|
Common Ground: Why Welfare Reform Is A Queer Issue
|
||
|
Introduction: Common Enemies Reasons For This Paper In the fall of last year, the Human Rights
Campaign (HRC), the largest gay and lesbian political organization in the country, endorsed Alfonse D’Amato for re-election
to the U.S. Senate. There was tremendous outcry against this decision, and hundreds
of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals wrote angry letters to HRC, many of them resigning their membership
(Boerner, 1998). There were
many objections listed by the protesters. D’Amato’s votes (in less
recent years) on LGBT issues, his support of other politicians who remain actively homophobic, his relentless opposition to
abortion rights, and HRC’s disregard for the opinions of New Yorkers, were some of the more widely reported objections
to this endorsement (Boerner, 1999; Dao, 1998; Nagourney, 1998). However, as much as I also shared those concerns, one of my other principle objections to the
endorsement was raised with much less frequency: D’Amato’s support of recent welfare reform. The omission of this fact from most lists of complaints about HRC’s endorsement continues to strike
me as problematic. It represents a widespread belief that welfare is not the
concern of queer organizations. This is evident by the fact that only a handful of LGBT organizations (including Empire State
Pride Agenda, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Southerners on New Ground) have ever officially taken a stand on welfare
reform. The fact that welfare is not considered
“a gay issue” upsets me. HRC staff and board, as well as similarly
mainstream LGBT organizations and individuals, have constructed a paradigm of what constitutes “a gay issue” that
I find to be too narrow. To assume that the only issues that are queer issues
are those that deal exclusively with queer people is to erase the multiplicity
of each of our identities. To assume that welfare is not a queer issue is to
assume that there are no queer people who are poor or women or people of color or transgender or HIV+ or immigrants or parents,
- because all of these groups are directly affected by welfare reform. In addition,
to assume that welfare is not a queer issue also assumes that being queer means that we have no connection to what happens
to the rest of the world. It assumes that, even if we are well off, we have no
interest in what happens to poor people, or communities of color or the labor movement.
It also assumes that we will not need their support on “our” issues, and, thus, we can afford to ignore
“their” issues. This paper intends to challenge each of these assumptions. An Overview of Welfare
Reform Welfare reform generally refers to the
passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRA).
(I use the word “reform” reluctantly, because it is my belief that the near-complete destruction of programs
is not true reform.) With the passing of the PRA, the federal government sharply
reduced basic "safety net" programs for low-income individuals, children, families, elderly and disabled people, and immigrants. The bill replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families (TANF) -- a block grant program with time-limited fixed funding. Each
state will receive a block of money for welfare programs based on the level of expenditures in 1994. There is no regard for subsequent changes in the state or national economies.
In order to qualify for these block grant funds, states must enact programs aimed at forcing welfare recipients to
"work" for their individual or family benefits. At least 35% of the state's public
assistance caseload must be working in exchange for assistance by 1999. It should
be noted that under a provision in the bill known as the “caseload reduction credit”, state’s work participation
requirements are reduced if its caseload requirements decline below the 1995 level. (U.S.
Congress, 1996) This caseload reduction credit offers a
perverse incentive to reduce caseloads by rendering individuals and families ineligible for aid. Thus, states may be led to reducing their caseloads by altering eligibility rules (despite the fact that
this is prohibited by legislation) as well as by deterrence and punishment.
Additionally, PRA allows states to deny aid to needy families. States
are actually prohibited from using block grant money to provide benefits to families receiving aid past a 5-year limit. States are allowed to set shorter time limits -- for both case aid and work slots. There is no federally mandated minimum time for which states must provide benefits. The authors of the PRA have stated repeatedly that much of the motivation for this
reform is to discourage the irresponsible behavior (“laziness”, “unwed motherhood”, etc.) that leads
people to depend on welfare checks. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that, when fully implemented, between 2.5 million and 3.5 million children could be affected by the bill's five-year
time limit. As some states have shorter welfare time limits this number could
potentially be much higher (Edelman, 1997). The Right
Wing
Throughout this paper, I make references to “the Right Wing”. I
use this term as a proper noun for convenience, because it is too burdensome to constantly repeat the list of individuals
and groups that comprise my definition of the Right Wing. This list includes
conservative and often (but not always) religious organizations and people that are actively engaged in pushing a shared reactionary
agenda in the political and cultural arenas of the Some of these organizations
are think tanks and foundations such as the Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, the Eagle Forum, and the Manhattan Institute.
Other organizations that I include under the umbrella of Right Wing are churches and religious organizations. These include, among others, the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Exodus
Ministries, Coral Ridge Ministries and the Promise Keepers. These organizations
share many goals and strategies that allow me to group them together. I also consider many individuals
to be leaders of the Right Wing. These include former and present politicians
such as Senators Ashcroft, Dole, Grahm, Helms, Lott, Nickels and Nunn, as well as Representatives Barr, Dornan, Gingrich,
Hefley, Istook, Largent, Riggs and Skelton. These individuals are merely examples
of the numerous politicians who have voted both against gay rights and for welfare reform. (ACLU
Voter Guide, Christian Coalition Voter Scorecard) I consider them, and other
politicians like them, to be part of any reference to the Right Wing. Unless I indicate that I am
citing a specific group or individual, the use of the term Right Wing should be understood to broadly represent the large
agenda and many activities that these groups and individuals share. The queer community’s
silence on the issue of welfare reform is hard to fathom given that our enemies in the Right Wing see the connections between
the two causes so much more clearly than do our own organizations. In mission
statements, political party platforms, position papers and editorials, the Right Wing lumps together our movement with the
welfare advocates. On any list of societal ills that conservatives compile, there
we are, together – “the radical gay activists” and “the
welfare mothers”. (Christian Coalition, 1995; Cizik, 1992; Coral Ridge Ministries,
1997; Curtis, 1997; Diamond, 1996; Feulner, 1995; Peyton, 1996; Schlafly, 1996) Our movements have common enemies
for a reason: both question the authority and accuracy of the status quo. Those
in power understand the threat posed to them anytime anyone challenges the inequity of our society’s enforced gender
roles. Similarly they see the same threat to their power when others challenge
society’s distribution of wealth. If we are fighting the same enemies,
does it not make sense to see our battles as related? Do we not build more strength
that way? Goals In the first half of this paper,
I hope to make clear some of the philosophical, political and practical commonalties that exist between the welfare rights
movement and the queer liberation movement. I will attempt to demonstrate this
by focusing heavily on the common strategies used by the Right Wing against both communities. In the second half of this
paper, I use some of the information that I have compiled while researching this subject to illustrate a few of the ways in
which queer people have already been affected by welfare reform. Due to the lack
of research that exists about this topic, my information is anecdotal, but, nevertheless, I believe it is persuasive. This is not intended to be a comprehensive, systematic study of the effects
of welfare reform upon the LGBT community. That work has yet to be done. But I hope that this paper illustrates the need to do that work. There
are many progressive queer activists who are just as frustrated as I am about our community’s narrow construction of
identity politics, and this paper is intended to be an instrument for them. It
is my hope that this paper will serve as a useful advocacy tool for progressive queer activists--whether they are involved
in direct action on the streets or employed on staff at our largest organizations. Ideally,
this document will be useful to those people in their efforts to persuade our friends and our leaders to “make the connections”. Hopefully it will be used to help others see why welfare is a queer issue. Part I –
COMMON TACTICS: Making the
Connections Between the Right’s Assaults on
Gay Rights and Welfare Rights The relationship between welfare rights and gay rights can be seen clearly in the strategies of the Right. There are many similarities between the language and tactics of those fighting against LGBT rights and
of those advocating for the recent welfare “reform”. The fact that
the Right uses similar approaches in confronting both movements is no doubt related to a connection between both causes. The Right has been engaged in mounting a moral panic.
