to let that happen. I've also worked with numerous individuals who weren't straight over the years. As with every group, there are always some who are nice and some who are jerks. I have no issues with that since I treat people the way I way I want to be treated. I also treat them as they treat me. As an aside, should I should ever run for office again, I hope I can count on their support
.

While I don't personally agree with non-straight relationships, I still must acknowledge that none of these relationships are, frankly, any of my business. I have enough problems living my life without managing someone else's. Each us exist in this time and space for a some reason which may or may not be entirely clear to us. We can say it's all a part of "God's plan" or part of some deity's grand design. We can attribute it to some random fluke in the universe, or simply claim that our existence is nothing more than a meaningless flip of the comic coin. Nevertheless, we are here for now. In our fleeting moment of existance, we are free to choose what sort of life we want to live within certain defined parameters set by society. Thus, we are free to choose to be with those who bring us happiness and fill whatever personal void we each have to the degree we allow. Accordingly, what innate right do we have to decide for someone else who can be a friend or lover. We can't decide what level of emotional or ever personal comfort and security someone brings to someone else. We can only make that decision for ourselves.

Historically, both governments and religious institutions (which for most of history, has been one and the same) have sought ways to control the population through its rules and dogma. Slowly, society has rolled much of that back, giving the individual power over themselves while both government and religious institutions continue to seek ways to reassert their authority. In this, Ireland's voter have acted in unison to reclaim personal responsibility over their lives much to the consternation of the Vatican and no doubt to conservatives in general. At what point should the government continue to exert its control over the lives of two adult individuals who freely choose to make a purely personal decision regarding their relationship? Do we really need the government's "permission" in the form of State sanctioned license? If we choose to seek to invoke the blessing of God or some other divinity, shouldn't that decision be between the two individuals and that religious institution? If a Church disapproves, fine. There may be others which will approve. Ultimately, churches and their like will grow or decline based on their ability to meet the needs of the community the same way businesses would prosper or close based on allowing or forbidding smoking (employees are, of course, free to work there or not, depending on their acceptance of the risk just as customers are free to eat there or somewhere else. The business which best meets the needs of the local market will succeed while the others either adapt or close). This really comes down to personal choice. Meanwhile, as far the State is concern, the religious institutions can still record and report the marriages for the government's tax records. As for the Irish, congratulations on having the moral certainty to made a bold statement to the world. Now, how about a pint?



How Many People in Ireland are Gay?
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-many-people-in-ireland-are-gay-1.2155679


37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same Sex Marriage Bans.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857


The New Exodus: Christians flee ISIS in the Middle East
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new-exodus-christians-flee-isis-middle-east-316785.html


Vatican: Irish gay marriage vote a 'defeat for humanity'
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/27/vatican-irish-gay-marriage-vote-a-defeat-for-humanity/21187566/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-853854980