“Why is welfare policy a gay issue?” In my years as the executive director of Queers for Economic Justice, I was asked this question countless times. For the most part, welfare is not considered “a gay issue.” As I discuss in the introduction to this issue of S&F Online, our national LGBT organizations have a constructed a paradigm of what constitutes “a gay issue” that I find to be too narrow. The same is true for many antipoverty organizations. 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-positive or immigrants or parents—because all of these groups are directly affected by welfare policy. 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, 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. Such myopic thinking has left our political movement isolated and more importantly, it has left the most disenfranchised in our communities without a social safety net.
“为什么福利政策是一个和同性恋有关的议题？”在我担任同性恋经济正义的执行董事的这些年里，我被无数次地问到了这个问题。在大多数情况下，福利不被视为“同性恋议题”。正如我在S＆F Online的这个问题的介绍中所讨论的那样，我们的国家LGBT组织构建了一个范式，即什么构成了“和同性恋有关的议题”，我发现范围太窄了。许多反贫困组织也是如此。假设和同性恋有关的议题的唯一问题是那些应付同性恋人群的人消除我们每个身份的多样性。假设福利不是一个和同性恋有关的议题，就是假设同性恋群体中没有穷人或女性或有色人种或跨性别者或艾滋病阳性的人或移民或父母—因为所有这些群体都直接受到福利政策的影响。此外，假设福利不是一个和同性恋有关的议题，也是假设成为同性恋意味着我们与世界其他地方的情况无关。它假定，即使我们处境变好，我们也不会对穷人，有色人种群体或劳工运动所发生的事情感兴趣。它还假设我们不需要他们对“我们的”议题的支持，因此我们可以忽视“他们的”议题。这种近视思维使我们的政治运动孤立无援，更重要的是，它在没有社会安全网的情况下让我们的社区被剥夺了最多的权利。
Despite the LGBT movement’s inability to make a connection between welfare rights and gay rights, the right wing of this country definitely sees a connection. Their understanding of the similarities of these two movements can be seen clearly in the strategies with which they have attacked both. There are many similarities between the language and tactics of those fighting against LGBT rights and of those who advocate for the complete end of the social safety net. By understanding the ways the right has used similar methods of oppression against these movements, both movements can be better equipped to fight back collectively.
尽管LGBT运动无法将福利权利与同性恋权利联系起来，但这个国家的右翼们肯定会看到一种联系。 他们对这两种运动的相似性的理解可以从他们攻击两者的策略中清楚地看出来。 在反对LGBT权利的人和那些主张完全消除社会安全网的人的语言和策略之间有许多相似之处。通过了解右派们如何使用类似的压迫这些运动的方法，两种运动都可以更好地进行集体反击。
Dismantling the Social Safety Net
拆毁社会安全网
In 1996, Congress and President Clinton passed and implemented the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRA). 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). Although it is important to support AFDC, it is also important to recognize that until the 1960s and the rise of the welfare rights movement, AFDC served relatively few single mothers, especially black single mothers; was administered in an arbitrary fashion by local welfare agencies; and highly scrutinized and regulated the lives of women who did receive welfare. The welfare rights movement had made AFDC more of an entitlement in the sense that more people received it and many arbitrary and intrusive practices of local welfare officers were eliminated, at least for a time.
1996年，国会和克林顿总统通过并实施了“个人责任和工作机会和解法案”（PRA）。随着PRA的通过，联邦政府大幅减少了针对低收入个人，儿童，家庭，老年人和残疾人以及移民的基本“安全网”计划。该法案取代了援助受抚养子女家庭（AFDC）和贫困家庭临时援助（TANF）。虽然支持AFDC很重要，但同样重要的是要认识到，直到1960s和福利权利运动的兴起，AFDC服务的单身母亲相对很少，特别是黑人单身母亲;由当地福利机构以任意方式管理;并且对接受福利的妇女的生活进行了高度审查和监管。福利权利运动使AFDC更多地成为一种权利，因为更多的人接受了AFDC，并且至少在一段时间内消除了当地福利官员的许多任意和侵扰性的做法。（克林顿和民主党的主流都是右派，是资本主义哈巴狗，他们自然是憎恨福利国家的，呵呵。）
As the focus on the PRA was to move people off assistance and into employment, TANF was a block grant program created under the PRA where states received time-limited blocks of money for welfare programs. In order to qualify for these block grant funds, states were required to enact programs aimed at forcing welfare recipients to “work” for their individual or family benefits (without valuing child rearing as work or providing sufficient child care options for those mothers forced to leave their children to go to work). Workfare was a relatively limited program in terms of the numbers of women who formerly would have been eligible for AFDC. The vast majority of low-income single mothers were affected in two ways: 1) by being forced to take low-paying jobs in order to access job-related benefits such as childcare assistance, housing subsidies, transportation vouchers, etc., and; 2) by being sanctioned for not meeting requirements, that is, denied any benefits, including job-related ones. PRA basically allowed 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 lifetime five-year limit. Welfare changed from a needs-based entitlement program to a short-term aid program. The language of PRA states repeatedly that much of the motivation for this reform is to discourage the irresponsible behavior (code for “laziness,” “unwed motherhood,” etc.) that allegedly leads people to depend on welfare checks. However, the main effect of PRA was not that people had to work for their benefits but that the numbers of single mothers receiving cash assistance plummeted.
