What Ms. Roosevelt Might Have Said About Gay Rights

60 years this week, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Gay activists suggested marking the occasion by boycotting businesses, refraining from work and attending protests to demonstrate against Proposition 8, a measure to ban gay marriage in California State that regrettably passed this Election Day.

Were she alive now, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who spent over a year rallying new UN member states to sign the UDHR, would probably have had plenty to say about Prop 8 as well.

In the year 1948, when it was finally ratified, Roosevelt already had several friends who lived with their same-sex partners. She had a "Boston marriage" herself with a friend who worked for the Associated Press. 18 boxes of love letters archivists discovered between the two women over a thirty-year time span speak to the intensity of that relationship. (The letters are now available for preview on Google.) Lorena Hickok was not just a devoted friend of Eleanor's, but a talented reporter in her own right. Through sheer will and perseverance, she had carved together an independent career, rising the ranks in a profession where women were far from common. After she met Eleanor, she found she could not remain a friend and stay in her job, so she gave it up for the First Lady in 1933. In 1941, Ms. Hickok moved into the White House staying for four years, through FDR's third term. Hickok saved their passionate letters until her death, willed them to the National Archives and asked they only be released 10 years after she passed.

If Ms. Roosevelt were around and had lived through the last few decades, would she have used the 60th anniversary of the UDHR the way gay activists have; and would she have endorsed a national boycott in solidarity with them?

She would likely have gone several steps further. Given the person she was, implacable and incurably optimistic, Eleanor Roosevelt would have resisted focusing on gains that have been made; instead, she would have wasted little time demanding more be done.

Globally speaking, she would have recognized millions of people are still persecuted for being homosexual. She would have drawn our attention to how homosexuality is punishable by death in seven countries, and that Iran executed gay people as early as 2005.

It's harder to imagine now that period in which Ms. Roosevelt lived. Through her work, she managed to shape her environs as much as live within them; it was a time where despite being the nineteen twenties, thirties, forties or fifties, gay people she knew had committed to one another permanently and become formidable players in the course of American history. Prominent suffragettes, for example, were gay; among elite and powerful women, lesbian relationships were accepted and common, albeit not as well understood. Women's colleges, settlement houses and other institutions founded in the public interest were led by moneyed women who lived on site with their partners. But being gay was hardly ever discussed, and sexuality was sidestepped entirely. A debate on hold for a better day. Suffragettes maintained marriages with men to support causes they believed in, but also to survive as there were few alternatives for women to live and earn independently.

For gay activists in the United States today, there is solace in numbers -- more people can live as openly gay people than ever before. But there are many more hate crimes as well. There are relationships that now span continents, which Americans and their foreign-born, gay partners cannot normalize and seek US citizenship the way straight couples have. These "Boston marriages" straddle fences hoping, on the one hand, for changes in US immigration policies, and on the other, for national gay marriage guarantees, which Proposition 8 may now have made more difficult.

A joint report by two groups, Immigration Equality and Human Rights Watch, documented the effects of such unrecognized marriages back in 2006. An opening paragraph introduced the report by clarifying the differences between gay and straight couples in the eyes of immigration officials:

"[A] lesbian or gay couple cannot even claim basic rights. Their relationship-even if they have lived together for decades, even if their commitment is incontrovertible and public, even if they have married or formalized their partnership in a place where that is possible-is irrelevant for purposes of entering the United States."

The report chronicled the travails of dozens of families who either had to leave the US entirely or for whom family life is marred by innumerable visits to embassies, scrambles for visas and documents, flights abroad to help partners regain access to the country. Grief, torment and an endless pursuit for status are struggles that never cease in these families, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, in these situations.

Many couples continue relationships long-distance as one man, Pape Mbaye, a gay Senegalese artist and entertainer described in an interview. Mbaye finally gained refugee status in the US last summer after making it clear to American authorities that being out as a homosexual in Senegal had serious repercussions. "You would be killed," he said, in response to a question about what happens to people back in Senegal who are 'found out.' But this, he mentioned, doesn't prevent them from having relationships, even if partners live many miles away. He cited the case of one Senegalese friend who has never met his partner, but who has committed to him online for over a decade. His friend's partner lives in the US. Mbaye said he knows many others in similar situations.

Being gay has become far safer and gained greater acceptance across the country since Ms. Roosevelt lived. In these terms, for most, America is no Senegal. However, in a nation that prides itself on freedom and liberty, living gay and living straight are paths that diverge; and the contrast can be stark and inexplicable.

To throw in a few numbers, homosexual behavior continues to be illegal in over 80 countries. On the flip side, among immigrants who come to the United States, between 30 and 40 percent naturalize as US citizens through marriage. Taken together, it becomes apparent that not only have we shirked our responsibilities (under the Constitution) by denying equal rights to gay Americans; but overwhelmingly, we now discriminate against immigrants who are gay, many of whom continue to risk being persecuted at home.

This week, many who thought they ought to protest could not skip work because they feared for their jobs. One friend, who is not a US citizen but is in a relationship with one, described himself as "post-gay" as he had decided to pursue other causes. Another gay activist suggested she was willing to put her own concerns on hold until more resources were directed toward improving the immigration system which, according to her, was a more pressing concern.

