Dialogues Issues - Sex and Policy 

I sit next to my attorney silently, facing the immigration judge. I am told my case (aka my life, aspirations and my body) is under his jurisdiction. I am dressed as professionally as possible to aptly represent my "Alien of Extraordinary Ability" status. I nervously look around the room. My dark eyes catch another attorney behind us signaling me to take off my hat. Promptly I take off my favorite accessory (my only sign of faggotry) to show my compliance with the US judicial practices. The judge begins his inquiry, to which my attorney reveals my HIV status, and my inability to adjust my status even though my petition for permanent residency to the US was granted on the basis of my claim as an "Alien of Extraordinary Ability" in February 2002. The pain of hiding underground, days of unemployment, hunger, fear of accessing treatment leading me to near death flashes across my mind. Where would I turn for the wasted seven years of my life? Will this judge be able to understand the lost wages, aspirations, depression and most of all the psychological violence of being separated from my beloved parents? It is clear my journey to justice is only beginning. This blog post is my first public step in ending isolation, silence, fear and their antecedent dysfunctions that the HIV ban on immigration and travel has wrought upon my life. It has disrupted my educational, work and all major life aspirations. I have silently watched my friends getting married, accessing green card, completing their PhD's and accumulating life assets. I have very vocally over the last six years worked with LGBT immigrants, helped them with their asylum claims, and watch them move on with their lives. Whereas, I have had to hide in fear, live on friends couches, clean apartments, meticulously plan my travels within the US, face Kaposi Sarcoma, PCP (all very avoidable if medications are accessed on time). Publicly my body is mapped as that of an Immigration and Education Policy Expert, whereas privately I have been intimately aware that any inkling of my health status would have me labeled "diseased, public burden". Yet I know that my life and story is not the only one, there are several HIV positive immigrants silently waiting for some form of relief, as they continue to work hard, and pay taxes. The United States has denied the entry of HIV+ people for both short term travel and immigration since 1987. This exclusionary practice follows a long history of excluding immigrants into the United States on public health grounds. Since the 1890’s the US Congress empowered the federal government to turn back those with loathsome or dangerous contagious diseases. The rational for such exclusions ostensibly being two folds; i) protecting the public health of US citizenry and ii) Reducing the burden on health care expenses of the US government. The intersections of racism, xenophobia and public health becomes evident when these bans are contextualized within the demographic profiles of generations of incoming immigrants and those who are excluded. In the early 1990’s during the Haitian Refugee crisis, all Haitian detainees at Guantanamo were forcibly tested for HIV, and those found positive were detained in Guantanamo under un-hygienic conditions. The Haitian Centers Council successfully fought a case for the release of the terminally ill detainees. The entire situation created a renewed fear of “diseased foreigners”, and prompted Congress to consider legislation that legally deemed HIV+ persons as “inadmissible”. Review of the congressional hearing proceedings reveals deployment of xenophobic, HIV phobic and homophobic remarks by those in support of the ban. A large coalition of medical, legal and LGBT rights organizations opposed the ban, but in wake of virulent AIDS phobia and stigma of the early 1990’s, and fear of a flurry of HIV+ immigrants driving up health care costs in the US, the ban was adopted. The ban has disproportionately impacted immigrants of color, since majority of recent immigrants to the US are from Latin America, Caribbeans, Asia and Africa. It can also be argued that the ban like other bans in the past is deeply rooted in scientific racism, xenophobia and homophobia. Efforts to remove the HIV ban have largely been organized by HIV/AIDS, LGBT rights and some immigrant rights organizations. In 1990, several medical, Gay and Lesbian and Immigrant organizations such as Gay Men’s Health Crisis, the American Medical Association lobbied the Health and Human Services (HHS) to remove HIV from its list of inadmissible diseases. As the HHS was preparing recommendations, the then Republican dominated Congress pushed through a bill that eventually made it a law to ban HIV+ individuals from entering the country. Since