由于对PRA的关注是让人们脱离援助和就业，TANF是在PRA下创建的整笔拨款计划，各州为福利计划提供了有时限的资金。为了有资格获得这些整笔拨款资金，各州必须制定旨在强迫福利领取者为其个人或家庭福利“工作”的计划（不将抚养儿童工作视为工作或为被迫离开的他们的孩子去上班的母亲提供充分的托儿服务）。就曾经有资格获得AFDC的女性人数而言，工作福利计划相对有限。绝大多数低收入的单身母亲受到以下两种方式的影响：1）被迫从事低薪工作，以获得与工作有关的福利，如儿童保育援助，住房补贴，交通代金券等; 2）因不符合要求而受到制裁，即被剥夺任何福利，包括与工作相关的福利。 PRA基本上允许各州拒绝向有需要的家庭提供援助。实际上，禁止各州使用整笔补助金为接受援助的家庭提供终身限额五年的福利。福利从基于需求的权利计划转变为短期援助计划。 PRA的语言反复指出，这项改革的大部分动机是阻止不负责任的行为（例如“懒惰”，“未婚母亲”等）据称导致人们依赖福利。然而，PRA的主要影响并不是人们不得不为他们的福利而工作，而是接受现金援助的单身母亲的数量急剧下降。（剥削阶级的懒鬼们指责被压迫的单身母亲们“懒惰”，真是恶心）
How did the complete dismemberment of this limited yet important entitlement program come to pass? It happened through years of work by the right wing in this country to demonize the poor, and they did so by using the same tactics they used against LGBT people. For decades the right has been engaged in mounting a moral panic. This moral panic was stimulated by the changing roles of women and queer people; the rise of single motherhood; and changes in economic structures, including deindustrialization in the United States and the expansion of global competition. The right has used hot-button issues like homosexuality and welfare (and abortion and immigration) as a strong rallying cry to draw a complex coalition of people into efforts to stem the tide of change that threatens the historical power and control of rich, white, heterosexual men. The people who are recruited into this coalition, while they tend to be heterosexual, are often those who are not insulated from the consequences of a turbulent and insecure economy. Although they are not the rich, they tend to be invested in their whiteness and marital status as a source of pride and identity. Given these investments in the embodiment of identity, it is not coincidental that these hot-button issues have trafficked in stereotypes and have been based in conservative notions of what families should look like and how much control we can have over our own bodies.
完全拆毁这个有限但重要的权利计划是如何实现的？它通过这个国家右翼的多年工作发生了，通过妖魔化穷人，他们通过使用他们用来压迫LGBT人群的相同策略来实现这一目标。几十年来，这项权利一直在引发道德恐慌。女性和同性恋者角色的变化刺激了这种道德恐慌;单身母亲的崛起;和经济结构的变化，包括美国的去工业化和全球竞争的扩大。右派们利用热门问题，如同性恋和福利（以及堕胎和移民）作为一种强烈的号召力，将人们的复杂联盟吸引到阻止威胁到富人，白人和异性恋男人们的历史权力和控制权的变革潮流的努力中。被招募进入这个联盟的人，虽然他们往往是异性恋者，但往往是那些没有受到动荡的和不安全的经济后果影响的人。虽然他们不是富人，但他们倾向于将自己的白人身份和婚姻状况作为骄傲和身份的来源。鉴于这些对身份体现的投资，这些热点问题在刻板印象中被贩卖并且基于保守观念，即家庭应该是什么样子以及我们对自己的身体有多少控制权，这并非巧合。
Perpetuating Stereotypes
延续刻板印象
In order to justify cutting public assistance and other social welfare programs, the right 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 does not 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 seared into the brain of the average American. The idea that welfare has been a strain on the nation’s economy has also become widely accepted. The truth—that even before the Clinton administration’s welfare reform the average adult on welfare was a woman with recent work experience who was caring for children; that the average mother on welfare had only two children; or that even before welfare reform, welfare to the poor amounted to less than 6 percent of the national budget—is apparently completely irrelevant.
为了证明削减公共援助和其他社会福利计划的合理性，右派们一直坚持使用关于接受福利的人的刻板印象和神话。福利欺骗的图像（由于他不想工作而从纳税人那里偷窃了多年），以及福利母亲（在生孩子之后继续生孩子以增加福利待遇）这两个谎言已经成功地融入了普通美国人的大脑。 福利对国家经济造成压力的想法也已被广泛接受。 事实是——甚至在克林顿政府的福利改革之前，普通成年人的福利不过是给一位有近期工作经验的正在照顾孩子的女性提供的; 福利母亲平均只有两个孩子; 或者甚至在福利改革之前，穷人的福利金额不到国家预算的6％——这显然完全是无关紧要的。
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 ability to adopt children or to openly serve as teachers.
