You could just let it pass. After all, home and family should provide a refuge from the clamor of the outside world. Gay rights are fine, you might think, but social change is something that happens out there, in society, not within our walls. Then again, maybe social change must begin at home. Many heterosexual people –even those who avoid political activity — have become allies in the struggle for civil rights simply by the way they talk to their children. Want to join them? If so, read on for ten things you might say if you want to raise a child who can love, accept, and — as fate might have it –even be a happy person who is gay.

1. “Some day you might meet a special person and decide to spend the rest of your life making a family with him or her.”

Thousands of parents each year learn that their children are gay, and then recall with pain the ways they may have embarrassed or shamed their children simply because they presumed the kids were heterosexual. We who have children who are still young have the chance to treat our children the way many of these older-but-wiser parents wish they had treated their own. We can assume that our children might be straight or gay.

2. “We think you should choose your friends by what they’re like on the inside and how they treat other people, not because they are boys or girls.”

We don’t claim that you can engineer your kid’s sexuality. But think about it: don’t you want to raise your child to value the content of character rather than the shape of the body? If this is true of friendships when they are young, maybe it can also extend to romance as they grow older.

3. “Look, son, Santa brought you just what you asked for: a princess dress!”

Don’t freak out if your daughter wants to be Robin Hood or your son wants to be Cinderella. Subject to your child’s inclinations and tastes, buy clothing and toys without regard to gender (this can be a challenge, since marketing is often shockingly gender specific).

4. “In some places, two men or two women can get married, and some churches and synagogues also celebrate religious weddings for these couples.”

If your daughter comes home from school and says, “I love Betsy so much we’re going to get married!” resist the urge to tell her, “girls can only marry boys.” When you talk to your kids about marriage, describe the current state of affairs accurately, but also help them aspire to a future that is more just.

5. “Uncle Bill likes to date men rather than women.”

Talk with your kids about the LGBT people in your life (relatives, coworkers, neighbors, fellow church members). Answer questions in ways that are simple and matter-of-fact: “Uncle Bill has fallen in love with Joe and they want to be together for the rest of their lives.” Let your kids know that these romantic relationships make Uncle Bill feel happy.

6. “Did you know Harvey Fierstein is gay?”

Broadway giant Harvey Fierstein (better known to kids as the voice of “Yao” in Disney’s Mulan) is only one example of openly gay, prodigiously talented people recognizable to children. Cluing kids in to this diversity is a good thing. We know, we know, “Heather Has Two Mommies” has become short hand for a sort of earnest multi-culturalism that some find easy to dismiss. But remember: Education Secretary Margaret Spelling threatened to cut funding for the PBS children’s program “Letters from Buster” because one episode featured a family headed by two women. In such a world, parents who care about diversity may have to be a little more deliberate.

7. “I’m sorry, son. We can’t join the Boy Scouts because they discriminate against gay people.”

Instead of the Boy Scouts (now famously on record for anti-gay policies), consider the YMCA, Campfire Boys and Girls, or Jewish Community Centers (here is a longer list of kids’ programs that do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation). If you belong to a group that excludes people or treats them differently because they are gay, either quit or work for change — and let your children see you doing that work.

8. “Is this a ‘welcoming’ house of worship?”

Does your house of worship welcome and affirm LGBT people? Does it countenance openly gay clergy? How (if at all) does it treat issues of human sexuality in religious ed or youth group discussions? You can get involved with your denomination’s national LGBT group and learn how they are working for liturgical or doctrinal reform. If change is not possible and you remain within the fold, at the very least you need to tell your child that your conscience leads you to reject anti-gay elements of the religious doctrine.

9. “Is this school willing to hire gay teachers?”

What will your child learn about homosexuality at school? Explore the curriculum (if any) on puberty, sexuality, or reproduction. Find out if the school library contains resources on sexuality that will be helpful to kids who have questions. Does your child’s middle or high school have a gay-straight alliance? Believe us, parents who don’t support gay rights are asking these questions all the time. Make sure your school hears from a gay supportive perspective, too.