This moral panic was stimulated by the changing roles of women and queer people, and the rise of single-motherhood. The Right has used hot-button issues like homosexuality and welfare (and abortion)
as a strong rallying cry to stem the tide of change that threatens the historical power and control of rich, white, heterosexual
men. It is not coincidental that those hot-button issues are all concerned with
what families should look like and how much control we can have over our own bodies. This first half of this paper will explain how the Right Wing’s use of similar against
both communities makes evident the commonalties between the welfare rights movement and the gay rights movement. It will also explore other similarities that exist between these two populations. General Use of Stereotypes In order to justify cutting public assistance and other social welfare programs, the Right
Wing has been relentless in its use of stereotypes and myths about people receiving welfare.
The images of the welfare cheat (who steals for years from taxpayers because he doesn’t want to work), and of
the welfare mother (who keeps giving birth to child after child to increase welfare benefits) are two lies that have been
successfully sold to the public as truth. Also accepted has been the idea that
welfare has been a strain on the nation’s economy. Completely irrelevant
apparently, is the truth that the average adult on welfare is a woman with recent work experience who is caring for children,
or that the average mother on welfare has only two children, or that, even before the recent reform, welfare to the poor amounted
to less than 6% of the national budget. (Center on Social Welfare Policy, 1996). Similarly, for decades the Right has used stereotypes to justify discrimination against
LGBT people. Queer people are all too familiar with the long list of stereotypes
and myths that have historically been used against us. For example, the myth
that we are child molesters, long-proven false, still rears its ugly head when conservatives want to challenge our right to
adopt or to be visible in school classrooms. (Hetrick Martin Institute, 1993) Negative stereotypes such as these about welfare recipients and about LGBT people have been
used to control public opinion and to promote specific social policies. By constantly
perpetuating these stereotypes in the media, the Right has enabled them to become part of the public discourse and embedded
in the public consciousness. This makes it easier for politicians to tap into
these public sentiments to create social policy based upon these stereotypes. Accusations of “Bad Choices” One of the
stereotypes that have been perpetuated about both poor people and queer people is the idea that these groups have made bad
lifestyle choices. By depicting poverty and queerness as simple choices that
could be easily changed if one truly desires to, the Right Wing has created for America an excuse to ignore (or worsen) the
problems faced by those populations. The poor are depicted as lazy or irresponsible people who are choosing not to work. The facts (that they may not have the education or skills needed to find a job, or
that they may have health problems that prevent them from working or the reality that there are not jobs available) are ignored. Instead, the Right perpetuates a myth that depicts poor people as choosing to take
advantage of a society that cannot afford it (D. Carlson, 1997; Family Research Council,
1995; Schlafly, 1996).. Right Wing leaders also seem to love discussing single
motherhood as simply a bad choice. They have succeeded in creating in the public
the unfounded (and illogical) belief that poor women are casually, lazily, selfishly,
choosing to have extra children so that they can get an extra $3 a day from the government in welfare (Center for Law and Social Policy, 1999; Donovan, 1993; Wattenberg, 1998). Queer people are also accustomed to being depicted as having made a bad choice. Right Wing editorials, position papers, lobbying, ad campaigns and sermons continue to talk about homosexuality
as a destructive lifestyle choice that can be easily un-chosen by those who see the error of their ways. (Coral Ridge Ministries, 1997; Curtis, 1996; DeNicola, 1999) Nowhere
in their arguments is there room for the idea that for most people (straight or queer), changing their orientation is not
an option. And even less acceptable is the idea that people who do actively choose
homosexuality have made a perfectly acceptable choice. Both groups are also told that their sexual behavior is a bad choice. (See also “Government Control of Our Bodies” in the next section.) The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force makes this comparison: Single mothers
are being accused of irresponsible sexual behavior and being threatened with having to bear and raise their children without
financial support in the same way that people with AIDS are accused of irresponsible sexual behavior and left to die without
support. The Far Right has long used our supposed “bad behavior”
as the centerpiece argument in their efforts to strip us of our humanity and our rights.
We must stand against any such moral judgements that are used to justify disenfranchisement and cruelty. (Timoner, 1995) Having been
depicted by the Right as guilty of making bad choices, the gay community should be especially skeptical when we see those
same tactics being used against poor people. Not All Gays Are Rich The myth that queer people have more disposable income than do other people seems to have
been internalized by our own community, if we are to judge from the silence with which most LGBT organizations have greeted
recent welfare reform. How else to explain the conceptualization, by HRC and
many others, of welfare as “not a gay issue”? Yet the truth is that
LGBT people are not any wealthier than the rest of the population. The idea that gays and lesbians earn more than heterosexuals is a falsehood that grew out
of marketing surveys conducted by a few magazines. When these surveys are quoted,
what is usually omitted is that these magazines are directed at middle- and upper-class, urban, white, gay men (Badgett, 1998). Missing from this picture of gay men were poor gay
men and gay men of color. In addition, lesbians were not represented by most of these surveys. Since women still earn $.76 for every $1 made by men for the same work, many lesbian-headed households
bring in considerably less than do heterosexual ones. Also absent from this economic
profile were homeless queer people. Since LGBT youth disproportionately make
up 50% of the youth living on NYC streets, it can be assumed that including homeless people would bring down the average income
of queer people (Hetrick Martin Institute, 1993; Kruks, 1991). Furthermore, because of society’s relentless need to pathologize
all those who challenge gender roles, most transgender people find it difficult, if not impossible, to find any employment
at all (Blumenstein, 1999). Finally,
anti-LGBT workplace discrimination has been documented as a reality. Studies
show that homophobia diminishes queer people’s salaries and chances of promotion (Badgett,
1998). The present-day reality of life in the U.S. without non-discrimination laws is that any
survey conducted would have to be done with great care. It is possible that those
people who are most comfortable and secure being honest about their sexuality are those queer people who are well off financially. People with extra disposable income may have less to lose by being openly gay than
do low-income people who feel they cannot possibly risk being fired or kicked out of their families’ homes (Badgett, 1998). The LGBT community often uses the expression “we are everywhere”. Since this is true, and LGBT people do exist in all economic groups, it is important for gay organizations
to keep the needs of poor queers on their agendas. An LGBT organization that
doesn’t see welfare as a queer issue is defining queer as exclusively “white, wealthy gay men”. It’s Not Only the Poor Who Get Welfare Another stereotype that seems particularly relevant here is the myth that only poor people