同样，几十年来，右派们一直使用刻板印象来合理化对LGBT人群的歧视。同性恋者们对历史上一直被用来反对我们的长长的刻板印象和神话列表都非常熟悉。例如，当保守派想要挑战我们收养孩子或公开担任教师的能力时，我们是儿童骚扰者，长期以来被证明是错误的，仍然有着丑陋的头脑。
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 them in the public consciousness. This makes it easier for politicians to tap into these public sentiments to create social policy based upon these stereotypes.
诸如福利受益者和LGBT人群的负面刻板印象被用来控制公众观点和促进特定的社会政策。通过在媒体中不断延续这些刻板印象，右派们使他们能够成为公共话语的一部分并将其嵌入公众意识中。这使得政客们更容易利用这些公众情绪来制定基于这些刻板印象的社会政策。
One of the stereotypes that has 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 desired, the right has created an excuse for the American people to ignore (or worsen) the problems faced by those populations.
关于穷人和同性恋者长期存在的一种刻板印象是，这些群体已经做出了糟糕的关于生活方式的选择。通过将贫困和同性恋描述为一个如果真正想要改变就很容易改变的简单的选择，右派们为美国人民忽视（或恶化）这些人面临的问题创造了借口。
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; 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. 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 three dollars a day in welfare from the government.
穷人被描述为选择不工作的懒惰的或不负责任的人。 事实是——他们可能没有找到工作所需的教育或技能; 他们可能有妨碍他们工作的健康问题; 或者没有工作岗位的现实——被忽略了。 相反，右派们延续了一个神话，它描绘了穷人选择从一个无法承受的社会中获得好处。右翼领导人似乎也喜欢讨论单身母亲只是一个糟糕的选择。他们成功地在公众中创造了毫无根据（并且不合逻辑的）的信仰，即贫穷的妇女随便的，懒散的，自私的选择生育额外的孩子，这样他们每天可以从政府那里获得额外的三美元福利。（三美元连塞牙缝都不够，还养小孩？右派们可真是无耻啊。）
Queer people are also accustomed to being depicted as having made a bad “lifestyle” choice. Right-wing editorials, position papers, lobbying, ad campaigns, and sermons continue to talk about homosexuality as a destructive choice that can be easily unchosen by those who see the error of their ways. Nowhere in their arguments is there room for the idea that most people (straight or queer) believe that changing their orientations is not an option. And even less acceptable is the idea that people who do actively choose homosexuality have made a perfectly good choice.
同性恋者们也习惯于被描绘为做出了糟糕的“生活方式”选择。右翼社论，立场文件，游说，广告宣传和布道继续将同性恋视为一种破坏性的选择，这选择很容易被那些看到他们的方式是错误的人所抛弃。他们的观点中没有任何地方存在这样的想法：大多数人（直的或同性恋）认为改变他们的取向不是一种选择。他们更不可接受这样的观点，即积极选择同性恋的人做出了一个非常好的选择。
Both groups are also told that their sexual behavior is a bad choice. Single mothers are accused of irresponsible sexual behavior and left to raise their children without financial support, in the same way that people with AIDS were accused of irresponsible sexual behavior and left to die without support. 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.
两组人群都被告知他们的性行为是一个糟糕的选择。 单身母亲被指控不负责任的性行为，并在没有经济支持的情况下抚养孩子，就像艾滋病患者被指控不负责任的性行为并在没有支持的情况下被丢在一边死去一样。 由于这些被右派们描述为做出错误选择的罪行，当我们看到同样的策略被用来压迫穷人时，同性恋社区应该特别怀疑他们。
Regulating Behavior
控制行为
A big part of the 1996 welfare reform was directed at lowering the rate of “illegitimate” pregnancies among women on welfare. Through “family caps,” the government denied benefits for additional children born to women on welfare. In addition, the PRA provided 100 million dollars to be divided among the top five states that reduced “out-of-wedlock” births without increasing abortions. Those rules represented legislators’ efforts to tell poor women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, as politicians attempted to impose their morality upon poor citizens by denying them basic safety net survival provisions. The rules imposed by the PRA are not unlike the Hyde Amendment, which banned the use of federal funds for abortions, making it harder for poor women to get abortions, but had no effect on wealthier women who could afford to pay for abortions themselves. Other efforts exist to control the reproductive behavior of poor women, such as the program in Kansas that provided free Norplant (a five year sterilization) to women on welfare.