10. “I am so happy and honored that you’ve told me you’re gay, and I want to support you in any way I can.”

This final statement might be the most important of all.

You don’t have to carry a sign, march in a parade, or fly a rainbow flag to support gay rights. You can take small but crucial steps along your daily path, especially in your decisions as a parent. Granted, there’s a lot about sex, sexuality, and politics that’s way too complicated to explain to young children. But that doesn’t mean gay rights issues are taboo. Children understand three things very clearly: love, family, and fairness. And when you get to the heart of it, these values are what the gay rights movement is all about.

Jennifer Gerarda Brown

Despite the Goodridge victory in Massachusetts, the battle for same-sex marriage has only begun. Many states have passed constitutional bans on gay marriage. Opponents of equal marriage rights even seek to amend the U.S. Constitution.
The Vacation Pledge for Equal Marriage Rights encourages states to take the landmark step to democratically legalize same-sex marriage.
Why is legislative action so important and how can individuals help to promote it?

President Bush’s claim is that the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary to stop “activist judges” from forcing same-sex marriage on a resistant populace. The president justifies the amendment in the name of “democratic action” and “the voice of the people.” But as I’ve argued in the Hartford Courant and LA Times, the amendment is fundamentally anti-democratic: It would prohibit states from legislatively embracing equal marriage rights. If one brave state could use the legislative process to extend marriage to same sex couples, it could disprove the assertion that only “activist judges” want marriage equality. This might impede the rush to write discrimination into the US Constitution.

Here’s how it works: by signing the pledge, individuals promise to take a vacation in the first state that enacts same-sex marriage through a popular or legislative vote, within three years after the legislation takes effect. Many states rely heavily on tourism revenues, and the Vacation Pledge creates a concrete incentive for a state to do the right thing.

Taking a vacation is a small price to pay for greater equality. Will you sign?

Ian and I support the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But is there anything that can be done as a precursor to changing this law?

Imagine that every soldier upon entering the military was asked a simple question.

Would you prefer to serve in a command without any gay personnel?

Soldiers would know that if they answer “No” they would be assigned to an “inclusive” command, and that if they answer “Yes” they would be assigned to an “exclusive” command.

Asking this question does not violate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because it does not ask a soldier about his or her own sexual orientation. But it nonetheless is likely to promote a kind of voluntary integration in the inclusive command. In an essay just published in the Michigan law review, we argue that:

The benefits of the inclusive units would be threefold: amelioration (of current discrimination), demonstration (that DADT is not necessary to preserve unit cohesion), and realignment of political allies and enemies (creating a common cause for pro-gay legislators on the left and pro-defense legislators on the right). The proposal is dynamic, not static. The hope is that inclusive commands would so effectively demonstrate the benefits of integration that, over time,
increasing numbers of service members would opt for integrated nits. From there, the step to universal, mandatory integration of sexual minorities into the armed forces would be smaller and more easily taken.

You can learn more about this proposal in an essay we published in the Michigan law review and see comments to an earlier post that Ian made to Balkinization.