receive welfare. By presenting welfare as the exclusive domain of the poor, the
Right Wing has managed to create resentment and indignation from middle- and upper-class citizens despite the fact that they
actually receive more government welfare money than do the poor. Business meal deductions, financial aid for students, lower tax rates on capital gains,
Social Security survivor benefits, accelerated depreciation, tax breaks to keep business from leaving a city, – these
are but a few of the many forms of government aid handed out to middle- and upper-class people and to corporations. Even before the recent welfare reform, poor people got less in welfare than did anyone else. (Moore, 1996) In 1992,
the government spent about $464 billion on entitlements that people receive regardless of how wealthy they may be. These include Social Security, Medicare, veteran’s pensions and retirement, and unemployment insurance
benefits. This is approximately 10 times more than was spent on AFDC and Food
Stamps in the same year. (Albeda, 1996) The health insurance that many middle- and upper-class people receive as a benefit from
their employer is not taxed by our government, even though it is a form of income. This
tax deduction cost the government $47 billion in 1992. The cost of providing
health coverage to the poor through Medicaid cost the government about ½ that amount. (Albeda,
1996) Another example of welfare to the middle- and upper-classes is the tax break given to homeowners
(which is not available to renters). These mortgage interest deductions from
income taxes cost the government almost $50 billion dollars in 1993, as opposed to the $17 billion that was spent on low-income
assistance and low-rent public housing. (Albeda,
1996) Finally, corporate America receives more welfare than do any group of individuals. Tax breaks and direct subsidies to big businesses cost the government far more than
all of our social services programs. Estimates of how much money is spent on
corporate welfare vary from $170 billion to $450 billion. (Barlett, 1998; Zepezar,
1996) It is not my argument, at this time, that all welfare to middleclass and wealthy families
is wrong. Rather, I mean to challenge the carefully constructed lie that only
the poor get free money from the government. When LGBT people hear any of the
lies that the Right perpetuates, it is important for us to counter them with the truth, - just as we do when the Right’s
lies are about us. Each time the lies of the Right are revealed, it weakens their
power to lie about us. B) Regulating Behavior Government Control of Our Bodies Part of the recent welfare reform has been directed at lowering the rate of “illegitimate”
pregnancies among women on welfare. Through “family caps”, the government
denies benefits for additional children born to women on welfare. (Center for Law and Social Policy, 1999; Project Vote Smart). In
addition, the PRA provides $100 million to be divided among the top five states that reduce “out-of-wedlock” births,
without increasing abortions. These new rules represents legislators’ efforts to tell poor women what they can and
cannot do with their bodies. It is an attempt by politicians to impose their
morality upon poor citizens by denying them basic safety net survival provisions. They
are not unlike the Hyde Amendment which bans the use of federal funds for abortions, making it harder for poor women to get
abortions, but did has no affect on wealthier women who can afford to pay for abortions themselves. Other efforts exist to control the reproductive behavior of poor women, such as the program in Kansas that
provides free Norplant (a temporary, 5-year, sterilization) to women on welfare. (Roberts,
1997; S. Thomas, 1998) All of these efforts parallel the way the government
has used social policy to also deny LGBT people control over their own bodies. As of the end of 1998, fifteen states continued to outlaw consensual oral or anal sexual
intercourse for heterosexual or homosexual couples. Six additional states apply
this law exclusively to homosexual couples. The penalties for engaging in sodomy,
which vary from state to state (and often from judge to judge), can range from a $500 fine to a 20-year prison sentence. (ACLU, 1998; Biemersderfer, 1998; Bull, 1998;
Scarborough, 1999). Transgender people are confronted with government control of their bodies every day. In a society where gender is narrowly defined (by mainstream culture, by doctors,
by mental health organizations, and, of course, by government) in dichotomous terms, transgender people are constantly being
told to use their bodies in ways that are not natural for them. Deviation from
cultural and legal norms is severely stigmatized, and not protected by the government in any way. These examples illustrate how elected officials have imposed very serious consequences for
LGBT people and welfare recipients who do not comply with what the government considers appropriate uses of our bodies. It is rare that LGBT organizations publicly make this connection between these two
populations. Many (but not all) in the LGBT movement do make the connection between
sodomy laws and the anti-abortion movement: many queer people understand the connection between controlling women’s
reproductive rights and controlling LGBT people’s sexual activities. However,
the connection of LGBT people to welfare reform’s family caps has not often been made explicit. We must fight any attempt to legislate sexuality, regardless of who is being targeted. Promotion of “Family Values” We need a system that can support people who are trying to do the right thing – who choose the right marriage partner, get married and have children. (Ebert,
1995). This quote, from Christian American magazine, was made by Christian conservative
presidential candidate Alan Keyes. It summarizes his views on both welfare and
gay families. His rhetoric, like that of most on the far right, is so similar
when it comes to these two issues, that it is impossible to distinguish about which subject he was speaking. (In this case, it was welfare.) The Right Wing’s relentless promotion of the “traditional” family is very
much connected to (but separate from) the issue of government control of our bodies.
The Right portrays both welfare recipients and LGBT people as threats to its notion of family. One of the most popular welfare myths conjured by the Right is that of the pregnant, unwed,
black welfare mother whose constant state of pregnancy and unrepentant laziness are not only a strain on the economy but also
a threat to traditional families everywhere. Despite the fact that this stereotype
is not accurate, it is used relentlessly by the Right to promote its own agenda, which is symbolized by a very particular
family structure. This ideal family is comprised of a heterosexual married couple with children (and this family is usually
white and headed by the father). Illustrating this point is the rise of the Promise
Keepers, a Christian male group that seeks a return to the two-parent, male-headed homes that are, allegedly, centered around
biblical scripture. (Center for Democracy
Studies, 1997; Diamond, 1996; Political Research Associates, 1997) In fact,
Right Wing leaders have been very up front and consistent in claiming that one of the goals of welfare reform is to stigmatize
single motherhood and to promote two-parent married households (United States Congress,
1996).. This stereotype of the pregnant black unwed welfare mother has been used as a link in portraying
all unmarried mothers (across class and racial lines) as dangerous threats to the institution of marriage and to the breakdown
of families everywhere. The cries of concern about increased “illegitimacy”
rates are voiced by those who describe of the breakdown of the “traditional” family as heralding the downfall
of the entire society. (Donovan, 1993;
Family Research Council, 1995; Kennedy, 1996; Marshall, 1995; Stanton, 1996) Similarly, LGBT people are also portrayed by the Right Wing as threats to the traditional
family unit, (and are also blamed for all of the societal ills that allegedly follow).
