Equal at Last

Nearly thirteen years ago, in July 2001, our police department lost the first female and openly lesbian officer in the line of duty. Lois had served the Tampa Police Department for nineteen years, and her partner was a sixteen-year veteran officer. In the aftermath of the shooting, it was soon painfully apparent how differently the surviving spouse of a lesbian officer would be treated. The lesbian and gay officers gathered downtown at the police memorial the night of the shooting, understanding instinctively the impact of this tragedy. I recall the media officer at the time pulling me aside and asking how they should treat Lois’s partner. I took a deep breath and said, “Like any other widow of a fallen officer.” His question was sincere, and I will say that our department tried to handle things well. We all knew benefits weren’t in place, but to witness the reality of our common vulnerability before the funeral even took place was heartbreaking. The problem was LGBT officers had no recognition, so she was at the mercy of others’ biases. And it mattered.

An effort began with the LGBT police officers and civilian personnel to fix the injustices that we watched unfold. With the assistance of Equality FL, our statewide LGBT advocacy group, we met with city leaders, union, and pension representatives. At every turn, the answer was they’d like to help, but state law prevented more action. Lois’s partner did not receive the survivor’s pension benefits afforded to every other fallen officer’s spouse. We wondered, how could this stand?

Soon after, compromises were negotiated, but none ever gave LGBT officers the peace of mind of full coverage and protections for their families. Thirteen years have passed. Now and then the issue of our relationship status has been raised with our labor and pension reps. Always their answer was the excuse “state law”. Every year, as a sort of act of civil disobedience, I would write the word “spouse” next to Sandy’s name on my evaluation’s personal contact form. Just because it was right. Each year we watched hopefully as other states began giving LGBT couples the right to marry or enter into domestic partnerships, validating their status.

In 2009, Sandy and I decided we wanted permanent, legal recognition of our relationship. We discussed DP, but decided that we wanted a marriage, in hopes eventually it would be recognized. Upon returning to Tampa we took our marriage certificate to the pension office and told them to place it in our files. I never wanted the city to be able to say “it wasn’t what I intended”, as they had Mickey. We continued with our careers.

Then, yesterday, out of the blue, something amazing happened. A good friend called to say that our pension attorney had written a legal opinion, based upon changes in federal laws, stating LGBT officers should be covered fully if they hold valid marriage licenses, from any state. I was stunned. I called our new union president for confirmation and he obtained a copy of the brief. He told me it was true. According to the brief, we would now be covered fully by our pension, to include line of duty deaths. I went to the pension office to ensure our files were updated. The secretary pulled Sandy’s file, and mine, paging through to locate the marriage certificate from 2009. She moved the certificates to the top of our files. Then she looked up at me and said something I’ll never forget: “I’m sorry you had to wait this long to hear this, but congratulations.”

Something inside me lifted. I couldn’t put a finger on it at first, but then last night, I called my wife when I got home from my shift. She still had four hours to go in hers. I said, “Be careful. I love you.”, like always. When I hung up, it hit me. I now had the peace of mind I’d never had in over 20 years of our relationship. Should one of us fall in the line of duty, the other would be taken care of. I realized that for the first time I truly felt like a full-fledged member of the Tampa Police Department. Equal at last.

Peace and thanks for reading~

LM

Religious defiance, thank God!

I’m a Christian and I’m perplexed. Can somebody please explain to me why folks who profess to believe in the teachings of Jesus are forever bastardizing his message?

Our most recent example of faith-based hypocrisy comes today from a story about a father who loves his son and simply wants to support his son completely. The Reverend Dr. Thomas W. Ogletree, a minister of the United Methodist Church, was asked by his son to officiate his wedding. What an awesome thing, right? Right! Except that his son was marrying a man. Uh, oh. Dr. Olgletree says that his son’s request inspired him and he readily accepted. Two of the reverend’s children are gay, and he loves and accepts them unconditionally. His daughter previously married her partner in a non-Methodist ceremony. 

Rev. Olgletree conducted the ceremony for his son back in October, and no doubt, it was a joyous family occasion. Then, one of the reverend’s fellow ministers saw the wedding announcement in the newspaper, and apparently felt it his sacred duty to tattle on Rev. Ogletree to the local bishop. Rev. Randall C. Paige and several other ministers object to Rev. Ogletree’s actions, citing violations of canonical law. They say the ceremony “is a chargeable offense under the rules of the church” and that breaking the laws are not the proper way to bring about change.