then, extensive on the ground organizing has been conducted by grass-roots immigrant organizations, who worked to push policy organizations to bring the removal of the ban back as an agenda item, to their work. In May of 2006 the “Lift the Bar Coalition” was formed, lead by Gay Men’s Health Crisis, Queers for Economic Justice, The Audre Lorde Project, Immigration Equality, HIV/AIDS organizations such as African AIDS Services and AIDS Action along with immigrant rights organizations such as the National Immigrant Justice Center. As the New Voices fellow I was one of the lead community organizers around the initiatives to "Lift the Ban”. I recall organizing community forums, strategizig with coalition members, while every cell in my body wanted to announce loudly my own health status, and the ways I have had to hide in fear. On July 2008, after years of significant on the ground organizing, and lobbying “Lift the Bar Coalition” was successful in removing the HIV ban language from the “Immigration and Nationality Act”. The coalition met with offices of Senator John Kerry and Representative Barbara Lee to tag the removal of the ban along with the “President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief” (PEPFAR).HIV still remains on the list “inadmissible diseases” with the HHS. The HHS has recently released renewed guidelines indicating a possible laxer standard, we are yet to see these being finalized. As I continue to wait to adjust my status, I have begun my own journey to health and justice. Justice for me would be the very undoing of stigma in legal and societal practices for people living with HIV and AIDS, people from disability communities, and many other folks who are labeled diseased and marginalized. On the eve of the National Equality March, I challenge all of us to go beyond notions of equality under the law, and invite us to re imagine the basic foundation of our LGBT movement as "transformative justice". While cost-benefit analysis along with equality as a rhetoric helped us push the lifting of the HIV Ban with lawmakers on H street, the struggle is yet to be over. Justice will be served to me when I can visit my beloved parents after being separated from them for 13years. I will see justice when every immigrant is imagined as a human being with dreams, aspirations and emotions. Justice will shine when all LGBT people will be able to live life free of shame and fear, and for each of these to happen we need to go beyond our focus on public policies, we need to expand our work to incorporate strategies that fundamentally alter power relations in society. As I get ready to hit the "publish" button on my laptop, I fear of what may come from being public through this blog while my case is still pending. At the same time I am letting go of pain, fear and silence that almost drove me to near death. Finally, I have to admit I am planning on "getting on the bus" for National Equality March, however mine is a bus for justice, peace, redistribution of economic resources, labor and human rights, all intrinsically related to the liberation of LGBT people. Find me marching with friends and long time allies at the National Gay Lesbian Taskforce . The Taskforce over the years has shown me they are reflexive about their mistakes, build on victories and have historically fought for policy changes along with building a movement for social justice. Whom ever you march with, party with or end up hooking up with at the after march revels; ensure to spread the passion for liberation and justice. Note: this post is dedicated to my beloved mother, father, my friends and allies; Myna Mukherjee, Raili Roy, Sougato Kerr, Nancy Ordover, Carl Utt, Navid Alam, Amar Puri, Maria Nakae, Ken Williams, Prantik Saha, David Fuentes, Shweta Malhotra, Marian Thambynayagam, Angela Mooney D'Arcy, Mia Mingus, Sonali Sadiquee, Kerry Lobel, Beth Zemsky, Amber Hollibaugh, Abbie Boggs, Suzanne Pharr,Joo Hyan Kang, Trishala Deb, Mimi Jefferson, Debra East, Leslie Van Barselaar, Jo Anne Demark, Monami Maulik, Bo Young, Joey Cain, Lisa Thomas Adeyemo, Sue Hyde, Lisa Weiner Mahfuz, Rodrigo Brandao, Michelle Lopez, Susan Misra, Ruso Panduro, Marta Doanayre, Piali Mukhejee, Paul Knox and all the hot leather daddies who have helped me rediscover my body and ability to experience pleasure.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Now 42 years ago, the United States Supreme Court struck down any remaining anti-miscegenation laws in the case Loving vs. Virginia, Mildred and Richard Loving’s challenge to the state of Virginia’s ban on the marriage between people of different races.  But, a recent Justice of the Peace’s denial of a Louisiana couple’s application for a marriage license indicates that the debates over interracial marriage are hardly over.