Gay marriage is depicted by conservative political and religious leaders as capable of undoing centuries of heterosexual
marital bliss. (This is despite the fact that many LGTB activists believe that
gay marriage is essentially a conservative element of the LGBT movement’s agenda, which, through the emulation of heterosexual
rituals, actually reinforces the validity of the institution of marriage, instead of actually challenging or undermining it.). Right Wing religious organizations have also lobbied relentlessly against domestic
partnership and queer adoption rights. The Right Wing clearly has a deep investment in sustaining the patriarchal structure of
American society. To maintain its powerful and influential position, the Right
uses these unfounded warnings about the threats presented to families by welfare illegitimacy and by homosexuality. Any discussion by the Right about “illegitimate pregnancies” and family structures, immediately
has implications for LGBT parents. The LGBT movement must recognize the dangers
that exist for us when the Right attacks welfare recipients in order to promote a two-parent heterosexual family. (Christian Coalition, 1995; Curtis, 1997;
Ebert, 1995; Peyton, 1996; Stanton, 1996) Tax Breaks for Heterosexual Families The Right has lobbied hard for tax breaks for families.
For example, Right Wing Senator Don Nickels sponsored the bill S 1134 that would provide family tax relief. This bill would essentially give welfare to middle class families with stay-at-home mothers (but not to
working mothers, divorced mothers, single mothers, etc.). As explained earlier,
tax breaks are forms of welfare that come without the stigmas that accompany welfare to the poor. Impoverished families and single mothers that rely on TANF are being told, by Right Wing politicians, that
they are undeserving of government aid. And yet, those same politicians then
turn around and advocate for that same aid to those families with mothers who fit their “traditional” image of
family. The poor are not the only ones who don’t fit that traditional image. The Right (in its battles against LGBT marriage, domestic partnership and adoption rights) has also lobbied
relentlessly against any government recognition of LGBT families. For example,
Senator Nickels was also the prime sponsor of two other bills (that eventually evolved into, and passed as,
the Defense of Marriage Act) which forbade gay marriages. This means that those
tax-breaks (welfare) that Nickels wanted for middle class families would only be available to heterosexual middleclass families. The Right has been very clear about determining what kind of family is entitled to government
aid, and LGBT people must realize that we are placed with poor single mothers on the “undeserving” side in this
equation. C) Lack of
Protection
It is interesting to note how the government has abdicated responsibility for both poor
and queer communities, while simultaneously providing protections and benefits to the dominant groups that oppress them. LGBT people are not protected from anti-gay discrimination, yet heterosexuals are afforded
all kinds of benefits and privileges in our society. (When LGBT people demand
comparable treatment, we are accused of demanding “special rights”.) Similarly,
while poor people are not protected from hunger or homelessness, these protections do exist for middle- and upper-class individuals
and businesses in the form of tax breaks and corporate welfare. In fact, the language used by the right in these situations is very similar. The “no special rights for gays” rhetoric is very
comparable to the “I have to work,
so why shouldn’t they?” language.
As a result of the recent welfare reform, the provisions made available (by federal, state
and local governments) to families and individuals for times of crisis have been slashed and major elements of the nation's
safety net have been dismantled. This has happened in a society where LGBT people
(lacking those “special rights”) can be fired or evicted at whim. In
New York, for instance, LGBT people have no statewide protection against housing or employment discrimination based upon sexual
orientation. The result is that we are extra vulnerable to losing our jobs or
homes (Empire State Pride Agenda, 1997).
If that happens many of us would be dependent upon government aid – the same aid that the Right has been abolishing. D) Obfuscation
of the Real Problems and Solutions Denying the Problem The Religious Right often argues that there is no inequity or discrimination in the American
system. The fact that women (the major recipients of welfare) are discriminated against economically
(earning less money than men do for working the same jobs) is not a problem, according to the Right. Right Wing politicians are not dealing with the real problems of the poor, such as the lack of access to
education or the lack of jobs under capitalist system that requires unemployment. Instead,
the religious Right frets about a culture of irresponsibility (“welfare dependency”, “illegitimacy”)
which it blames on a lack of morals (Family Research Council, 1995; Kennedy, 1996). Neither is the Right concerned about discrimination against homosexuals in the workforce. It vilifies attempts to create anti-discrimination protections as “special rights”. Similarly, the disproportionately high suicide rate of queer teenagers (Gibson, 1989; Ramafedi, 1991) has been portrayed, by the Right, as exaggerated (Schlafly, 1997). Nor has finding ways of decreasing anti-gay violence
ever been high on the agenda of the Right (much the same way it has never championed the cause of violence against women or
poor people). The LGBT community must realize that it cannot trust the Right’s definition of the
problem with regard to welfare, anymore than it can trust their assessment of LGBT discrimination. Blaming the Victims The conservatives in this country have a long history of blaming people for situations beyond
their control. Their attacks upon poor people and LGBT people are very similar
in this way. Poor people on welfare are portrayed as being responsible for their own poverty. Either they are too lazy to work, or they lack employable skills, or they never developed proper work ethics
and habits. As a result, workfare programs (like NYC’s Work Experience
Program) claim to teach employable skills, ethics and habits to welfare recipients, and punish those too “lazy”
to participate. However, missing from these discussions is the reality of life in the United States: THERE
ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS. Even when the economy is booming, as it is presently, there
are still more people than there are available jobs. And there will never be enough jobs. Capitalism, by design, will never allow for
full employment. Under a capitalist system, businesses require that the country
have an unemployment rate of 5% in order to keep wages competitively low. (Baker, 1995; Herbert,
1997) While making welfare recipients work has appeal as a punitive measure for conservatives,
it requires an answer to the question: work at what jobs? Perpetuating the idea that the poor are responsible for their own poverty, and mandating that they receive
job training will not change the fact that there are not jobs available for them once they are trained. (Finder, 1998; Greenhouse, 1998; Krueger, 1996; Reed, 1996) In addition, the few jobs that are available often remain unfilled, despite the fact that
there are far more unemployed people than there are available jobs. This is due
to many factors, including the following: many of the people on welfare have health or addiction problems; many of the jobs
available require higher skill levels than most welfare recipients have; the alleged “training” offered by workfare
programs is useless; most of the people on welfare are mothers without access to childcare; etc. (Abromovitz, 1997; Ackerman, 1997; Dorow, 1997; Greenhouse, 1997;
Hernandez, 1998; Preston, 1996; Swarms, 1998) This issue is a complicated one that cannot be addressed fully in the confines of this paper. It is important to note, however, that the Right Wing does not present it as a complicated
issue. They are content to present it as a simple problem ("people on welfare are lazy”) with a simple solution (“let them
get jobs like the rest of us”). Queer people are familiar with the tactic of blaming the victim. The example of AIDS is a clear one. When the epidemic began
in this country, gay men who were infected were called “too promiscuous” and blamed for the disease, whereas heterosexual
people (particularly those who contracted AIDS through blood transfusions or “cheating” husbands) were presented
as “innocent” victims who did not deserve their fate. That reality
has not changed sufficiently - a gay man who, in 1999, contracts AIDS through sexual contact will likely be blamed (“well he should have known better by now”) for his circumstance.