In 1959, a white man named John Howard Griffin took extreme measures to adopt the perspective of African-Americans: he shaved his head, chemically altered the color of his skin, and traveled the South for two months in the guise of an itinerate black man. He recounted his experiences of racial prejudice and hatred in Black Like Me, which became a national bestseller and opened the eyes of many white Americans to the evils of Jim Crow. By literally walking a mile in his brothers’ shoes, Griffin was able to gain not only a greater understanding of racism, but a greater sense of solidarity with Black Americans.
Today, heterosexual Americans have similar — if far less dramatic — opportunities to adopt the perspective of their brothers and sisters who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual. There is no skin dye, no bodily marker, to allow a heterosexual to follow Griffin’s model, but we should consider the potential in words or well-chosen silence to allow straight Americans even momentarily to have “Gay Like Me” experiences.
Ambiguation has long been deployed by gay, lesbian and bisexual people when they are closeted. But coming out can be ambiguating, too, because people who come out are bound to defy the preconceptions of their audience — by being individuals, not categories. The process of coming out can thus ambiguate — in the core sense of producing multiple and more varied meanings.
If gay peoples’ “coming out” is ambiguating, so too might be heterosexual peoples’ “going in.” This “going in” for heterosexual people could include a variety of moves: permitting confusion about whether or not they are gay; foregoing opportunities to identify opposite sex partners as spouses; making affirmative statements that align them with gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, and not qualifying those statements with disclosure of their own heterosexuality. And just as Griffin promoted civil rights for African-Americans by even temporarily assuming a black identity, so too heterosexuals can promote gay rights by tolerating greater ambiguity about sexual orientation.
To see how this might work, consider an example from Lessig’s Chicago article: the case of Denmark, King Christian, and the Star of David. Legend has it that when the Nazis invaded Denmark and demanded that Danish Jews wear the yellow Star of David on their clothing, King Christian X began to wear a Star of David on his own clothing. Soon all Danes were wearing the Star, confounding Nazi attempts to set the Jews apart from their countrymen. As Lessig explains:

“The Nazis required Jews to wear yellow stars. Wearing a star had then a particular meaning, in part constructed by disambiguating who were Jews and who were not, thereby facilitating the expression of racial hatred. Danes who opposed the racism of the Nazis then began to wear stars themselves. Their action then ambiguated the meaning of wearing a star. Now wearing a star meant either that the person was a Jew or that the person was a Dane supporting the Jews. Their action also tied the Danes to the Jews: now Danes were seen as supportive of the Jews.”

Can we find contemporary analogs to the Star of David, symbols of homosexuality that could be appropriated by non-gay people in liberating directions?
Gay rights advocacy groups have taken advantage of opportunities to use ambiguation. On National Coming Out Day, many people wear buttons or stickers expressing gay-affirmative messages. When, even for a day, people identifying with a broad range of sexual orientations all wear the gay-identified pink triangle, they literally replicate the Danes’ legendary appropriation of the Star of David. For that one day, at least, sexual orientation is ambiguated, because it is not clear: does a person wear a triangle to come out (on that day of all days of coming out) or to express support for and solidarity with LGBT people as they come out? And does it matter why we wear the triangle that day?
Or consider our friend (a lesbian we’ll call Sarah) in Madison, Wisconsin. Vandals broke a window and burned the rainbow flag Sarah had flown from her front porch. When Sarah talked with her neighbors about the attack on her home, one of her neighbors, who is heterosexual, suggested that all of the houses on the street should put up rainbow flags to show solidarity and support. The flags would say to the vandals, in effect: “Do you want to persecute gay people? Well, you’ll have to come after all of us, too.” Like the non-Jewish Danes who wore the Star of David, a street full of neighbors flying gay pride flags could protect and support through ambiguation.
Michael is another friend of ours whose sexuality became the stuff of conversations, all because of one simple action he took. In 1996, the Association of American Law Schools began to publish in its annual directory a list of law professors who self-identified as “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Community Law Teachers.” In 1998, Michael, then a junior professor at a Midwestern law school, first appeared on the list. The reactions were varied. Surprise: “I thought he had a girlfriend.” Political: “Maybe Michael placed himself on the list in an act of solidarity.” Postmodern: “Michael wants to subvert sexual orientation categories, which are artificial and oppressive.” Some of these conversations missed the point; others were helpful as they caused people to focus on the purpose of the list and the criteria for legitimate membership in the group it purported to represent.
We may never know Michael’s motivations for joining this list (Michael has not responded to our efforts to discuss the list and his appearance on it — such conversations would, after all, be disambiguating; we thus obscure his identity and offer this analysis only tentatively, and decidedly not with the intent to judge him negatively). If Michael is indeed gay or bisexual, the story may be much simpler than all the gossip and analysis would suggest. Suppose for a moment, though, that Michael is heterosexual. Suppose that he joined the list not to come out but rather to change the social meaning of the AALS list of “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Community Law Teachers.” Suppose he joined the list as an act of solidarity (that is, to declare himself a member of the community which includes (but is not limited to) gay, lesbian, and bisexual law professors). Such a move would not only ambiguate the list, it would be a voluntarily self-ambiguating move.
More famously, Richard Gere has frequently refused even to acknowledge or discuss rumors that he is gay, except to say that “denying it would denigrate homosexuals.” By refusing to deny rumors of his homosexuality, Gere declines the invitation to place himself outside of a group of people he wants to validate and uphold.
But there are risks in ambiguation. It is important to be sensitive to the fact that this strategy will not be appropriate always and everywhere. At times, it might run counter to the goals of LGBT groups and individuals. To avoid these pitfalls, we suggest that allies ask themselves the following questions:

Am I trivializing sexual orientation?
Ambiguation can be viewed negatively if it appears to be “playing” with homosexuality in trivializing ways. Much is at stake, so ambiguate with care.

Do I predict that my audience will think less of me if they perceive me to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual?
Ambiguating may be most constructive if the audience is likely to hold a negative view of homosexuality. When heterosexual allies allow such an audience to place them in a disfavored category, they gain an opportunity to challenge some of the assumptions leading to that disfavor. It is also in these settings that they follow most closely in John Howard Griffin’s footsteps, as they gain a chance to empathize a bit with gay, lesbian and bisexual people.
If, on the other hand, the audience for the ambiguating act is gay friendly or gay neutral enough that it would make no difference to them, then ambiguation may be merely misappropriation of gay identity. Assume for the sake of argument that Michael, the Midwestern law professor, is heterosexual. Did his act of ambiguation succeed? The AALS list is not a Star of David. It carries no negative connotations — for the AALS that created it or for the now hundreds of people who appear on the list. Standing in solidarity with an oppressed group of people who are under attack is one thing; joining the group when it is being affirmed is another thing entirely.

Should sexual orientation be irrelevant to the discussion or transaction at issue?
Ambiguation creates noise or distortion in the signal of sexual orientation. If people’s “true” sexual orientation — that is, sexual orientation as lived and experienced — is appropriately part of the conversation or transaction, then “noise” created by ambiguation will be disruptive. If, on the other hand, signals about sexual orientation are being used to disempower or oppress gay, lesbian, or bisexual people, then interfering with those signals might be the moral thing to do.
We’ve already seen an example of each situation. To the extent Michael’s appearance on the AALS list inserts some noise into the signal, it might actually run counter to the goals of the list. In contrast, when Sarah’s house in Madison, Wisconsin was vandalized and her gay pride flag burned, flags on every other home might have helped to take sexual orientation out of the calculus of who would be safe, rendering sexual orientation irrelevant.

Can I entertain some internal ambiguity about my own sexual orientation?
All of us, straight and gay, have absorbed negative messages about homosexuality. If the process of ambiguating and the rationales for it help us to examine and perhaps resolve some of these negative messages, the process is constructive. Still, these are extremely difficult questions for many people to ask themselves. One key point about ambiguation is that it should be authentic and true. So much harm has been done by the closet and the deception it requires. We should avoid deceptive remedies, even if they have noble goals.

Would Lambda Approve?
The LGBT community is less likely to support trivializing or self-aggrandizing attempts at ambiguation and more likely to support ambiguation that reflects genuine introspection or is deployed when sexual orientation should not be relevant to the question at hand. In some ways, our substantive questions reflect the kinds of concerns that community members have often raised. To measure this, you could personify the community in an organization like Lambda and imagine the response your ambiguation would get.

Ambiguation in Action
Finally, if it’s OK, then how exactly would an ally go about ambiguating? The following list provides a few suggestions of the sort of thing one could do or say to create an ambiguating effect. Note that while these suggestions falls short of actual misrepresentation, they all raise questions about sexual orientation. And to the extent the speaker allows those questions to go unanswered, others might rethink their assumptions about when and why sexual orientation is relevant.