Anti-Miscegenation In Louisiana in 2009

Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana justice of the peace, denied Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay, an interracial couple, a marriage license citing concerns for their children.  The couple does not currently have children, so the justice is operating under the assumption that, once married, the couple would seek to have children, presumably through conception rather than adoption.  This heteronormative assumption, that is that heterosexual sex is a superior form of sexuality and should be limited to the confines of marriage and for the purpose of reproduction only, is not a new justification for banning interracial marriage.  In fact, it has been the most oft cited reason for doing so, though opposition to such relationships is also driven by racist views that are not as explicitly stated.  Fearing that his decision may be read as one fueled by racism, Bardwell noted that he has Black friends, “piles and piles” of them (what an odd expression to use to refer to Black people, one invoking nostalgia of the days of lynching and mass murder of Blacks) and has even let some use his bathroom.  Under pressure by politicians to resign, he has stood by his position and declared that he refuses to resign.

The Problem With Anti-Miscegenation

As I’ve just hinted at, many note that they oppose the union of people of different races because of concern for the well-being of multiracial children.  They’ll be confused, they’ll be teased, they won’t know who they are in this world.  The most obvious problem with this logic is the assumption that children will ever factor into the equation.  How do we know that Humphrey and McKay will want to have children?  How do we know that, if they do, they won’t seek to adopt children, maybe white kids, or Black kids, or kids of some other race?  What’s further troubling is the assumption that only married (interracial) couples are having kids.  With estimates somewhere around 40% of children being born to unmarried mothers, it seems that it’s about time to loosen the link between marriage and family in our ideology, as that link has long been loosened in practice.  If we remove parenting from the equation, will the uneasiness with interracial love and sex disappear?  What about interracial same-sex couples?  My sense is that the uneasiness would still be there due to the racist ideology that is so deeply entrenched in our society and values.

Anti-Miscegenation and Children

According to this judge, interracial couples tend to break up at a higher rate than intraracial couples.  Unfortunately, some research on sexuality and relationships backs up this claim.  But, with a concern for children, we might need to be alarmed by the skyrocketing divorce rate in general – one that is not unique to interracial couples.  Though I admit that there is some truth to Bardwell’s otherwise misguided logic, I have to point out that we’re placing the solution of a societal problem in the individual.  Just as we surgerically operate on newborn infants that do not fit into the rigid sex categories (i.e., male and female) instead of challenging society’s obsession with the female/male binary, we’d rather prevent interracial unions from existing or at least from reproducing than to address the racism that is endemic in our society.  The reason that interracial (and inter-class and inter-education level) couples dissolve at a higher rate, at least according to the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey, is that one’s partners are not as well integrated in other critical components of one’s life, like friends and family.  I have no doubt that this is due to parents’ and friends’ rejection of one’s partner that is different with respect to social class, race, and/or education level.  (Just think of how many white parents are uncomfortable with their child’s relationship with a Black person, or Latino person, and, unfortunately, the reverse is sometimes true as well.)  I also think about conflicts that arise around race in interracial couples that wouldn’t otherwise arise.  A great example is the fight that the interracial couple in the film Something New have, in which Brian (played by Simon Baker) has trouble understanding everything that Kenya (played by Sanaa Lathan) goes through as a high-ranking Black woman in a mostly white and male accounting firm and even notes that he’s tired of talking about race and racism, something he has the privilege of turning off if he’s not interested in discussing it.

A Personal Story

I should note that this story comes as no surprise.  When returning to New Orleans from a cruise to the Caribbean with my parents, we had to go through US Customs – the usual practice for US travelers who have left the country.  We went through the entry process as a family, rather than as individuals, to speed up the process.  The Customs agent who processed our entry was at first confused – “wait, you’re all together?”  It was immediately evident that her confusion stemmed from her assumptions about families (that they’re all of the same race) and the differences in our skin color.  It left us feeling angry and confused.  What a pleasant welcome home.  This assumption that families are all of the same race is not uncommon.  It comes up almost every time I’m out with my parents at stores and one of us asked if we need help, though we’re already being helped.  (I don’t get it.  Why would a stranger stand so close to someone while they’re at the register checking out unless they’re actually with that person?  Even if we’re not read as relatives, is it really that uncommon for friends to be of different races?  Yes, actually.)