This was vividly illustrated in a recent issue of a publication by the Right Wing organization
Focus on the Family. An article stated that gay men “take sexual risks”
and “live dangerously” and “then turn to Health and Human Services to take care of them”. Gay men were worse than other risk takers, according to the article, because “skydivers and balloonists
never insist that the government set aside millions of dollars to pay for their accidents”. (DeNicola, 1999) The appeal of blaming the victim is clear. It
abdicates responsibility from society and deflects it onto the individual. Rather
than looking for the larger, harder solutions for AIDS (finding a cure or providing
access to care for all PWAs until a cure is found or establishing universal health care) or for welfare (creating jobs or acknowledging that full employment will never happen and planning accordingly) it is much easier
to blame PWAs or the poor for their own problems. The LGBT community must advocate for a government that provides basic survival support for
all of our members. We must realize that an injury to one is an injury to all. When we remain silent and allow society to determine who is and is not deserving of
help, we will inevitably be placed in the “undeserving” category. Solutions Should Come From Church Not State The Religious Right has the same response to both welfare and homosexuality: accept Christ
and all will be solved. Right Wing magazines and leaders who oppose any gay-rights legislation repeatedly urge homosexuals
to change their sexual orientation by joining their churches. Gay-conversion
organizations like Exodus Ministries use language like “there is hope for change through the power of God” when
they try to ‘recruit’ homosexuals into their organizations (Coral Ridge
Ministries, 1998; Curtis, 1996). Likewise, many political leaders have been arguing that welfare should be dismantled completely
and replaced by private charities, such as churches (Curtis, 1996; York, 1988). For example, in one article (titled “A Faith-Based Alternative to the Welfare
State”) the Right Wing makes the claim that “dependence on God obviates the need for dependence on the state”
(Marshall, 1995). Once again, we can see how the Right Wing uses similar language and tactics in their attacks
on these two populations. Political Research Associates, an independent research
center that tracks the activities of the Religious Right, describes the view of the Religious Right as follows: Accepting
Christ is the solution to homosexuality (e.g. ex-gay ministries) and illegitimacy. By
turning to God, women and homosexuals will conform to correct gender roles; women should be dependent on husband, family and
charity. Poor women and homosexuals should be made to rely on the church and
church charity in order to be healed in Christ, and make a permanent change. Economic
subsidies (welfare, special rights) should be eliminated for destructive behavior (laissez-fair at best should be applied
here), in some cases, economic incentives should be added to make people conform to Godly gender roles. (Goldman, 1999) E) Similar
Populations AIDS as a Common Dominator
One thing that both poor people
and queer people have in common is AIDS. Both groups have been disproportionately
plagued by HIV and AIDS. And both groups have organized around this issue. AIDS is one area where there is already a history of these two communities working
together (Stowell, 1999). There were tensions in the collaborative work done between these two communities - for example, the struggle between those who were working for universal health care and those just seeking
support for gay men with AIDS. Nevertheless, elements of the collaborative work
done between these two movements can begin to serve as a model for joint efforts to resist welfare reform. In fact, AIDS has made perfectly clear that the dichotomous concept of two distinct groups
is a false one, because AIDS has illustrated how these two communities have overlapping populations. There are many people with AIDS who are both queer and poor. Internalized Guilt For many
LGBT queer people, there is tremendous shame and fear associated with being queer. Society
tells us that being gay is a terrible, sinful thing, and many of us have internalized those beliefs. This is very similar to the shame and fear that many poor people feel about needing welfare. Many poor people are so ashamed about being poor that they will not seek aid. Of those that do, many are too ashamed to tell people that they have. Both groups have been taught by society to be embarrassed and guilty about their lives. Just as many queer people do not feel that they have the right to make their demands
for equality, many poor people feel the same. This guilt, fear and shame have
been obstacles to organizing in each community. And for queer people who are
poor the shame can be twice as great. (Stowell, 1999) Invisibility Another commonality between queer people and poor people is their invisibility. Poor people are very rarely mentioned, let alone represented, in election campaigns, policy decisions or
in mainstream media. Similarly, the television series “Ellen” did
not change the fundamental fact that the overwhelming majority of images and values in our culture continue to be heterosexist. This invisibility is not limited to the dominant culture.
Queer people and poor people (despite definite overlaps in those populations) are almost completely absent in each
other’s movements. Poor people are invisible in the LGBT community and
are absent from the its agenda. Similarly, queer people are not represented in
the concerns or platforms of the welfare rights movement. Poor queer moms are
invisible from virtually all discussion by the poor community and by the queer community.
In fact, they are even invisible in the rhetoric of the Right Wing. All
public examples of welfare mothers, however negative they may be, are all heterosexual, often leaving lesbian mothers completely
disconnected from the welfare rights organizations. As invisible as the queer community is in general, the impoverished LGBT community is substantially
more invisible. (See section A -- “Use of Stereotypes”.) The fact that there has been virtually no research about the impact of welfare reform on queer people illustrates
clearly the invisibility that each of these populations face in each other’s movements. (Bacigalupi, 1999; Stowell, 1999) F) All LGBT
People Are Affected Non-Poor LGBT People Will Be Affected Welfare reform does not only affect those LGBT people who are receiving benefits. It has effects on everyone, and all LGBT workers will be effected. A good example of this is NYC’s Work Experience Program (WEP). In the last few years, the City has drastically cut the union workforce by eliminating over 21,000 public
employee jobs. Although the City may not legally replace laid-off employees with
workfare workers, the City’s downsizing has used attrition and severance packages to replace union jobs with WEP workers. For example, the Parks Department has not hired anybody since 1991, but instead uses
thousands of WEP workers -- who now compromise 3/4 of their labor force. The
enormous supply of WEP labor allows government and non-profits to perform jobs without having to pay the market rate wage,
lowering wages for all working New Yorkers. If, as projected by officials, the City increases the number of WEP workers by 65,000,
approximately 33,750 paid employees would be displaced, or the bottom third of the workforce would see their wages depressed
by 15.4%, or some combination of the two. This weakens the power of unions, gives
paid workers less leverage in defending their rights and pursuing grievances, and eliminates some of the very jobs into which
welfare recipients might otherwise move. (Bradley, 1997; Fisher, 1998; Gonzalez,
1997; Greenhouse, 1997; Reedm 1996; Uchitelle, 1997) In addition, the Right Wing’s attack on welfare rights is part of a slippery slope. For many in the Right, welfare reform is just the beginning. Many fiscal conservatives are interested in reforming other social programs as well. Social security and Medicare have already been suggested as needing examination (and the Right Wing practically
had a collective coronary when Clinton attempted to introduce national health care).
