Well, posts will be few and far between, it seems. But the topic of the last one remains very pertinent, since yesterday saw the courts of the state of Iowa OK same-sex marriage. I always thought Iowa had more than its share of common sense, and it's nice to have that confirmed. One of my favorite people in the world grew up in Iowa, though I fear her very fervent Catholicism may put her on the other side of this issue (she may well surprise me though, she has before!).
Anyway, I'm still with Keith Olbermann in his famous Special Comment on the horrific Proposition 8 in California last year (see "What Is It To You?" post, November 2008). What difference does it make to anyone if someone else chooses to be happy in a different way? If two people are responsible and respectful and faithful to each other, who cares if they are of different genders or not? How does the same-sex marriage of two people damage the heterosexual marriage of two others who don't even know them? Why do we need to gin up tons of energy and create tons of bad feeling on this issue?
I've read the whole bible and Jesus said nothing at all about gays (let alone lesbians). The few repudiations or condemnations of homosexual behavior in the Old Testament seem to focus on temple prostitution, which was part of the religions of some of the Jews' pagan neighbors. The men of Sodom who threaten to gang-rape Lot's guests in one incident are out to show their disrespect for and power over the "strangers," and are condemned for violating the laws of hospitality in general. (When Lot offers to send out his virgin daughters to be raped instead, no one seems to think that is out of line, either!) And the quote that all the bigots harp on, about men not being allowed to "lie with" other men as they do with women, is in my opinion the contribution of a writer freaked out about (a) the idea that a man, in patriarchy, is being "used" like women are "supposed to be" used and (b) the very notion of non-procreative sex, i.e. sex that can't result in a baby.
Well, we are, I hope, in a declining patriarchy where sex is no longer exclusively a sphere in which we re-enact patriarchal power relations (i.e., men on top). We are also on a planet which is over-populated to a critical extent, and should be grateful when people of whatever sexual persuasion express their sexuality without abetting the population explosion!
I remain true to my previously stated opinion that sexual preference does not determine character. There is nothing intrinsically immoral or dirty or shameful about feeling attracted to someone of your own gender. It's immoral to cheat someone, anyone, whom you supposedly love, it's immoral to lie to them or put them at risk, it's immoral to treat them irresponsibly, disrespectfully and cruelly. But what's most immoral, plain downright wrong, is discriminating against people on the basis of whom they love, preventing them from enjoying full civil rights and all the legal and financial protections and safeguards of marriage. I will stand by that until I die.
Showing posts with label Proposition 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Proposition 8. Show all posts
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Responsibility, Change, and Character
So, it's December 6th and I haven't posted in four days. The holiday preparations continue to rev into ramming speed, and I suspect posts will be fewer and farther between until after the New Year. But I wanted to touch upon a subject I've already mentioned and develop it a bit, in preparation for more concentrated treatment when life becomes a bit less harried (ha, ha).
One of Barack Obama's most attractive, to me, themes during the recent presidential campaign was the concept that the restoration of American liberties and freedoms must go hand in hand with a general re-shouldering of individual and social responsibilities. "We are the change we've been waiting for" is not a new slogan, but remains a true one. Jim Hightower's most recent monthly newsletter (Dec. 2008, Vol. 10, No. 12: if you're a political progressive and don't read the Hightower Lowdown, look into it) takes up this message:
"If last month’s sweeping vote for change is to come to fruition, We the People must be the ones who nurture it. We can’t just crank back in our La-Z-Boys and say, “We did our job – now Barack can do the heavy lifting for us.” We tried this laid-back approach after Clinton won in 1992 – with unpleasant and unprogressive results.
"If you think your job is done, look who’s waiting for Obama in Washington: a swarm of Wall Street bankers, the war machine, 13,000 corporate lobbyists, naysaying Republican Congress critters, right-wing yackety-yackers, weak-kneed Democrats, the conformist media, and other powerful forces of business-as-usual politics. These insiders intend to shape his presidency in their image.
"We have to be the counterforce, pushing insistently, vociferously, and persistently from the outside. Who’s “we”? You and me – determined citizens, working through our personal networks, public-interest organizations, progressive media, the netroots nation, unions, community groups, and other connections to grassroots activism.