1996年福利改革的很大一部分旨在降低领取福利的女性的“非法”怀孕率。通过“家庭上限”，政府否认了领取福利的女性生的其他子女的福利。此外，PRA还提供了1亿美元，用于分配给减少“非婚生子女”出生而不增加堕胎的前五个州。这些规则代表了立法者努力告诉贫困女性他们能够做什么和不能用自己的身体做什么，因为政客们试图通过剥夺他们基本的安全网生存条件来将他们的道德强加给穷人。PRA规定的规则与海德修正案没有什么不同，海德修正案禁止使用联邦资金进行堕胎，使贫困女性更难以堕胎，但对那些有能力支付堕胎费用的富裕女性没有影响。还有其他措施来控制贫困女性的生殖行为，例如堪萨斯州为领取福利的女性提供的免费Norplant（五年绝育）方案。（强加道德，呵呵，这和共匪的计划生育也没什么本质区别。）
All of these efforts parallel the way the government has used social policy to deny LGBT people control over their own bodies. We live in a country with a history of multiple states outlawing consensual oral or anal sexual intercourse for heterosexual or homosexual couples, and other states applying those laws exclusively to homosexual couples. Throughout our history, penalties for engaging in sodomy have ranged from death to a 500 dollar fine to a 20-year prison sentence. 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 the government often fails to protect transgender people from the resulting violence.
所有这些努力都与政府利用社会政策阻止LGBT人群控制自己身体的方式相似。 我们生活在一个有多个州有着禁止异性恋或同性恋伴侣进行双方同意的口交或肛交的历史的国家，而其他州则将这些法律专门适用于同性恋伴侣。 在我们的整个历史中，对从事鸡奸的处罚从死亡到500美元罚款到20年监禁。跨性别者每天都面临政府对自己身体的控制。在一个社会中，性别被狭隘地定义（通过主流文化，医生，精神卫生组织，当然还有政府）为两种，跨性别者经常被告知以他们以不自然的方式使用他们的身体。偏离文化和法律规范的行为受到严重污名化，政府往往无法保护跨性别者免受暴力伤害。
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 have made 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.
这些例子说明民选官员如何对不符合政府认为的适当使用我们身体的LGBT人群和福利接受者施加非常严重的后果。LGBT组织很少公开在这两个人群之间建立这种联系。LGBT运动中的许多（但不是全部）已将鸡奸法与反堕胎运动联系起来;许多同性恋者理解控制女性生殖权利与控制LGBT人群性活动之间的联系。 然而，LGBT人群与福利改革的家庭联系之间的联系并不常见。 无论谁被当成目标，我们都必须打击任何对性行为进行立法的企图。
Promoting “Family Values”
推动“家庭价值”
“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.”[] This quote, from Christian American magazine in 1995, was made by Christian conservative, then 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’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.
“我们需要一个系统，可以支持那些正在努力做正确的事情的人—选择合适的婚姻伴侣，结婚并生孩子。”[1] 1995年基督教美国杂志的这句引文是由基督教保守派提出的，然后是总统候选人Alan Keyes。它总结了他对福利和同性恋家庭的看法。 他的言论，就像极右的大多数言论一样，在这两个问题上是如此相似，以至于无法区分他所讲的是哪个主题。（在这个案例中，这是福利。）右派们对“传统”家庭的不懈推动与政府控制我们身体的问题密切相关（但又是分开的）。右派们将福利接受者和LGBT人群描述为对其家庭观念的威胁。（所谓的传统家庭，不过是私有制父权专制压迫下的奴隶制原子家庭罢了。）
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). Right-wing leaders have been very upfront and consistent in claiming that one of the goals of welfare reform is to stigmatize single motherhood and to promote two-parent married households.
最流行的福利神话之一就是怀孕，未婚，黑人福利母亲，她的不断怀孕状态和不悔改的懒惰不仅是对经济的压力，也是对各地传统家庭的威胁。尽管这种刻板印象并不准确，但它被右派们无情地用于推动其自身议程，这是一个非常特殊的家庭结构的符号化象征。这个理想的家庭由一对有孩子的异性恋已婚夫妇组成（这个家庭通常是白人，由父亲领导）。右翼领导人一直非常坦率和一贯地声称，福利改革的目标之一是污名化单身母亲并推动双人结婚家庭。
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, contributing to the breakdown of families everywhere. The cries of concern about increased “illegitimacy” rates are voiced by those who describe the breakdown of the “traditional” family as heralding the downfall of the entire society. As right-wing pundit Ann Coulter claims in her 2009 book Guilty, “Countless studies on the subject make [it] clear, look at almost any societal problem, and you’ll find it is really a problem of single mothers.”[]
怀孕，黑人，未婚的福利母亲的这种刻板印象被用作将所有未婚母亲（跨越阶级和种族界线）描绘为对婚姻制度的危险威胁，导致各地家庭破裂。那些把“传统”家庭的破裂描述为预示着整个社会垮台的人们表达了对增加“非法”生育率的担忧的呼声。正如右翼评论家Ann Coulter在其2009年出版的书“罪恶”中所说的那样，“关于这一主题的无数研究使得它变得清晰，几乎可以看到任何社会问题，然后你会发现它确实是单身母亲的问题。”[2]]
Similarly, the right also portrays LGBT people as threats to the traditional family unit (and blame them 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 queer people 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 challenging or undermining it). Right-wing religious organizations have also lobbied relentlessly against domestic partnership and queer adoption rights.