Once welfare for the poor has been completely abolished, what will be next on the Right’s agenda? All LGBT workers are effected, as the rest of New Yorkers are, by welfare reform, regardless
of whether or not they are actually on the welfare rolls. Good Strategy Those who defend HRC’s endorsement of D’Amato have claimed that LGBT organizations
should concentrate on issues that are exclusively gay. (Birch, 1999) They have argued that the problems faced solely by queer people are difficult
enough, and that our organizations simply do not have the resources to address broader concerns, even if they wanted to. This argument, while seemingly logical, does not take into account a couple of points. Firstly, HRC and many of our major LGBT organizations are largely supported by middle class,
white memberships. Queer people who are not white or who are poor have not generally
felt represented by many of our larger organizations, and, thus, have not joined them.
(Boerner, 1999; Vaid, 1995) They have not felt that the organizations
were concerned with issues that affected them. Expanding the scope of the work
done by some of our LGBT groups might very well increase the number of queer people who join and support those organizations. In short, taking on more issues could also increase the political base and resources
available to the organization. Secondly, even if one does not see (or care about) the overlap in their populations, it
makes good strategic sense for the LGBT community to support welfare rights. Since
we are estimated to comprise only 10% of the population, we will never win our rights by majority vote. Clearly we must rely on heterosexual allies to help us in our struggles.
And while our families or friends have occasionally proven to be valuable allies, they are not, in and of themselves,
an organized political force. We must work in coalition with other existing progressive
movements in order to gain enough strength to move our agenda further. We need, and constantly request, support for our fight from women’s organizations,
people of color groups, and the labor movement. Coretta Scott King, for example,
has been asked to speak out in favor of gay rights on numerous occasions, and has proven to be a loyal ally. For how much longer can we expect her to work for gay rights when most of our gay leaders have been so
inactive about issues of concern “exclusively” to people of color. Why
should we expect the support of leaders in other movements if we don’t offer ours to them? (Carter, 1999) The ability of the Right Wing to present all progressive movements as linked together (and
as common enemies to all conservatives) has helped them to rally the masses and organize against all of us. One of the strengths of the Right, and one reason that it is powerful
enough to control public discourse, is that it understands the connections between the different progressive movements, and
plans accordingly. Part II - COMMON PROBLEMS: Specific Examples
of How Welfare Reform Has Affected
LGBT People Having established the commonalties that exist between the queer community and the poor,
I now present some illustrations of concrete ways in which LGBT people have felt the impact of welfare reform. This section
is intended to be just the tip of a very large iceberg, and to present just a few illustrations of concrete ways in which
LGBT people have felt the impact of welfare reform. LGBT people who are poor
have been affected by the welfare reform of recent years in two ways. Firstly,
they have experienced the same devastation that all poor people have. Secondly,
there are ways that they have been affected differently – specifically because they are LGBT. My aim is to present some examples of each. Most of the information here was collected via interviews with staff at several LGBT-serving
agencies, and very often the information that they had available was anecdotal or limited in scope to their clients or members. I am fully aware that, thus, the information presented here is not comprehensive. It is my hope, however, that these preliminary findings demonstrate sufficiently the
need for a systematic, comprehensive study of this topic. The examples that follow illustrate some very tangible results of welfare reform in the
queer community. However, there is other less measurable or concrete fall-out
from the changes in welfare policies. Increased levels of stress and fear among
poor LGBT people are even harder to document, and there’s reason to believe that such psychological damage has occurred. A case manager at the Michael Callen-Audre Lorde Community Health Center, a health facility
for LGBT people, described to me one such example. People with HIV are covered
by the Division of AIDS Services and Income Support (DASIS) and are thus eligible for more benefits than are poor people with
other chronic illnesses (NYC HRA, 1999).
Thus, there has been an increasing amount of resentment and anger from HIV- people towards HIV+ people. In addition, explained this case manager, impoverished sick people have been increasingly expressing to
her the desire to become HIV+ so that they can have access to enhanced government benefits that they desperately need (Vasquez, 1999). It is difficult to gauge what other kinds of emotional
or psychological results have occurred in the aftermath of welfare reform. The
following section is limited to more tangible effects. They are disturbing enough.
A) A RISE
IN POVERTY AMONG LGBT PEOPLE Homelessness Has Increased Among LGBT
People The Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center’s Department of Mental Health and Social
Services has reported an increase in homelessness among its clients since the passage of the 1996 welfare reform laws. In 1996, 5% of the Center’s clients were homeless.
In 1998 that figure had more than doubled to 12%. David Schwing, Director of the Center’s substance abuse program, believes that the increase in homelessness
is directly related to the dismantling of government safety net systems which used to provide enough support to keep his recovering
clients off the streets (Schwing, 1999). Prostitution Has Increased Among Homeless
LGBT Youth According to the Hetrick-Martin Institute, about ½ of the youth living on the streets of
NYC identify as LGBT. These youth usually became homeless when they were kicked
out of their homes for being LGBT, or when they ran away from home to escape abuse related to their being LGBT. In 1994, a study conducted by Green Chimneys found that 75% of homeless youth survived by working as prostitutes
(Mallon, 1994). David Pumo, Director
of the Lesbian and Gay Youth Project of the Urban Justice Center states that “it is my belief that that number has gone
up” as a result of welfare reform, since it is so much harder to access benefits that would provide a safety net. In order for someone under the age of 21 to collect benefits, he or she must live at home
with their family, unless they can prove that living at home is impossible. According
to Pumo, obtaining that proof is extremely difficult. Pumo cites two examples
of youth who should have been eligible for aid, but who were unable to provide the evidence they needed to prove that they
could not live at home. In the first case, a sixteen-year-old boy was driven
by his mother to NYC from Texas, thrown out of the car and abandoned, because he was gay.