"Obama was the candidate of change, but he’ll be the president of change ONLY if we buck him up and back him up. We must stand up and speak out on every move the insiders make; we must propose and push progressive ideas and ideals; and we must certainly expose and vigorously oppose any capitulations he will be pressured to make to the corporate powers.
"If his presidency is to be worthy of the enormous effort that so many put into it, worthy of the deep potential of this political moment in American history, you and I have to be on the alert and in the face of power...
"From the start, I’ve felt that the most significant thing about the Obama phenomenon was not Obama, but the phenomenon – the fact that millions of ordinary Americans (especially young people) were not merely enthusiastic but were engaged, organizing and mobilizing, taking possession of their democracy, and doing the grunt work that is the essence of self-government.
"People really do want change – not as a political buzzword, but as a fundamental matter of national direction and policy. In fact, for some time, folks have been shouting: CHANGE! Get our troops and America’s reputation out of Iraq. Provide good health care for all. Rein in greedheaded CEOs and corporate lobbyists. End “tinkle down” economics. Re-invest in America’s infrastructure. Rebuild middle-class opportunities. Deal with global climate change. End the use of torture. Get serious about green energy. Restore our stolen liberties. Stop polluters. And, generally, reinstate the Common Good as America’s governing ethic.
"As Obama himself often said on the campaign trail, he is not the change. We are. By electing him, we opened the White House door to the possibility of change. Now we must see it through."
This kind of collective effort is part of what I, personally, mean when I talk of social responsibility. Effecting political change by continuing to work, noodge, speak out, demand and protest. Individual responsibility includes doing so in an honest, researched, thought-through and consistent fashion.
Which takes me back to the issue of gay and lesbian civil rights. Like much of the rest of America, I've seen "Proposition 8: The Musical," which I think is a brilliant piece of agit-prop. If by some chance you haven't encountered this three-minute tour de force, check it out on YouTube. Touching back upon the December 2008 Hightower Lowdown, which disappointed me by not addressing the horrific anti-gay legislation that was passed in four states even as Obama was elected, it did trash James Dobson and his Focus on the Family Christian-right organization for publishing an apocalyptic anti-Obama brochure right before the election. Written from the perspective of a shell-shocked "Christian" chronicling the abominations of four years of the Obama administration in the year 2012, one of its many fear-mongering prophecies was that a liberalized Supreme Court would force schools to teach first-graders that homosexuality is good.
Well, that set me to thinking. Of course the Dobson brochure is despicable, and largely ludicrous. But somehow it made something very clear to me. I think homosexuality, in and of itself, isn't good and isn't bad. It just is. Just like heterosexuality, in and of itself, isn't good or bad, it just is. Some of us are 100% homosexual, some of us are 100% heterosexual, and some of us fall somewhere inbetween. I've come to believe that each individual's possible spectrum of sexual preferences is almost as hard-wired as hair and eye color. Which means legislating discrimination against gays and lesbians is about as sensible as legislating discrimination against blond-haired or green-eyed people. Whether someone is gay, or blond, or green-eyed does not determine whether or not that individual is a decent person.
The only factor that may affect the character of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered people is a societal one, the still far too commonly parrotted lie that anyone who isn't easily classifiable as "straight" is somehow "less moral" than "the rest of us." If as you grow up you realize that you are homosexual, or attracted to either gender, or don't fit with the sex characteristics with which you were born, you can't escape being bombarded by the societal expectation that you will be a "lesser" or "bad" person. Since expectations do shape us up to a point, those who aren't vanilla/straight have a harder row to hoe -- they have to fight against a whole set of external and internalized expectations of failure (much like people of color or women in general) on top of all the common vicissitudes and adversities.
Nonetheless, a large part of every identifiable population -- whether it's white straight women, gays, African-Americans, or transgenders -- consists of plain old good people. People who are honest with their friends, loyal to their partners and children, responsible about their duties to themselves, their families, their community, their employers or employees. Whatever the difficulties we face, we are capable of demonstrating good character. The capacity to live as a responsible human being is not affected by our sexual preference or orientation. Unfortunately, the capacity to participate equally in the benefits offered by our society still is.
