Gay and Transgender Issues in the Workplace

     Many, many years ago, when as young teenagers we and my Jones cousins were vacationing together in my grandparents’ camp on Pleasant Lake in New Hampshire, my Aunt Margaret announced that she was going to clean out the bookcase to make room for new books. She then asked my brother Tom and his cohort in crime, my cousin Pat, to let her know which books they would like to read. After they made their selections, Aunt Margaret immediately threw away the books they had chosen. She knew, without even looking at the titles, that Tom and Pat would have picked out the sleaziest, trashiest books on the shelf to keep. Sometimes it saves a lot of work to let others tell you what they want.

     Conservative Evangelical Christians have just done so for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people and our allies. They have announced the 10 most important legislative and political areas of concern for the next four years. They are:

1.)    Hate crimes legislation (they want it blocked);

2.)    Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which bans discrimination against gay men and women in employment (they want it blocked);

3.)    Eliminate the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which would allow openly gay men and women to serve their country in the military (they want to keep the ban);

4.)    Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that the U.S. government will only recognize a marriage between a man and a woman (they want to keep the ban);

5.)    Removal of anti-abortion spending policies from appropriations bills (they want them kept);

6.)    Repeal of the Bush Administration’s Mexico City Policy, which bans non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries (they want the ban kept);

7.)    Fairness Doctrine legislation that would put restrictions on religious right broadcasters (they want it defeated);

8.)    The Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would remove all restrictions on abortion before the fetus is considered a viable being (they want it defeated);

9.)    Remove the Bush Administration’s funding limits on destructive embryo research (they want the stem cell ban kept);

10.)  Remove funding from sex-education programs that promote abstinence until marriage (they want the government to only fund “abstinence only” sex education.)

These ten objectives are outlined in the Focus on the Family document entitled “Letter from a Christian in 2012.”

If any gay person, or those who care about us, wants to know the sleaziest, trashiest goals for the next four years of those who oppose us, they have a list on which to focus their attention and effort.

     It’s at this time of year that employees in corporations throughout the United States and in other Western cultures wish each other “Happy Holidays.” The inclusive term takes in Hanukkah, the Jewish eight-day festival of lights that celebrates the triumph of light over darkness and of spirituality over materialism, which begins this year on December 22, Christmas, the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus that takes place on December 25, Kwanzaa, the celebration of traditional African values of family, community responsibility, commerce, and self-improvement, that begins on December 26, and The First of Muharram, the most sacred month of the Islamic calendar next to Ramadan, the beginning of the Liturgical calendar and one of the four months during which fighting is prohibited that begins on December 29. There may be other days at this time which are of significance to other groups of believers of which I am regrettably unaware.

     Simply saying “Merry Christmas” to a crowd whose faith is unknown would be, I think, as inappropriate as wishing everyone on the street “Happy Birthday.” Though being wished “Happy Birthday” when it is not your birthday would cause confusion rather than possible offense, the point is that it is best to wait with specifics until you know more information. So to include everyone in the message of celebration at the end of December, we say “Happy Holidays.”

     The same can be said for the appropriateness of the questions “Do you have a boyfriend?” to any woman and “Do you have a girlfriend?” to any man. If asked of a gay man or lesbian, it is like wishing “Merry Christmas” to an Orthodox Jew. Not everyone with whom we interact is heterosexual. Questions using inclusive language would be “Do you have a special love interest?” and “Are you seeing anyone special?” Instead of asking people if they are married, it’s safer to ask them “Do you have a life partner?” or “Do you have a significant other?” Gay men and women in the United States can only get married in Massachusetts and Connecticut. While a same-sex union can be a legal marriage in all of Canada, it doesn’t have that full status in Great Britain.

     Ray and I were legally married in Canada. That marriage is not recognized by the United States government. If Ray precedes me in death, I will not be eligible to receive his pension. But this gay man who would welcome your question “Are you married?” as long as you’re open to me saying “Yes, and my spouse’s name is Ray,” wishes all of you very “Happy Holidays.”