For two personal reasons, this disgusting story in Louisiana is of great interest.  I’m the product of a lasting and loving interracial couple.  I know who I am as a person who is simultaneously Black and white.  I’m no less aware of the realities of race and racism because of my white ancestry (a concern sometimes noted for children who are white and of color, as seen in the film Losing Isaiah) and I’m not disconnected from my white ancestry because of my Black ancestry.  Any dilemmas I have every faced around “who am I?” has been the result of narrow constructions of race (how many forms have I filled out as Black and white that only allowed me to pick one, and I assume Black given the “one drop” rule) and the racist ideology that mandates intraraciality for relationships and family.  Secondly, as a biracial person, any and every relationship I will enter will be interracial, unless, of course, my partner is also Black and white.  Though I have had some frustrating conversations with past partners, mostly white, I note again that this is due to racism of our country.  They’re discomfort talking about race or any gaps in their knowledge about race, racism, and the histories and cultures of people of color is largely due to an education system driven by white supremacy and the invisibility of non-whites.

Are Interracial Couples Better than Intraracial Couples?

Aside from my concerns for relationship quality for interracial couples, those that are largely the result of the system of racism and not individuals’ malicious intentions, I think that interracial couples offer some benefits that intraracial couples cannot.  In my own case, and I’d say for our President, Barack Obama as well, being raised in a way that gives multiple view points and resources allows for viewing the world outside of a singular way.  I find that I am comfortable interacting with Black people and white people by virtue of my upbringing.  This has also translated into being comfortable interacting with most people different than myself, as I have not come from a world where everyone looks and thinks like me.  I should note that I’m aware that it might be easier for me than other multiracial people because I am light-skinned, and thus sometimes read as white or some race or racial combination that is not as devalued as a Black racial identity.  (That is, some may feel safer interacting with me because I’m not assumed to be Black.)

And, my personal bias is toward seeing marginalized forms of love triumph.  I love the movie Something New.  I love Saving Face, which features a Chinese lesbian couple that has to deal with the conflict between traditional Chinese culture and coming out.  I love the Bubble, a film that addresses same-sex love across the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.  It is beautiful to see love triumph over hatred.  But, in these films, the realities of hatred, oppression, and prejudice are present, as they are in such couples in real life.  I stand by the position that these are problems society needs to address, not for the couples themselves to solve.

Research has repeatedly shown that abstinence only sex education both fails to prevent teen pregnancy and STIs, and leaves young people with inaccurate sexuality information. Public opinion polls have been overwhelmingly in favor of removing abstinence only sex education. President Obama’s budget plan in May reflected both scientific and popular opinions of abstinence-only sex education, as funding for these programs was removed for 2010 with resources set to be directed towards comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention.

But the end to the abstinence-only sex education era was unnecessarily put on hold as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) proposed a renewal of abstinence-only sex education for the next 5 years at a cost of $250 million. The proposal, an addition to the ongoing health care reform bill, passed through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12-11 vote in its favor. Debates will now begin between Senator Hatch’s proposal and a comprehensive sex education policy proposed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) that  won a 14-9 vote from the Senate Finance Committee.

The Sexuality Education Month of Action is an opportunity for young people and their allies to speak out and support honest and accurate sexuality education programs. Numerous organizations around the country are giving their support to grass-roots organizers who are trying to educate their communities about the need for better sexuality education. Here are some of the ways you can get involved:

• Learn about the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act. The REAL Act provides funding for comprehensive, age appropriate sexuality education. Unlike abstinence-only sex education, that provides flawed and inaccurate information, the REAL Act is designed to give young people the necessary facts and skills to help them make informed decisions about their sexuality. Fact sheets about the REAL Act are available through SIECUS and Advocates For Youth.

• Contact your elected officials and let them know that comprehensive sexuality education is a necessary part of healthcare reform. Sign the petition in favor of the REAL Act as well as the petition against Senator Hatch’s $250 million abstinence-only program.

• Support events in your community and organize one of your own. Siecus is providing a list of upcoming events in support of comprehensive sex education across the country. You can have your own event listed by providing information about the event along with the exact date, location, and time of the event, a contact organization and phone number or email to pmalone@siecus.org. Get your congregation involved by sending in postcards showing support for comprehensive sexuality education to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Get involved in Sex Ed Action Month and help ring in a new era of open and accurate sexuality information.

 

From South Dakota, USA to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

“I was 16 when it happened. Not planned at all, and then I was angry afterward because I thought it was his fault like ugh, you didn’t even ask or anything like that, so… it wasn’t a good first experience. And um, I think I was kind of in shock because, of course, I did not want that to happen, and some of my other friends had that happen, and, um, I don’t know, I felt dirty, and not – that wasn’t me I guess. Like I didn’t have time to think about whether I wanted it to happen or not, especially since we’d never talked about it also, it just happened.”