One of Barack Obama's most attractive, to me, themes during the recent presidential campaign was the concept that the restoration of American liberties and freedoms must go hand in hand with a general re-shouldering of individual and social responsibilities. "We are the change we've been waiting for" is not a new slogan, but remains a true one. Jim Hightower's most recent monthly newsletter (Dec. 2008, Vol. 10, No. 12: if you're a political progressive and don't read the Hightower Lowdown, look into it) takes up this message:
"If last month’s sweeping vote for change is to come to fruition, We the People must be the ones who nurture it. We can’t just crank back in our La-Z-Boys and say, “We did our job – now Barack can do the heavy lifting for us.” We tried this laid-back approach after Clinton won in 1992 – with unpleasant and unprogressive results.
"If you think your job is done, look who’s waiting for Obama in Washington: a swarm of Wall Street bankers, the war machine, 13,000 corporate lobbyists, naysaying Republican Congress critters, right-wing yackety-yackers, weak-kneed Democrats, the conformist media, and other powerful forces of business-as-usual politics. These insiders intend to shape his presidency in their image.
"We have to be the counterforce, pushing insistently, vociferously, and persistently from the outside. Who’s “we”? You and me – determined citizens, working through our personal networks, public-interest organizations, progressive media, the netroots nation, unions, community groups, and other connections to grassroots activism.
"Obama was the candidate of change, but he’ll be the president of change ONLY if we buck him up and back him up. We must stand up and speak out on every move the insiders make; we must propose and push progressive ideas and ideals; and we must certainly expose and vigorously oppose any capitulations he will be pressured to make to the corporate powers.
"If his presidency is to be worthy of the enormous effort that so many put into it, worthy of the deep potential of this political moment in American history, you and I have to be on the alert and in the face of power...
"From the start, I’ve felt that the most significant thing about the Obama phenomenon was not Obama, but the phenomenon – the fact that millions of ordinary Americans (especially young people) were not merely enthusiastic but were engaged, organizing and mobilizing, taking possession of their democracy, and doing the grunt work that is the essence of self-government.
"People really do want change – not as a political buzzword, but as a fundamental matter of national direction and policy. In fact, for some time, folks have been shouting: CHANGE! Get our troops and America’s reputation out of Iraq. Provide good health care for all. Rein in greedheaded CEOs and corporate lobbyists. End “tinkle down” economics. Re-invest in America’s infrastructure. Rebuild middle-class opportunities. Deal with global climate change. End the use of torture. Get serious about green energy. Restore our stolen liberties. Stop polluters. And, generally, reinstate the Common Good as America’s governing ethic.
"As Obama himself often said on the campaign trail, he is not the change. We are. By electing him, we opened the White House door to the possibility of change. Now we must see it through."
This kind of collective effort is part of what I, personally, mean when I talk of social responsibility. Effecting political change by continuing to work, noodge, speak out, demand and protest. Individual responsibility includes doing so in an honest, researched, thought-through and consistent fashion.
Which takes me back to the issue of gay and lesbian civil rights. Like much of the rest of America, I've seen "Proposition 8: The Musical," which I think is a brilliant piece of agit-prop. If by some chance you haven't encountered this three-minute tour de force, check it out on YouTube. Touching back upon the December 2008 Hightower Lowdown, which disappointed me by not addressing the horrific anti-gay legislation that was passed in four states even as Obama was elected, it did trash James Dobson and his Focus on the Family Christian-right organization for publishing an apocalyptic anti-Obama brochure right before the election. Written from the perspective of a shell-shocked "Christian" chronicling the abominations of four years of the Obama administration in the year 2012, one of its many fear-mongering prophecies was that a liberalized Supreme Court would force schools to teach first-graders that homosexuality is good.
Well, that set me to thinking. Of course the Dobson brochure is despicable, and largely ludicrous. But somehow it made something very clear to me. I think homosexuality, in and of itself, isn't good and isn't bad. It just is. Just like heterosexuality, in and of itself, isn't good or bad, it just is. Some of us are 100% homosexual, some of us are 100% heterosexual, and some of us fall somewhere inbetween. I've come to believe that each individual's possible spectrum of sexual preferences is almost as hard-wired as hair and eye color. Which means legislating discrimination against gays and lesbians is about as sensible as legislating discrimination against blond-haired or green-eyed people. Whether someone is gay, or blond, or green-eyed does not determine whether or not that individual is a decent person.