     The political struggle between Harvey Milk and David Goodstein in real life and in the film Milk continues today as some young gay men and women enter the workforce and confront some older gay and lesbian employees with their expectations. It’s not really a matter of age but of world view and perspective.

     Harvey, the streetwise political aspirant, felt the best strategy for equal rights for gay people was through the front door as an openly gay politician. David, also a former Wall Street banker and the new owner of the Advocate newspaper, felt that talking about “human rights” would make it easier to get in the side door of the civil rights movement.

     Young gay men and women who are used to dating openly in college expect to dance with their same sex partner at corporate functions. Some of their older colleagues are still reluctant to put pictures of the people they love on their desks, feeling it causes unnecessary attention to themselves and the issue.

     Rock the boat, don’t rock the boat, baby. What works best — naming your organization the Gay and Lesbian Task Force or the Human Rights Campaign?

     What’s more successful in the workplace – placing enlarged photos of gay couples in the hallway outside the company cafeteria during Gay Pride week for everyone to see or sponsoring a talk in the auditorium that ties gay issues into other diversity concerns during Gay Awareness week? Should the gay and lesbian Employee Resource group fight hard to have the rainbow flag flown in front of the building throughout the month of June or ask for money to send straight employees to the annual Out and Equal workplace conference?

     Who is the best person to send to the meeting on gay issues with the CEO? The lesbian who has worked the hardest to advance the cause of gay issues in the workplace but who is stereotypical in manner and dress, or the articulate and myth-defying woman who most men assume is straight — option A or B or All of the Above?

     If David Goodstein had been assassinated rather than Harvey Milk, our attitudes about our community’s heroes might be very different. The New York Times had an interesting piece recently about the young gay people who have become activists since the passage of Proposition 8 and the defeat of marriage rights for gay people in California. Just as Anita Bryant and John Briggs made gay activists out of Catholic Altar Boys such as Ray and me back in the late 1970s, the leadership of the Mormon Church has inadvertently breathed powerful life into a formerly complacent young gay generation.

     How that new generation of gay activists express themselves will be interesting to watch. One man has already called on every gay person to call in sick for a “Day Without Gay” and some of the gay people featured in the article helped organize through the internet demonstrations outside of Mormon temples. But another group of them are using their computer skills to educate others. Harvey and David. Rock the boat, don’t rock the boat baby. A or B or All of the Above?

     My vote is for “All of the Above.” All change in every social movement has involved confrontation and education, revolution and assimilation, a stick and a carrot, vinegar and honey, civil disobedience and civil discourse. Ray and I have participated at both ends of the spectrum, picketing and writing letters to the editor, boycotting and patiently explaining, calling attention to ourselves and blending in.

     There really is no right or wrong way to participate as an agent of change, unless you do physical harm to others. The important question to ask is “What is my goal, destruction or construction, war or peace, separate or collective?” and “What works best in this particular situation – anger or a smile, gay rights or human rights, Harvey or David?” All can be legitimate options, depending upon the circumstances.

     Corporate leaders would do well to be aware of the variety of ways people seek change and to channel the energy of their employees creatively. Harvey and David both work for them. Both have a lot to offer. Learning to listen to their different voices and enabling them to share their unique perspectives will make the company more effective in attracting and retaining all of the best talent and to optimize their competitive edge.

     There was a full page ad in the New York Times today entitled “No Mob Veto” that was signed by people, mostly Evangelical Christians, who feel that the Mormon Church is being unfairly bullied because of their public campaign against marriage rights for gay people.

     While I agreed with much of what these folks had to say, especially their condemnation of the terrorist who has sent white powder in the mail to Mormon churches, I found their last sentence disingenuous. They said “Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to exposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry – against any faith, on any side of any issue, for any reason.”

      What is anti-religious bigotry? One of the signers, William Donohue, of the arch-conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, consistently cries “Anti-Catholicism” any time anyone criticizes the Roman Catholic Church. He is not, in my opinion, a good judge of what constitutes anti-religious bigotry. Another signer is Alveda King, the Right Wing niece of Martin Luther King from whom the rest of the family have distanced themselves. She has never been a voice of moderation either.