同样，右派们也将LGBT人群描述为对传统家庭单位的威胁（并怪罪他们为所谓的所有社会弊病负责）。同性恋婚姻被保守的政治和宗教领袖描绘为有能力消除几个世纪的异性恋婚姻的幸福。 （尽管许多同性恋者认为同性恋婚姻本质上是LGBT运动议程的保守元素，通过仿效异性恋仪式实际上强化了婚姻制度的有效性，而不是挑战或破坏婚姻制度）。右翼宗教组织也在不遗余力地反对内部伙伴关系和同性恋者的收养权。
The right 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.
右派们显然对维持美国社会的父权制结构有着深入的投入。为了维持其强大而有影响力的地位，右派们使用这些毫无根据的警告，来说明福利非婚生和同性恋对家庭造成的威胁。 右派们关于“非法怀孕”和家庭结构任何讨论都会立即对LGBT父母产生影响。当右派们攻击福利接受者以促进双人异性恋家庭时，LGBT运动必须认识到我们存在的危险。
Rewarding ‘Deserving’ Families
奖励“应当的”家庭
The right has lobbied hard for tax breaks for some families. For example, around the same time as welfare was being dismantled, right-wing Senator Don Nickels sponsored the bill S.1134 that would provide family tax relief. This bill essentially provided 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 stigma that accompanies welfare to the poor. Impoverished families and single mothers that rely on TANF are told by our elected officials that they are undeserving of government aid in support of their efforts to raise their children. And yet, those same right-wing politicians then turn around and advocate for that same aid to families with mothers who fit their “traditional” image of family.
右派们为一些家庭的税收减免游说。 例如，在福利被拆毁的同时，右翼参议员Don Nickels赞助了S.1134法案，该法案将提供家庭税减免。 该法案基本上为留在家中的母亲（但不包括职业母亲，离婚母亲，单身母亲等）的中产阶级家庭提供福利。如前所述，税收减免是一种福利形式，没有伴随接受福利的穷人受到的耻辱。依靠TANF的贫困家庭和单身母亲被我们民选的官员告知，他们不应得到政府援助来支持抚养子女的努力。然而，那些同样的右翼政客们随后转而向拥有母亲的家庭提供同样的援助，这些母亲符合他们“传统”的家庭形象。（拿穷人的钱补贴狗屁中产，呵呵，恶心的歧视压迫。）
The poor are not the only ones who do not 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, the same Senator Nickels was also the prime sponsor of two other bills that forbade gay marriages (and eventually evolved into and passed as the Defense of Marriage Act). This means that those tax breaks (welfare) that Nickels wanted for middle-class families would only be available to heterosexual middle-class families.
穷人并不是唯一不符合传统形象的人。 右派们（在反对LGBT婚姻，家庭伴侣关系和收养权的斗争中）也在不遗余力地反对任何政府对LGBT家庭的承认。例如，同一个参议员Nickels也是禁止同性婚姻的两个其他法案的主要担保人（最终演变为并通过了“婚姻保护法”）。这意味着Nickels想要为中产阶级家庭提供的税收优惠（福利）只适用于异性恋的中产阶级家庭。
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.
右派们对关于确定什么样的家庭有权获得政府援助的已经非常明确，LGBT人群必须意识到我们与贫困的单身母亲在这个等式中处于“不应得”的一面。
Blaming the Victims
责备受害者
The conservatives in this country have a long history of blaming people for situations beyond their control. Conservative attacks upon poor people and LGBT people are very similar in this way.
这个国家的保守派长期以来一直把责怪人们，要他们为他们无法控制的局面负责。保守派们以这种方式对穷人和LGBT人群的攻击是非常相似的。
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 a proper work ethic and habits. As a result, workfare programs (like NYC’s Work Experience Program) were immediately set up after welfare reform, with the goal of teaching employable skills, ethics, and habits to welfare recipients, while punishing those too “lazy” to participate.
领取福利的穷人被描绘为要对自己的贫困负责。 要么他们懒得工作，要么缺乏就业技能，或者他们从未养成适当的职业道德和习惯。因此，在福利改革之后立即建立了工作福利计划（如纽约市的工作经验计划），其目标是向福利领取者教授可雇用的技能，道德和习惯，同时惩罚那些过于“懒惰”而不肯参与的人。（资本主义哈巴狗们最常用的就是污名化穷人了，无耻的把资本主义制造的灾难推到穷人身上。）
However, missing from these discussions is the reality of life in the United States: There are not enough jobs. Even when the economy was booming, as it was during the Clinton era, there were still more people than there are available jobs. And there will never be enough jobs. In order to keep wages competitively low, capitalism, by design, will never allow for full employment.