Really? Umm… Jesus broke the laws of his lifetime by renouncing Old Testament teachings publicly, throwing the money lenders out of the temple, cavorting with known prostitutes, pretty much thumbing his nose at much of the religious doctrine of the day, and the list goes on. Seems like he thought that breaking the law was exactly the way to bring about change at times. Unjust laws meant to demonize or marginalize minority groups are always overturned by acts of civil disobedience, because morally unjust laws cannot and should not stand. So, how is it that these religious scholars would assert that breaking the rules is not the way to affect change? Guess they skipped those parts of the New Testament. The complaining reverends say that Rev. Olgetree’s actions injure the church because they “foster confusion about what the church stands for.” Shouldn’t the church be standing for love, honesty, family, and stuff like that?

The Rev. Olgletree is awe-inspiring. “Sometimes, when what is officially the law is wrong, you try to get the law changed,” he said. “But if you can’t, you break it.” He challenged Rev. Paige, saying, “Dr. King broke the law, Jesus of Nazareth broke the law…So you mean you should never break the law, no matter how unjust it is?” I’m pretty sure that’s exactly the premise our great country was founded upon, and I hope we never lose that belief in standing up for “right” over “law”. Rules and laws are made in given periods of time, based upon the knowledge folks have to work with. But, we evolve. We grow. We change.

These changes come largely through interacting with people who may be different than ourselves. That’s why I always say that we change hearts and minds one person at a time. The good reverend understands the teachings of Christianity call us to be loving and compassionate toward one another, not judgmental or hateful. When we open our hearts to the lives and love of others, we cannot help but grow. That’s the human experience. The reverend, only wanting to fully participate in his son’s marriage, as any parent would, unwittingly became a symbol of religious defiance. He said, “I actually wasn’t thinking of it as an act of civil disobedience or church disobedience. I was thinking of it as a response to my son.”

Amen, reverend.

Holy Kluwe, these guys are awesome!

I’m a huge football fan—American football—college, professional, doesn’t matter. In my household, Saturdays and Sundays (and Monday & Thursday nights) are all about the pigskin. In the past couple of weeks, there have been some amazing equality-related events revolving around the game of football in our country. Turns out, not all big jocks are homophobic jerks, as we’ve been led to believe. Way cool!

Here’s the question: Does a pro football player have the right to speak out about social or political issues they believe in? If they share their opinion, should they be at risk of losing their job when the wrong person disagrees?

Consider Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, who came out publicly in support of a Maryland referendum on gay marriage last month, drawing ire of Maryland House of Delegates Member Emmett C. Burns. Burns wrote to Ravens owner, Steve Biscotti, that he “found it inconceivable that Ayanbadejo would publicly endorse Same-Sex marriage, specifically as a Ravens football player.” Is Burns implying that it’s inconceivable that a football player should support equality? He said further, “I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football League Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employees and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL  player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing.”

Injurious actions? Exactly whom is Mr. Ayanbadejo injuring by supporting equality? The Baltimore Ravens? The NFL? The State of Maryland? Delegate Burns? Well, as it turns out, I’m not the only one wondering. Next up is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who defended Ayanbadejo and wrote a letter lambasting Delegate Burns for his bigotry. In a very colorfully worded response to Burns, Kluwe rightly calls the question on both Ayanbedejo’s right to speak freely about his beliefs and gay marriage, by reminding us that as recently as the 1960’s pro sports were still segregated institutions. That changed in no small part due to the outspoken players such as Jackie Robinson.

We’ve talked here about the importance of lesbian and gay public figures coming out and the positive affect on the lives of countless people. These are outstanding examples of our straight allies having the courage to speak out about our human rights. Delegate Burns is correct when he says that it is unusual for a member of the NFL to speak publicly on issues such as marriage equality. That is what makes the words of public figures, these professional athletes—our gridiron heroes, even more potent. These men are showing great character in taking a stand for equality, when they clearly could remain silent. Their willingness to speak about equality to their fans, many of them conservative and clinging to irrational biases, is a positive force that cannot be understated.

I sincerely hope the NFL, nor their respective teams give these players any grief for their comments. After all, nobody is calling for the censuring of Tim Tebow when he supports Focus on the Family or other anti-gay groups. Or are NFL players only allowed to speak their minds when Mr. Burns and those like him agree with the message? Should the NFL or individual teams prohibit players from giving their personal opinions on matters outside the game? I don’t know. However, the point is that either players can speak openly about their personal beliefs or not; you can’t have it both ways.

“Its an equality issue. I see the big picture,” Ayanbadejo says. “There was a time when women didn’t have rights. Black people didn’t have rights. Right now, gay rights is a big issue and it’s been for a long time. We’re slowly chopping down the barriers to equality.” For me, Kluwe gets the last word. Topping off his very animated, pro-equality letter he said this: “You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails.”

 Amen to that. I’m not a Vikings fan, but I’m thinking my next NFL purchase is going to be a purple number 5 jersey.

Thanks for reading

~LM