1. Avoid gender specific terms like “husband” or “father” and instead use terms like “partner” and “parent.”
2. Fly a gay pride flag from your home or put one in sticker form on your car.
3. Wear a pink triangle button or other gay-affirmative symbol. Simply wearing a T-shirt that says “I support gay marriage” can send a powerful message and raise questions.
4. When discussing gay people and their perspectives, experiment with phrasing that aligns you with gay and lesbian people without clearly identifying your own sexual orientation. For example, say something like “those of us who are gay might take umbrage at the claim that child rearing does not occur in families headed by same-sex couples.” Particularly if the audience for this sentence contains people with anti-gay sentiments, a sentence that potentially aligns you with gay people may be an equality-enhancing move.
5. When a person says something to suggest that he or she has misperceived your sexual orientation, think carefully before jumping to correct. If correcting the misperception will raise that person’s estimation of you, it might be better to remain in their disfavored category.
The key element in all of these examples is a willingness to occupy a large, uncharted space in which sexual orientation is unassigned, where multiple realities or possibilities are entertained, and where heterosexual people reflect long and hard before they expend any energy to distinguish themselves from gay, lesbian and bisexual people.
Creating critical masses of heterosexual people willing to take these risks could be one of the central challenges of gay rights advocacy in the 21st century.

A couple of comments I found particularly helpful and with which I would concur:
Jens wrote:

“Privileges”, at least in this context, are not merely “rights”. Privilege is unequal access: “a special right … granted or available only to a particular person or group of people” [New Oxford American Dictionary]. Eliminating privilege thus means fairer access to rights.
“Heterosexual privilege” can be a tough concept to see. Two examples of a minor privilege come to mind. First: A bi female friend of mine once told me she was afraid to hold her girlfriend’s hand while they were driving [in Phoenix], because there were a lot of jacked-up trucks whose drivers could look down right into their small car and might yell insults at them, or worse. Second: my father, who is quite liberal, once mentioned that he was fine with people being gay, but on the streets in San Francisco why did they have to “flaunt it” by holding hands or kissing where people could see them?
Both illustrate a pervasive and invisible privilege: to be able to express affection to someone you love (or maybe just are flirting with), without the well-founded fear that you might as a consequence be yelled at, harassed, beaten up or even killed for it.

And Rob Rickner helpfully “unpacked the verbiage” this way:

The term “heterosexual privilege” seems to be used in this article to bring forward the benefits heterosexuals receive for being the dominant sexuality. Heterosexuals get lots of advantages … both legal and social. By calling it a privilege, the authors simply force heterosexuals to recognize the advantages they have, often unknowingly, received for most of their adult lives. This seems to be Step 1: recognizing the advantages you have. It may be a little alienating for an equality minded individual to have to admit they are higher on the totem-pole, but right now it is a reality we have to deal with.

Rob Rickner also cited as examples our points about Boy Scouts and “ambiguation,” and we’ll post longer entries about those soon.

Jennifer Gerarda Brown

But what we really want to stress here over the next week are a series of informational innovations that can promote equality in the military, in the boy scouts (and other discriminatory organizations), in marriage, and in the workplace. The Fair Employment mark fits right in with the theme of informational incrementalism. By certifying one piece of information – that a business does not discriminate – we might be able to induce a substantial number of employers to privately opt into ENDA, a proposed federal statute that Congress has been unwilling to enact.

The first chapter of our book discusses how we might set out to manage heterosexual privilege. We highlight three approaches: exploiting, renouncing, and disabling privilege. We also suggest informational strategies for implementing each approach. We’ll try to suggest factors that counsel allies to speak out specifically as heterosexuals, and others that suggest it’s better to leave sexual orientation ambiguous.

Over the next week, you’ll see the way our proposals attempt to harness the support of heterosexual allies, and the important role that information plays in that process. It shouldn’t surprise the readers of this blog that managing information turns out to be a powerful way to manage privilege.