然而，这些讨论中缺少的是真实的美国生活：没有足够的工作。 即使经济蓬勃发展，就像在克林顿时代一样，工人数目永远都会比工作岗位数目多。 而且永远也不会有足够的工作。为了保持具有竞争力的低工资，资本主义在设计上永远不会允许完全就业。（资本主义永远都会为了压低工资和控制工人而制造失业大军，这是资本主义的本性。）
While making welfare recipients work has appeal for conservatives as a punitive measure, 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 will never be enough jobs available for them once they are trained. This issue is a complicated one, and yet the right does not present it as such. 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.)
虽然让福利受益人工作对保守派来说是一种有吸引力的惩罚措施，但它需要回答这个问题：做什么工作？ 使穷人对自己的贫困负责并强制他们接受职业培训的想法永远不会改变一旦他们接受培训就永远不会有足够的工作岗位这一事实。这个问题是一个复杂的问题，但右派们并没有这样说。他们满足于将它作为一个简单的问题（领取福利的人是懒惰的）提出一个简单的解决方案（让他们像我们其他人一样工作。）
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 contracts AIDS through sexual contact will likely be blamed (“well, he should have known better by now”) for his circumstance. Discussions of black gay men on the “down low” continue to be dominated by a public discourse that simplistically vilifies men for not being safe enough to come out.
同性恋者们熟悉这种责怪受害者的策略。艾滋病的例子很明显。当这个疾病在这个国家开始流行时，被感染的男同性恋者被称为“过于淫乱”而被责怪要对这种疾病负责，而异性恋者（特别是那些通过输血或“欺骗”丈夫感染艾滋病的人）被称为“无辜”的受害者，不应遭受他们的命运。这种现实并没有发生足够的变化—一个通过性接触感染艾滋病的男同性恋者很可能会因为他的处境受到指责（“好吧，他现在应该更好的知道了”）。 关于“低下”的黑人同性恋者的讨论继续受到一种公共话语的支配，这种话语简单地诋毁了男人因为不够安全而不能出柜。
The conservative organization Focus on the Family made this very clear in a 1999 article, “Homosexuals Live Dangerously, Demand Protection.” The 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.”[]
保守组织“集中关注家庭”在1999年的一篇文章“同性恋的生活是危险的，需要保护”中明确表达了这一点。文章指出男同性恋者“冒着性风险”和“危险地生活”，然后“转向健康与人类服务部照顾他们” 。据文章称，“同性恋者比其他冒险者更糟糕，因为跳伞运动员和气球运动员从未坚持政府拨出数百万美元来支付他们的意外费用。“[3]
The appeal of blaming the victim is clear. It abdicates society from responsibility 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 people with AIDS [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.
指责受害者的呼声的目的很明确。 它推卸了社会的责任，并将其转移到个人身上。比起寻找更大，更困难的艾滋病解决方案（找到治疗方法或为所有患有艾滋病的人提供护理[PWA]，直到找到治疗方法或建立全民医疗保障）或福利（创造就业机会或承认完全就业将永远不会发生并相应地进行计划），将PWA或穷困归咎于受害者自己的问题要容易得多。
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 who is not deserving of help, we will inevitably be placed in the “undeserving” category.
LGBT社区必须支持一个为我们的所有成员提供基本生存支持的政府。 我们必须意识到，对一个人的伤害就是对所有人的伤害。当我们保持沉默并让社会确定谁是谁以及谁不应当被帮助时，我们将不可避免地被置于“不应当”的范畴中。
Replacing the State with the Church
将政府替换为教会
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. Likewise, many political leaders have been arguing for years that welfare should be dismantled completely and replaced by private charities, such as churches. For example, in one article, “A Faith-Based Alternative to the Welfare State,” the right-wing Family Research Council makes the argument that “dependence on God obviates the need for dependence on the state.”[]
宗教右派们对福利和同性恋都有同样的反应：接受基督，然后一切都将得到解决。反对任何同性恋权利立法的右翼杂志和领导人一再敦促同性恋者通过加入他们的教会来改变他们的性取向。像Exodus Ministries这样的同性恋转化组织使用的语言就像“通过上帝的力量有改变的希望”，[4]当他们试图将同性恋者“招募”到他们的组织中时。类似的是，许多政治领导者多年来一直争论说，福利应该被彻底摧毁，取而代之的是教会等私人慈善机构。例如，在一篇文章“福利国家的基于信仰的替代方案”中，右翼家庭研究委员会提出这样的论点：“依赖上帝就不需要依赖政府。”[5]（剥夺基本人权，然后强迫穷人跪舔教会，呵呵，真是恶心啊。）
The immediate impact of the 1996 welfare reform upon queer people was not so different from the impact it had upon other low-income people. However, the next 15 years brought about welfare policies and programs that have had very distinct implications for queer people.