For hope and comfort, we can draw strength from the fortified base of gay and straight people united in the goal to secure marriage and naturalization rights for all gay people. But as gay activists continue to grow this movement and others, it is timely that as straight friends we do no less by refusing to allow gay people to be marginalized or treated as second-class citizens.

Much the way suffragettes committed to an unpopular cause, treading carefully, one small step at a time, we too, as good descendants, should cooperate, calibrate our positions, weigh our answers and persevere in meeting these goals. After all, suffragettes spent their lives in search of shared justice for womankind. Given their impact, we would pay a small tribute if ever we managed to return the favor. (It took seventy years, incidentally, for women to gain the right to vote after the idea was first proposed.) Certainly, by granting equal rights to gay citizens, we'd be a more honest, more respected nation for it, and on several counts. Ms. Roosevelt apparently liked to say, "justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both." Sounds fair enough.

Comments

[caffection]

Is marriage an institution? One has to wonder. Marriage has become just another word. A word, that many within the American culture define as a union between one man and one woman. What's up with that?!
It's time we, as the great nation we are, unite to rid our country of this contagious plague of inequality. We have many friends who continue to be ridiculed, harassed and denied their civil rights as an American based on their sexual orientation.
We're here today to say ENOUGH! Our country is too diverse to allow this injustice to continue.
MARRIAGE: a civil contract to define rights and responsibility between two persons.
We believe in marriage. We believe those who choose to marry should be married to their best friend.
Our proposition is this: everyone should be married to their best friend. Simple. Logical. Beautifu

[randyjet]

There is NO right to live in the USA for people who are not citizens. The US has decided that for American citizens who marry non-citizens that it is in OUR interest to allow their married spouses to live here and have children. When gay sex produces children, THEN I will advocate the SAME for gays. There is NO reason to allow the partners of US citizens entry for residence here unless they have other claims that are valid. In short, openning such a clause will make it OK for virtually ALL who have friends, partners etc.. to come here permanently. We already allow over one MILLION LEGAL immigrants into the US every year. I hardly think that given our times and troubles we need MORE!

[Pia Sawhney - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for your response and for taking the time. Just wanted to clarify a few points. Legal immigrants have the right to stay in the country; many do, and occupy prominent and productive roles as actors, scientists, and entrepreneurs. I’d also add that legal immigrants make up no more than a third of a percent of the population of the country. Speaking to your point about friends versus partners: I haven’t suggested gay immigrants should be treated as friends; rather, if they can prove they have long-standing ties and contribute significantly to US households, they should be permitted to naturalize under circumstances that match the conditions for heterosexual immigrant spouses. A range of efforts lately reflect a growing trend among immigration officials to undermine American families; for example, widows were singled out recently and denied the right to naturalize on the basis that they were no longer recognized as ‘married persons’ by the government (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/21/60minutes/main4625729.shtml). I think it’s important to help American families create and maintain stability going forward, especially as we enter a precarious economic moment. Providing for gay immigrants who are in long-term, committed relationships is one, discrete and constructive way to help families and my argument is that such measures will only become more important and meaningful (socially and economically speaking) in the months and years ahead.

[MsCanadian]

I agree. I am straight, but have a gay son, and I support him in having a happy, loving partnership. I think that it is time to realize that we all have the same right to choose whomever we love, and to understand that good partnerships can exist between the same and opposite genders. I am far more concerned about teaching and learning what constitutes good partnerships and families than about the gender mix of those partnerships.

[luvobama]

My really old girlfriend totally agreed. She's not necessarily comfortable, but she's smart enough to know times change. She believes in evolution!!!

[M1]

Thank you. Your article was very interesting.

[TRYKER]

Pia, thank you for this most important post.
Yes, it is high time that we ALL stood up for equal rights for ALL.
It is criminal IMHO that we stand by and watch this unequal treatment of citizens when its logic is totally absent.
We have a Constitution, we need to follow it. We don't have to wait for 70 long years to do something we should have done long ago. Prolonging the adoption of equal treatment is condoning the wrong-doing and a dereliction of our civic duty.
IF we must have a strike for equal rights day, lets do it!
We must set this country on stable sensible footing and leave behind the absolute insanity of denying certain citizens their equal rights.
If churches want to interfere with equal rights for all, lets take away their vast money machines and cut that tax deduction...this country needs those taxes, and the churches are misusing funds in robbing rights from fellow citizens.
This should have been done yesterday. This is 2008, not the dark ages, we need to ACT NOW.

[pascaljim]

Born in the 1930's I am more aware than most of this wonderful human being. She set the equality foundation for many. to follow.

Marian Anderson, was rejected by the Daughters of the American Revolution to sing in "their" auditorium. Mrs Roosevelt resigned from this group and arranged for Ms. Anderson to appear at the National Mall to a huge audience.

She was the flagbearer for equal rights!!

[Toonadude]

Eleanor Roosevelt was indeed a great human being. I have only recently come to realize the significance of the Marian Anderson incident considering the times in which it occurred and that a first lady stood up for right. If I had to (bite my tongue) attribute anything good to G.W. Bush, it is that he made me start thinking more about the Roosevelts. I even made a trip to Hyde Park last September. I recommend the Val-Kill site for anyone interested in Eleanor. The story about the name plate on her desk with her first name misspelled speaks volumes about her character.