His mother, who turned around and drove back to Texas, refused to help provide evidence that she had done this. In the second example, a seventeen-year-old boy felt safer living on the streets than
he did living with a grandmother who was tremendously homophobic. The grandmother
refused to sign any document saying that he could not live with her (because she stated he could stay with her, in her homophobic
environment) and, thus, the boy was ineligible for government aid. As a result of these new welfare regulations, those
LGBT youth who are living on the streets are finding it harder to get government aid and are turning to prostitution, as a
means of survival, at a higher rate than before welfare reform (Pumo, 1999). Hunger Has Increased “As a result of welfare reform, the need for food has increased tremendously,”
says John Magisano, Development Director of The Metropolitan Community Church, an LGBT religious organization. Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) runs a food pantry program that serves meals to the hungry. About 1/3 of those fed are LGBT. MCC has increased the number of meals served in order to keep up with the huge increase
in demand for food since welfare reform. MCC has had to adjust staff positions
and funding systems in order to accommodate the increased demand for food. Magisano
says that he is positive that the tremendous increase in demands for food is a direct result of welfare reform. In 1996, before welfare reform, MCC’s food pantry served
1,600 meals each month. Presently MCC serves 3,300 meals each month (Magisano, 1999). This is
an increase of over 100%. B) ACCESS TO BENEFITS FOR LGBT PEOPLE Homophobic Welfare Workers Can Deny Benefits
to LGBT Recipients Since the recent reform, NYC administration gives to those employees who work at welfare
“job centers” increased discretion regarding who will get aid and who will be denied. According to Robert Bacigalupi, of Legal Services of New York, if a workfare worker simply does not like
an applicant, there are a variety of ways by which the worker can chose not to grant that applicant any aid. In a homophobic society, it should not be surprising that some workfare workers might not
like an effeminate man, an openly lesbian woman, or a transgender person. The
reality of how the new welfare system has been implemented is that there is no systemic
way of preventing those personal biases and bigotry from determining who gets benefits (Bacigalupi, 1999). Transgender People are Not Safe at Workfare
Sites The new welfare laws require that almost all recipients participate in some form of work
in exchange for their benefits. New York City’s workfare program does not
give participants any choice regarding the type of work he/she would prefer to do. Yet
those workfare sites assigned are frequently dangerous for transgender people. Roz Blumenstein, director of the Gender Identity Project, reports that the majority of her
clients were harassed, verbally and physically, at their workfare sites. Many
of them felt so unsafe at their sites that they chose to drop out of the program and give up aid. According to Blumenstein, “a majority of those people returned
to working the streets as prostitutes, where they felt safer” (Blumenstein,
1999). LGBT Homebound Seniors Can No Longer
Access Benefits With the
creation of “Electronic Benefits Transfer”, public benefits (such as food stamps and cash assistance) may be transferred
electronically to the recipient (and retrievable at a cash machine, for example), instead of by mail (State of New York, 1999). Advocates for senior groups have complained
that many relatively healthy senior citizens have failing vision and a lack of comfort with ATM machines that make this system
difficult. Homebound seniors face even tougher obstacles: they must depend upon
(and trust) a caregiver to go to the bank and access their benefits for them (Carlson,
September, 1999). Homebound seniors who are LGBT have a much harder time.
LGBT senior citizens have diminished social supports when compared to the general elderly population. Less than one in five LGBT seniors are currently living with a life partner, by contrast, nearly half of
the general population is currently married. In part because of the discrimination
faced from their family of origin, 66% live alone, as compared to 26% in the general senior population (Cross, 1999). In addition, LGBT seniors are less likely to have
children who can be their caregivers if they become ill
(Cross, 1999). SAGE reports having homebound members who lack caregivers to access their benefits for them
(Altman, 1999). As a result of not
having caregivers to retrieve benefits from a cash machine, it is likely that an LGBT
senior will have less access to benefits than will a heterosexual senior. People With AIDS are Inaccurately Denied
Aid Naomi Sunshine, Case Manager at Housing Works reports that New York government regularly
cuts off aid to HIV+ individuals “by accident”. All of her clients (about 40% of whom are LGBT) receive support from DASIS, and so they
are officially exempt from NYC’s welfare work requirements. However, she
regularly see cases where the City mistakenly sends threatening letters to clients telling them that they have missed their
work assignments and are about to be cut off. Even more often, her clients who receive Medicaid, Food Stamps and/or public assistance
have their cases closed inaccurately. At
any given time, about 5% of all clients have been inaccurately cut off from aid.
It usually takes 4-6 weeks to get such a situation straightened out (Sunshine,
1999). “I am not a conspiracy theorist at all,” says Sunshine, “but I have to
say that I do think that there is a connection between all the cases that are
‘mistakenly’ closed at any given time, and the reports that the City releases citing how the welfare rolls have
dropped.” Unfair Sanctions Cut Off LGBT Youth NYC welfare recipients are required to participate in WEP (the City’s workfare program)
in exchange for their benefits. While many homeless LGBT youth cannot access
benefits or participate in WEP (see above), those who are able to get benefits, find it very difficult to maintain them. Homeless LGBT youth, like other homeless people, find they are often unable to maintain
a regular schedule. Because so many of them are sleeping on the streets, with
no shower or alarm clock, and may be eating their meals at different places every day, it is next to impossible to adhere
perfectly to a set work schedule. Under the new welfare system, they are sanctioned
(i.e., punished) so frequently and randomly that they can easily lose their benefits (Toy,
1998). Individuals who, at their site supervisor’s discretion, are deemed non-compliant with
their work assignments are sanctioned and lose their cash assistance, Food Stamp and Medicaid benefits for set periods of
times, often permanently. According to David Pumo, it is “much easier to
get kicked out of WEP than it is to get fired from a real job” (Pumo, 1999). About 40% of WEP participants get sanctioned per month.
So many of these sanctions have been so arbitrary that the city wins less than
40% of appeals for "fair hearings" (Center for Community Changes, 1998; Toy, 1998).
Transgender People Have A Harder Time
Accessing Benefits One of the ways that the City has cut the welfare rolls has been by denying transgender
people access to aid. City service providers seem unable or unwilling to deal with transgender people. New welfare policies require tremendous paperwork and documentation, and this has been used against transgender
individuals. People with different genders listed on different documents are
often denied benefits. Housing Works staff report having to help transgender clients obtain letters from medical
and mental health providers to get the proper ID cards, so that they might be allowed to apply for aid. Non-transgender people need no such letters (Sunshine, 1999). In addition, transgender people face obstacles at the “job
centers” which welfare recipients are required to attend. People have to
wear “proper” business clothing to the job centers (which, for many, means going to clothing pantries for clothes)
and go on job interviews. For transgender people, this can present many problems. They are often faced with the choice of working in clothing in which they feel completely
uncomfortable, or wearing clothing that may be deemed “improper” and risk losing benefits (J. Carlson, 1999). C)
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBT PARENTS Welfare Regulations Discriminate Against
LGBT Parents In exchange for benefits, recipients must participate in workfare requirements, unless they
have children of up to two years of age. However, taking care of children other
than your own does not exempt you from work requirements. More often then not, LGBT couples who are raising children together are not both legally
recognized as parents. Often the birth mother or the adoptive father has a legal
recognition as a parent that her or his partner is denied. Thus, a lesbian who
is the other mother to her partner’s biological child, and may need to stay home to care for her infant, is not exempt
from workfare (Empire State Pride Agenda, 1997). This means that a lesbian
mother can be required to participate in workfare when a heterosexual “legal” parent would not. Welfare Regulations Do Not Recognize
Lesbian Parenting Arrangements Federal welfare regulations now require that states find "deadbeat dads" and make them pay
child support. The federal government may pressure and/or penalize a state that
provides support to a mother without first making attempts to track down the non-contributing father. However, many lesbian mothers conceive with the help of a sperm donor, often with an arrangement
that the donor will play no role, financial or emotional, in the raising of the child.