1996年的福利改革对同性恋者的直接影响与其对其他低收入人群的影响并没有太大差别。然而，接下来的15年带来的福利政策和项目对同性恋者有着非常明显的影响。
Marriage Promotion
促进婚姻
One major product of welfare reform was marriage promotion, such as programs like the “Healthy Marriage Initiative.” These programs include a range of provisions designed to encourage women on welfare to get and stay married: deducting money from welfare checks when mothers are living with men who are not the fathers of their children, providing extra cash bonuses to recipients who get married, offering relationship and marriage education classes, and increasing monthly welfare checks for married couples. Several provisions specifically target Latino and African American communities. These programs were widely criticized by women’s organizations concerned about victims of domestic violence. However, the silence from the mainstream LGBT movement was rather widespread. Apparently, the threat that such programs posed to low-income lesbians who cannot legally get married was not of concern to most of our national LGBT organizations, presumably because the lesbians in question were low-income, and thus not of concern to our national organizations. I believe that economic security is a right that should apply to all people—single or married—and coercing poor women to get married in order to be able to survive is ineffective and disgusting public policy. We must also ask to what extent the push for gay marriage aligns with conservative and neoliberal modes of marriage promotion that are about establishing security and benefits through coupledom, rather than through public assistance provided by the government. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s support of gay marriage coexists with his overall economic austerity plan, including his various attacks on public services.
福利改革的一个主要产品是促进婚姻，例如“健康婚姻倡议”等计划。这些计划包括一系列旨在鼓励领取福利的女性接受并维持婚姻的规定：当母亲与不是孩子的父亲同住时，从福利支票中扣除金钱，为已经结婚的受助人提供额外的现金奖励，提供关系和婚姻教育课程，并增加已婚夫妇的每月福利支票。一些条款专门针对拉美裔和非裔美国人社区。这些方案受到关注家庭暴力受害者的女性组织的广泛批评。然而，主流LGBT运动的沉默相当普遍。显然，这些项目对无法合法结婚的低收入女同性恋者所构成的威胁并未引起我们大多数的国家级别的LGBT组织的关注，大概是因为问题中的女同性恋者是低收入者，因此被我们的国家级别的LGBT组织关心。我认为，经济安全是一项权利，适用于所有人—单身或已婚—并且强迫贫穷妇女结婚以维持生存是无效和恶心的公共政策。我们还必须问，同性婚姻的推动在多大程度上与保守主义和新自由主义的促进婚姻模式保持一致，即通过耦合建立安全和利益，而不是通过政府提供的公共援助。纽约州州长Andrew Cuomo对同性婚姻的支持与他的整体经济紧缩计划共存，包括他对公共服务的各种攻击。（促进婚姻的本质是方便男人更好的利用核心家庭奴役女人，特别是穷困的女人。）
Fatherhood Initiatives
倡议父权
Various fatherhood initiatives are related to these programs. In 2006, Congress enacted a new program, “Grants For Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood,” authorizing grants of up to 50 million dollars per year for activities promoting “responsible fatherhood.” These programs have their roots in welfare reform, which allocated millions of dollars for things like “Responsible Fatherhood Programs” and “Partners for Fragile Families.” These programs targeted unemployed and underemployed noncustodial fathers with a range of services designed to force fathers to provide things such as child support and to undergo parenting instruction. As with marriage promotion programs, these programs raise the question of what happens to women, such as lesbian mothers (not to mention domestic violence victims), who do not want biological fathers involved in their children’s lives.
各种对父权的倡议与这些计划有关。 2006年，国会颁布了一项新计划，“为促进健康婚姻和负责任的父亲提供补助”，每年拨款高达5000万美元用于促进“负责任的父亲身份”的活动。这些计划的根源在于福利改革，这些改革分配了数百万美元用于 “负责任的父亲计划”和“脆弱家庭的合作伙伴”等项目。这些计划针对的是失业和未充分就业的非监护者父亲，为他们提供一系列服务，旨在强迫父亲提供诸如子女抚养费和接受父母教育等事情。与婚姻促进计划一样，这些计划提出了一个问题，即女性会发生什么，例如女同性恋母亲（更不用说家庭暴力受害者），她们不希望亲生父亲参与其子女的生活。（只补助臭男人？真是恶心的性别歧视啊。）
Charitable Choice
慈善选择
Created as part of PRA, “charitable choice” allowed government officials to purchase social services from religious providers using TANF, Welfare to Work, and other funds. In 2009 under President Obama, it became the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
作为PRA的一部分，“慈善选择”允许政府官员使用TANF，工作福利和其他资金从宗教提供者那里购买社会服务。 2009年，在奥巴马总统任期内，它成为了白宫基本信仰和邻里伙伴关系办公室。
Many have voiced concern that charitable choice blurs the separation of church and state. Critics argue that federal financial support of churches creates the potential for the biased funding of groups affiliated with a particular religious denomination. Issues of proselytizing to clients and discriminatory hiring policies have already led to lawsuits. For queer people, the concerns should be obvious. Although there are many religious communities and organizations that are welcoming to LGBT people, many other American religious institutions (particularly those large enough to secure government funding) have a long history of intolerance of homosexuality. The prospect of having to seek help at a church where they feel unwelcome is enough to prevent many low-income queers from accessing needed services. This is an issue that should be of concern to all LGBT people, regardless of their income bracket.