~Missy 21, South Dakota

The quote above came from research I did for my MA thesis, which looked at the contradictions that exist between the political and religious ideologies and actual sexual practices and lives of young South Dakota women. What did I find? In a nutshell, sex “just happens” and in most cases, it happens unsafely accompanied by fear and shame.

So What Am I Doing in Brazil, You Ask?

As we all know, unsafe and unhealthy sexual relationships are rampant around our world today and affect everyone—from young people to older generations. HIV continues to disproportionately affect women at alarming rates, over half of all pregnancies are unintended, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) continue to plague sexual health. It has been my experience, from the health centers that I’ve worked in to the research I’ve done, tales like Missy’s above of sex “just happening” are all too common.

I wanted to come to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to explore sexuality because of the explicit contradictions that also seem to exist. The image of the beautiful bronzed bodies, tiny string bikinis and shaking bundas of the samba dance, reflect a “sexy” image prevalent throughout society. When one thinks of Brazil, romance and sex are some of the first things to come to mind and the country has some progressive policies to prove it.  Brazil has also become a model country for dealing with the HIV/AIDS epidemic by promoting open discussions about safe sex and guaranteeing anti-retroviral drugs to all citizens that need them. However, in many ways it continues to be governed by a strong presence of the Catholic church. Abortion is illegal and this contributes to high maternal mortality rates. You may have heard about the recent case of the Catholic Bishop who condemned the medical community and the mother of the 9 year-old girl who was raped and impregnated with twins by her step-father, for obtaining an abortion.

In order to gain a deeper understanding of what it means to be a sexually health person, I believe we need to explore sociologist Ken Plummer's idea of what it means to have sexual citizenship—that is, as he explains,  how are our most intimate decisions shaped by and in turn shape, our most public institutions?

When I arrived in Brazil, I found Onda Jovem, a group of peer educators coordinated by Promundo, an international NGO working to prevent violence and promote gender equality. Promundo, in accordance with numerous researchers, have confirmed that gender norms are among the strongest underlying factors that influence sexual behaviors, including violence against women (Gupta, 2000; Vargo, 2003 as quoted in Ricardo, Barker, Pulerwitz and Rocha, 2006).

Through this creative project with Onda Jovem, I hope to learn from and with Brazilian youth, in order to gain a deeper understanding of gender norms, sexual health and human rights. As a group, we hope to develop creative programming that truly strikes a chord with youth and empowers them to live happy and healthy sexual lives!  To learn more about the project and how you can help, check out the Onda Jovem blog at http://ondajovem.wordpress.com/

 

 

Summer '09 saw a landmark judgment by the High Court of New Delhi, India on July 02, 2009 when a Division Bench of Justice struck down the provision of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalized consensual sexual acts of adults in private, holding that it violated the fundamental right of life and liberty and the right to equality as guaranteed in the Constitution. In their 105-page order, they declared that Section 377 violates Articles 21 (Right to Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), 14 (Right to Equality before Law) and 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, Sex or Place of Birth) of the Constitution.

On one hand, there were celebrations among the queer community in Delhi and all over the country while on the other hand, many religious leaders rejected HC's decision outright and claimed that this decision was an attempt to impose "western" culture on Indian society. It might be interesting to note that Section 377 that was used to harass sexual minorities in the country is a relic of the British era. There is vast literature out there (Same Sex Love in India and Queering India by Ruth Vanita are two books on top of my mind right now) that suggests that same sex love and other sexual lifestyles such as the hijra culture was accepted, celebrated and was very much a part of the society all throughout history. So why are we now looking at homosexuality as western culture?

A few weeks later, the Supreme Court of Pakistan gave its decision to grant equal rights to transvestites (hijras).

Just a couple of days ago, Indian Supreme court declined to stay the Delhi High Court's July 02 judgment and has given the Centre eight weeks to file its response to Delhi HC's decision. This is a small step towards accomplishing a broader aim. Even after Section 377 is read down, it will take immense time and effort to spread awareness and promote tolerance among the society.

All possible fingers on my body are crossed. XX