As equality rises homophobia will fall and so will the need for using marriage as a bush we can use to shimmy over to the rights trough.
The Washington Post did a great video of couples standing in line:
Over 50 couples lined up at the city clerk’s office this morning as Washington DC’s new gay marriage law takes effect. The Supreme Court turned down opponents who had asked it to stop the proceedings. Good thing, because straight people have almost as much to gain from gay marriage as the people in this morning’s line.
Homophobia creates a great deal of marriages that end in divorce. Homophobia drives the fearful into fraudulent marriages. It compels people into deceit. Like my friend Paul. He wanted kids, he wanted job promotions, he wanted acceptance. What he didn’t want was the stigma of being gay. He was convinced that he could not have what he wanted out of life without living a life he didn’t want. So he lived a life he didn’t want to get the things that he did. He married. And years later, when he couldn’t bear living the lie anymore, he divorced. Leaving hurt children, an angry wife and confused relatives.
For every gay man or woman who married as a means of hiding–and then came out–there are at least three or four heterosexual victims: The spouse, the parents of the spouse, the parents of the gay person, the relatives of both and most importantly, the couple’s children.
If we will not be punished for loving someone of the same sex, if we will not be denied the protections and benefits of marriage, if we will not be denied a promotion, what incentive do we have to pretend to be straight? If we can get everything we want out of life without pretending to be someone we’re not, why go through the trouble of lying?
With the ability to marry, fewer and fewer of us will enter into sham marriages to get the privileges that come from being, or at least acting, heterosexual. As equality rises homophobia will fall and so will the need for using marriage as a bush we can use to shimmy over to the rights trough. By removing the need for marrying under false pretenses, same sex marriage will end needless heterosexual suffering. Read the rest of this entry »
There is only one thing worse than voting to deny somebody their rights: Voting to give it to them.
Sometimes I wonder how the framers of the Constitution would react to Maine’s vote this Tuesday on whether gay people should keep their right to marry.
I’m pretty sure Jefferson would weep.
And the others would share his hankie. For this must be the founding father’s nightmare: Seeing one group of Americans go into the voting booth to take away the rights of another.
This Tuesday, Maine citizens will vote on whether gay people should retain the right to marry as per a state law that currently allows them to do so. The last poll shows that people who want to take away that right are winning 51-47. That’s still within the margin of error, but at this point it doesn’t look good. The fat lady ain’t sung, but she’s clearing her voice.
Frankly, I don’t know which would be worse–voting to repeal or uphold the state law allowing gay marriage. No matter which way you vote, you’ve wiped your feet on the Constitution.
There is only one thing worse than voting to deny somebody their rights: Voting to give it to them. Because the very idea that you have the power to grant or deny somebody the rights you enjoy negates the ideal of the Constitution–that all men are created equal. (Women, too, but let’s not quibble).
How can I be equal to you if you get to vote on my relationship? How can you be equal to me if I have the power to set the government against you? No matter what side you’re on, no matter what the result of the final tally, voting is the enemy of equality.
As Maine voters hover in the voting booth reading the Proposal that will affect the lives of millions of their fellow citizens, I wonder if it will occur to any of them to think: “I shouldn’t have the right to vote on somebody else’s rights.”
Maine legalized same sex marriage this past June but The fRight Wing managed to put it on the ballot for this November. Here’s how the tv wars are going:
The commercials from The fRight Wing do not state the case for why same sex marriage is “wrong,” as you’d expect them to do. Instead, they completely focus on the charge that gay marriage is being “taught” to small school children. As if it were part of the curriculum. Apparently, there’s some book in some part of a small library that describes the many ways families come together, including same sex marriages.
It’s as if the fRight has admitted that gay marriage has no effect on the “sanctity of traditional marriage” and instead, wants Mainers to believe that Re-education Camps for little children are spreading everywhere.
Here, have a look:
Fear and smear tactics aside, the focus on gayducating children is actually good news because it means The fRight recognizes they’ve lost the central premise of their argument –that equality in marriage harms the institution. Debating experts like to say that you should always argue the facts if the facts are on your side. Well, they’re not arguing facts.
They say argue the law if the law’s on your side. The fRight’s not arguing the law, either.
And they say if neither the facts or the law is on your side, then pound the table. They’re pounding the chairs. Even the table got away from them.
On the other side, marriage equality proponents have shrewdly taken up the family values mantle. It’s no longer about fairness and equality, but about preserving the family unit and protecting children. Here, take a look:
Still, you can lose the debate and still win the vote (George W. vs Al Gore anybody?). In fact, the fRight is winning 48% to 46% according to the latest survey. Pointing out that truth and love rarely beat fear and ignorance on a level playing field. No one dares count their chickens when the eggs are this close. The fRight may be on an intellectual retreat, but that doesn’t mean they can’t still win the battles ahead.
We’re losing in the polls. Will it be a repeat of California’s scenario– Laws allowing gay marriage overturned by the voters? Here’s the breakdown of the latest poll.
To interpret, note that a yes vote takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry. A no vote keeps the right of same-sex couples to marry. The poll asked if the election were held today would you vote YES or NO?