许多人表示担心慈善选择会模糊政教分离。 批评者认为，联邦政府对教会的财政支持可能会导致对与特定宗教派别有关联的团体的偏见。 向客户传教的问题和歧视性招聘政策已导致诉讼。 对于同性恋者来说，问题应该是显而易见的。 虽然有许多宗教团体和组织欢迎LGBT人群，但许多其他美国宗教机构（特别是那些达到足以获得政府资助的机构）有着长期的不容忍同性恋的历史。 不得不在他们感到不受欢迎的教堂寻求帮助的前景足以阻止许多低收入的同性恋者获得所需的服务。这是一个应该引起所有LGBT人群关注的问题，无论他们的收入水平如何。
Abstinence Only
仅限禁欲
When PRA passed in 1996, it allocated 50 million dollars per year over a five-year period for state abstinence-only education programs. In 2002, Congress voted to extend funding for these programs. Abstinence-only education programs (which are also funded by other federal programs, in addition to using welfare money) teach young people in schools that abstinence from sexual activity until marriage is the expected norm in this country. These programs teach that sexual expression outside of marriage will have harmful social, mental, and physical consequences, and that abstinence is the only way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy. These programs are not allowed to include discussion of the proper use of contraception, including condoms, as a way to reduce the risk of contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. Only failure rates of condoms can be discussed in these programs. These programs also leave out vital information about safe sex practices, sexual orientation, and abortion, as well as lacking education and socialization that would empower young people to live out their values and ideals in sexual relationships. Every reputable sexuality education organization and the American Medical Association have denounced abstinence-only education. The implications for queer people should be self-evident. When queer sexuality is, by definition, taking place outside of marriage, what message are these programs teaching our young people about themselves and their desires? When condom use is being dismissed as both immoral and ineffective, how many new cases of HIV are these programs responsible for?
当PRA于1996年通过时，它在五年期间每年拨出5000万美元用于州禁欲教育计划。 2002年，国会投票决定为这些计划增加资金。仅限禁欲的教育计划（除了使用福利金之外，还由其他联邦计划资助）教育学校的年轻人禁止性活动，直到婚姻，这是这个国家所期望的规范。这些计划教导婚外性行为会产生有害的社会，心理和身体后果，禁欲是避免性传播疾病和意外怀孕的唯一途径。这些计划不允许包括正确使用避孕措施的讨论，包括使用避孕套以减少感染艾滋病毒或其他性传播疾病的风险。在这些计划中只能讨论安全套的失败率。这些计划还遗漏了关于安全性行为，性取向和堕胎的重要信息，以及缺乏教育和社会化使年轻人能够在性关系中实现自己的价值观和理想。每个声誉良好的性教育组织和美国医学协会都谴责禁欲教育。对同性恋者的影响应该是不言而喻的。根据定义，当同性恋在婚姻之外发生时，这些节目教导我们的年轻人关于他们自己和他们的欲望的信息是什么？当安全套的使用被认为是不道德和无效的时候，这些计划需要负责的艾滋病病例有多少？（告诉你们这些傻逼右派，禁欲就是奴役，自愿的性行为是基本人权！）
Moving Forward
前进
The question of whether or not poor people are entitled to government support has been debated in this country since its founding. The debate about who deserves help (and what kind, and how) is not over, even with the PRA’s dismantling of previous welfare policies. As we face reauthorization of welfare reform and engage in public policy debates about the social safety net in general, it is crucial that LGBT organizations get involved in the debates. To ignore these discussions, on the premise that they are not “gay issues,” is to assume that all LGBT people are middle class, which is simply not so. It also assumes that these policy debates have no implications for middle-class or affluent queer people. But looking at the tactics and results of the right’s attacks on poor people and queer people should make clear that welfare policy is indeed a queer issue—one that we can no longer afford to sit out.
自成立以来，这个国家一直在讨论穷人是否有权获得政府支持的问题。关于谁应该得到帮助（以及什么样的，如何）的争论还没有结束，即使PRA拆毁了以前的福利政策。当我们面临福利改革的重新授权并参与有关社会安全网的公共政策辩论时，LGBT组织参与辩论是至关重要的。忽视这些讨论，在不是“同性恋议题”的前提下，假设所有LGBT人群都是中产阶级，而事实并非如此。 它还假设这些政策辩论对中产阶级或富裕的同性恋者没有任何影响。 但是，看看右派们对穷人和同性恋者的攻击的策略和结果应该明确的表明了，福利政策确实是一个同性恋议题 – 我们再也不能坐视不管了。
http://sfonline.barnard.edu/a-new-queer-agenda/common-ground-the-queerness-of-welfare-policy/