Impoverished lesbian mothers who refuse to identify the biological father of
their children risk losing their benefits (Empire State Pride Agenda, 1997). It is important to note that, conversely, a lesbian mom who was abandoned by her female
partner would receive no such “aid” from the government in forcing her ex-partner (the “deadbeat dyke”)
to help support the child (Stowell, 1999). D)
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBT IMMIGRANTS LGBT Immigrants Do Not Have Equal Access
to Benefits Despite more recent changes in the welfare laws, many legal immigrants still cannot get
full benefits. Legal permanent residents who arrived in the U.S. after August 22, 1996
are not eligible for government benefits (McGonigel, 1997; Silverman, 1998). If one of these immigrants was heterosexual and needed full welfare benefits, he or she
would have the legal option of getting married, becoming a citizen, and becoming entitled to them. LGBT immigrants cannot marry the person they love in order to secure these benefits. As a result, queer immigrants do not have the same access to benefits
that heterosexual immigrants have. Discrimination Against HIV+ Immigrants
Welfare reform has had “an overwhelming impact” on non-citizen LGBT immigrants,
according to Robert E. Banks, Esq., Director of Legal Services and Advocacy at Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC). Citizens can receive more than do those immigrants who are not citizens but who are Legally
Permanent Residents (LPRs). Similarly, LPRs are eligible for more benefits than
are other kinds of immigrants. In short, the less “documented” you
are, the fewer benefits for which you are eligible (Banks, 1999; Duque, 1999; Silverman,
1998). Since 1987, there has been a barring from this country of individuals who “have a
communicable disease of public health significance” (Patel, 1999) which includes
HIV+ individuals. However, according to sec 212 of that law, HIV+ immigrant people
can be admitted if they are the legal spouse of a citizen or LPR. Yet, because
they cannot marry, HIV+ queer people cannot become Legally Permanent Residents, whereas heterosexual HIV+ can. So, since as a result of recent welfare reform, Legally Permanent Residents have greater
access to benefits, and since queer immigrants who are HIV+ cannot become LPRs, then the result is that queer HIV+ immigrants have less access to benefits than do heterosexual ones. According to Banks, as a result of recent reform, about 80% of GMHC’s immigrant clients
do not qualify to receive government benefits (Banks, 1999) E)
BARRIERS TO RECOVERY LGBT People Forced To Choose Between
Recovery or Benefits Decisions
about treatment for substance addiction are being pulled from service providers and given to HRA, according to Barbara Ann
Perrina, Director of Lambda Treatment and Recovery Program. LGBT people are three times more likely to have substance addictions than are heterosexuals
and tend to need longer periods of time for their recovery (Perrina, 1999). For many of them, temporary abstinence is not indicative of health. The root issue (often related to their sexual orientation or gender identity) must be addressed or else
a relapse is likely. However, the NYC Human Resources Administration requires that after maintaining abstinence
for 60 or 90 days public assistance recipients are pulled out of their recovery program and required to work at workfare assignments
– regardless of whether or not the service provider believes there has been sufficient time in recovery. Because they do not have sufficient time in treatment, those LGBT people in recovery who have workfare requirements are less likely to maintain an extended period of sobriety
than are those without workfare requirements (Perrina, 1999). LGBT People Needing Welfare May Be Directed
To Homophobic Programs After an initial “assessment”, the NYC Human Resources Administration can mandate
drug treatment for people requesting public assistance. There is no systemic
mechanism for matching a client with a culturally appropriate treatment center (Perrina,
1999). Thus, an LGBT person seeking public assistance may end up at a heterosexist or homophobic
treatment program. According to Perrina, “if a client (whose sexual orientation
or gender identity is a root issue in their addiction) is mandated to a traditional treatment center by the HRA, they have zero chance of recovery”. What Can Be
Done? Hopefully by now the connection between welfare rights and lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender liberation is clear. The remaining question should be
what can LGBT organizations do to be involved in the fight against welfare reform? The answer is quite a lot. There is much that can be done by queer groups to help these two movements work together. To begin, issue a policy position
paper. The staff and board of LGBT organizations can work together to develop
a strong public stand against the draconian measures that have been passed off as welfare “reform”. In doing so, LGBT agencies can help their constituencies see these connections more clearly. Next, get involved with campaigns that are challenging
new welfare regulations. In New York City, there are various welfare rights
campaigns that would welcome the support of queer organizations. Speak to your
organization’s Executive Director or your Board of Trustees and convince them to do any of the following: Sign the Pledge of Resistance. The Urban Justice Center
and the Judson Memorial Church have spearheaded a campaign asking organizations to pledge not to become workfare sites. (The City needs workfare sites in order to expand its workfare program further into
the not-for-profit arena). Hundreds of not-for-profits across the City have already
signed this pledge. Join the Economic Security Campaign. This
new campaign has been organized by the Welfare Reform Network, a coalition of welfare advocacy organizations. The Economic Security Campaign advocates for a variety of economic
justice rights – including an increase in the minimum wage, childcare availability and changes in welfare laws. Prepare for 2002. That is the year that the
national welfare reform laws expire. At the point, our national leaders will
be considering whether or not to renew them, change them or let them expire. Be
ready to take a stand by lobbying politicians, educating your membership and working in coalition with other groups to have
a solid strategy in place by then. Initiate contact with a welfare-rights organization. You need
not wait to be approached first by advocates for the poor. Be the first to develop
important coalitions with other movements. On the next page is a list of organizations
that are doing work on welfare reform, which would welcome the support of the LGBT community. Engage in some organizational self-reflection. The
absence of welfare reform from the agenda of most LGBT agencies indicates a clear class-bias in the priorities of these institutions. A crucial first step in any welfare work may be examining those biases in our own
work environment. There are many questions that queer organizations can consider:
Do we provide services to queer people of all economic backgrounds? Are our events
accessible to those with limited income? Do
our institutional priorities reflect the needs of non-white, non-middle-class members?
Serious exploration of these questions may be the most important response your agency undertakes. ORGANIZATIONS TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION AND ACTION The Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law 275 Seventh Avenue,
12th Floor New York, NY 10001-6708 (212) 633-6967 A national welfare
law and policy organization which works with, and on behalf of, poor people to ensure them adequate public income support.
Community Food Resource Center 90 Washington Street,
27th Floor New York, NY 10006 (212) 344-0195 They do research
about, and provide direct service to, low-income New Yorkers. Community Voices Heard 115 E. 23rd
Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10010 (212) 674-1946 An organization of
low-income people and public-assistance recipients, currently working on jobs creation. Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies 281 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10010 (212) 777-4800 An umbrella organization
for more than 200 human service agencies that work in the areas of income security, child welfare, aging and HIV/AIDS. Legal Services for New York 359 Broadway New York, NY (212) 431-7200 National Employment Law Project 55 John Street, 7th
Floor New York, NY 110038 (212) 285-3025 Works to improve
work standards and government systems of support for low-wage workers, the poor and the unemployed. Urban Justice Center 666 Broadway, 10th
Floor New York, NY 10012 (212) 533-0540 ext.
318 Organizing welfare
recipients and spearheading the Pledge of Resistance. Welfare Reform Network 281 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10010 (212) 777-4800 A coalition of welfare
rights advocates. Welfare Rights Initiative Hunter College Center
for the Study of Family Policy 695 Park Place, Room
E1209 New York, NY 10021 Organizes CUNY students
on welfare. |
|
|
|
Enter supporting content here
|
||