     I would have been far more impressed with this group had they taken out a full page ad in the New York Times prior to the vote on Proposition 8 that stated their opposition to the amendment to the California state constitution, or even an ad after the vote to say how sorry they were that gay people and those who love them had to endure the horrible assault on their relationships that occurred during the campaign.

     This ad, from my perspective (so go ahead and expose and publicly shame me), is an attempt to build a firewall around any person or group who claims that their behavior or position, regardless of how unfair or uncivil, is based upon their faith. The image of the “Reverend” Fred Phelps, a Baptist minister from Kansas, who stands outside the funerals of slain American servicemen and women, and of gay people, with the sign “God Hates Fags” comes to mind.

     Besides the idiotic behavior of the brainless wonder who is sending white powder in the mail to Mormon Churches, the picketing of Mormon places of worship, and the completely unacceptable destruction of Mormon property, the letter writers, without saying so, are also angry about the controversy swirling around a company CEO who donated money in support of Proposition 8.

     A Mormon CEO of a company with a policy that affirms the value of gay people and which recognizes gay relationships through its health insurance policy for domestic partners, made a private though highly-publicized significant contribution to oppose gay marriage. He says he did so because of his religious beliefs and not because of homophobia. Should his gay employees and customers understand and accept his behavior because he labeled it “religious” or would they be guilty of “anti-religious bigotry” for wanting him fired? From a business perspective, should his Board of Directors expect his resignation when the contribution generates negative press about and pickets of their business, or should they defend his right to his personal religious beliefs regardless of how his behavior has impacted the stockholders investment?

     The man in question is head of a movie theater corporation which is currently showing the incredibly moving and powerful film Milk. Outside the chain of theaters across the country, there are pickets who don’t want people to give their money to a company which though good on gay issues is headed by a man who opposes gay marriage. What would Harvey Milk, the gay martyr subject of the film (mesmerizingly portrayed by Sean Penn) say about all of this? Would he picket the theater showing the positive gay film because of the owner’s views on marriage, or would he take a less confrontational approach?

     Who knows? Harvey would be 78 today and perhaps less inclined to organize a march (though pioneer Frank Kameny is 83 and still up for a good demonstration for gay rights), unless he felt it was an effective means of educating the public. But if Harvey did call the CEO on the bigotry of his religious beliefs, would he be “exposed and publicly shamed” by the signers of the ad in the New York Times for his anti-religious bigotry.

     For me, as one who works with corporate executives on just such issues, the question is not one of the CEO’s religious views. The Ku Klux Klan lynched black people because of their “religious views.” Neo-Nazis have religious views. Suicide bombers have religious views. All of them could argue that we’re not respecting their religious views. No, for me the question is about the responsibility an executive has to manifest the company’s values.

     Should a person who behaves publicly in a way that undermines the company’s values be terminated? I would think it should be examined case by case. But I certainly think it’s fair to say to an employee that he or she, because of their public behavior, is now less valuable to the company as a leader than they once were.

     Had the CEO of the movie theater corporation made a $10,000 donation to a highly-publicized and emotional campaign to legally limit marriage to people of the same race, as was once true in the United States, and who fervently did so based upon his religious views, would anyone question the Board of Directors asking the man or woman to resign? And would the people who signed the ad then insist that the Board of Directors were all religious bigots?

     We live in interesting times. There aren’t easy answers to the questions which enflame all of our passions. I wish the signers of the full page ad had been much clearer about what they mean when they say “anti-religious bigotry.” It’s a meaningless term. I’m also glad that there were no pickets in front of the theater in which Ray and I, and our wonderful new neighbors Susan and Tom, saw Milk. It’s not showing anywhere else in town. I would not have crossed the picket line and therefore missed an extraordinary experience.

     I urge you to see the film Milk and I also encourage you to view the delightful short video “Prop 8 – The Musical” at http://www.funnyordie.com.