Background: In June 2009 the governor of Maine legalized same sex marriage. The wingnuts on the right wasted no time getting a proposal on the ballot to repeal that law.
I love the Daily Kos write-up on the poll: “The forces of bigotry have a 2-point lead, but it’s within the margin of error. This thing is statistically tied. It’s a toss-up. It’s a battle between the side who can best bring out its supporters to the polls. And it’s a battle to persuade that tiny percent of undecideds to vote for equality. In fact, millions will be spent by both sides to bring that 6 percent home.”
It’s so depressing. We’re losing even when the law’s on our side. If you’d like to make a contribution to keeping marriage alive for gay folks (and their children) please consider making a donation to:
Protesting something that happened in California when you live in Chicago is like storming a McDonald’s demanding a refund because Burger King got your order wrong, says guest blogger Tony Thompson.
I logged onto Facebook today and was bombarded with invitations by friends to hit the streets in protest of California’s not overturning Proposition 8, their law that bans same-sex marriage. Noble protests, in my opinion, but misdirected, considering that neither myself nor anyone inviting me actually lives in California. This sort of logic escapes me, like storming a McDonald’s demanding a refund because Burger King got your order wrong.
I am pro-gay marriage. I don’t think it runs the risk of devaluing marriage in American society. Straight people have devalued it enough (Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley, for example). I think gay marriage would be an enormous boost to a struggling economy, extremely benefiting the entertainment, real estate, and legal communities. More importantly, I think gay marriage would dramatically improve the lives of thousands of overlooked children trapped inside the broken foster care system in this country.
Guest blogger Deborah Bailey about the California Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban on gay marriage.
My daughter Mary Lou (my phantom name for her) came out at age fourteen, ten years ago. I can’t say I was totally surprised after years of her tearing the heads and couture off my vintage Barbie dolls instead favoring WWF wrestlers and Ninja turtles figurines as well as her collection of Matchbox cars. She also refused to wear dresses and any shoe other than Converse high tops to the Symphony, Opera or even my wedding to Number 2 in which she was the flower girl. She was the only girl on the flag football team, the only girl playing point guard on the Church basketball team and plays a mean slide guitar. Before and since the defining moment, I’ve always been and always will be her biggest supporter. I took her to hundreds of Youth Pride meetings and marched proudly carrying my PFLAG banner at the Atlanta Gay Pride Parade. She graduated from one of the top business schools in the country Magna Cum Laude a year ago and has a fabulous job in the financial services industry. Oh and I forgot to mention she is tall, blonde and looks like a supermodel. She’s my love, my heart, and my pride and joy.
Mary Lou has had two serious relationships. Her first a wonderful Latino artist type Lola (also not her name) I still adore to this day and hate that their relationship ended so badly. Lola, I hope you and Mary Lou will connect in the future because you were so special in her finding herself as a lesbian. Her current girlfriend just graduated from a prominent Woman’s College and is heading to law school. They have been together for two years. Whether they end up together long term or not, I know that my daughter wants to live the life that all Americans long for. This means building a life with a loving partner afforded the same rights and privileges as any straight married couple. It means having children who are shown acceptance in their schools, living in neighborhoods akin to those of their straight counterparts. It means freedom from any form of discrimination against those that live the gay lifestyle.
My gay friends who are parents are devoted and nurturing to their children and live their lives indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They are loyal to their mates, monogamous, devoted partners, honor and abide by the law, and are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer being the first to volunteer on boards and charities.
This whole idea that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman is ridiculous and antiquated considering that over 50% of traditional marriages end in divorce. Who gets to decide this? This is more an expression of prejudice than a real argument to deny gays basic human rights.
Stephen Colbert put out an anti-gay marriage video in response to the one put out by the conservative “Nation of Marriage.” It does more to promote gay marriage than any serious, earnest, just-the-facts counter-attack ever could. See what I mean:
“Rights should not be stifled by fear and silence should not be a response to injustice.”
Harvey Milk could charm a banana out of a gorilla’s hands. God Himself cocked his ear whenever he made a speech. And clearly, few politicians sacrificed more for their cause.
A lot of gay folks have been waiting for Harvey to come back in another form. But really, who’d have thought that the next Harvey Milk would be straight?
Or black?
Or blind?
Just like a lot of African-Americans think of Barack Obama as the Next Great Leader after Martin Luther King, my guess is that if New York governor David Paterson keeps up the fight for New York gay marriage, a lot of gay folks are going to see him as Harvey Milk 2.0.
Which reminds me, why is it that the most iconic gay civil rights figures since Milk are straight? Can you imagine feminists trumpeting some male politician as the next Susan B. Anthony?
If I ever have children, the person I would want to be the guardian of those children should anything happen to me (and my children’s father) is one of my closest friends – who is also a gay man. He wants very much to have the right to marry, and although I would support this desire in any circumstance, I find myself becoming VERY emotionally invested in this for partly selfish reasons.
This is the man I would trust to raise my children above anyone else. I love my family and my other good friends, but he is the person in my life whose values align the closest with mine, not to mention being the most responsible person I know. From my perspective, it is in my interests (and the interests of any kids I may have) for him to be able to form a stable long-term relationship and to marry – with all the legal benefits associated with that institution.