The only factor that may affect the character of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered people is a societal one, the still far too commonly parrotted lie that anyone who isn't easily classifiable as "straight" is somehow "less moral" than "the rest of us." If as you grow up you realize that you are homosexual, or attracted to either gender, or don't fit with the sex characteristics with which you were born, you can't escape being bombarded by the societal expectation that you will be a "lesser" or "bad" person. Since expectations do shape us up to a point, those who aren't vanilla/straight have a harder row to hoe -- they have to fight against a whole set of external and internalized expectations of failure (much like people of color or women in general) on top of all the common vicissitudes and adversities.
Nonetheless, a large part of every identifiable population -- whether it's white straight women, gays, African-Americans, or transgenders -- consists of plain old good people. People who are honest with their friends, loyal to their partners and children, responsible about their duties to themselves, their families, their community, their employers or employees. Whatever the difficulties we face, we are capable of demonstrating good character. The capacity to live as a responsible human being is not affected by our sexual preference or orientation. Unfortunately, the capacity to participate equally in the benefits offered by our society still is.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
On Marriage
Since marriage is dwelling on my mind since the, to me, incomprehensible passage of Proposition 8 in California -- I still don't get that here in America, a coalition of religious and other bigots managed to write something into a state constitution to take a specific group of people's rights away -- here are some musings. After I say that, if you can amend a constitution to take one group of people's rights away, no-one's rights are safe. Of course, we in the U.S.A. do have a long and not very lovely tradition of founding documents with mythologized reputations that began by limiting rights to a very few (propertied white males), and a constant need on the part of marginalized folks to fight to be included in the category "fully human."
Which leads me to one of my pet peeves: reading the Sunday Styles section of the New York Times on a weekly basis and encountering the widespread phrase "The bride is taking her husband's name." Even women in their 50s and 60s are becoming "Mrs. His Name." Now, I understand this if it's a means of getting rid of a former husband's name, but still! The whole phenomenon is like a retro DEvolution. I've gotten to the point where I cheer whenever the announcement says "The bride is keeping her name" or its equivalent!
It's not a coincidence that there's a convention that all but demands that women who marry (and any children of that marriage) take their husbands' last names. It all harks back to thoroughly patriarchal law, as expressed by a famous 18th-century English jurist (William Blackstone) who said, centuries ago, "In marriage, two become one, and that one is the husband." The idea is that women's only claim to social significance (and still, quite often, to economic survival) is as the "helpmeets" (to use biblical language) of their husbands. Every woman's first duty is to create a nurturing cocoon for "her" man, in other words, to serve as his support system, taking care of pretty much every trivial, repetitive chore so that he can shine, at whatever cost to her own individual career (if she aspires to one) or creative work or simply time and room to breathe and be as herself.
Of course, the women are stuck in a bind. If they keep their "maiden" names (wince), they're almost certainly hanging on to another patronymic (father-derived moniker). If they opt for their mother's "maiden" name, they're pretty sure to be choosing her father's handle. Some like to make fun of the '70s feminists who renamed themselves "Sarachild" or "Mariedaughter," but nearly the only way to claim a female-derived name in the dominant U.S. culture is to create one. Something not true of every culture, by a long chalk. For example, Iceland's citizens generally add a suffix meaning "daughter" or "son" to the first name of one of their parents. It used to be standard practice to use the father's name, but it's not necessarily that any more!
I like to think that if I'd been a more evolved life-form when I got hitched, more than two decades ago, my partner and I might have considered choosing a mutual last name we both identified with and which had nothing to do with our family trees. Instead, each of us just kept our own last name, which works very well in our immediate circle of friends and didn't cause any major ructions among our family members.
But living in the Southland, it's amazing how much energy a woman has to devote to getting people to call her by her own last name rather than her husband's! It's a none-too-subtle attempt at social policing that reminds me of a visit to the Bahamas we made about ten years ago. On our return journey, a U.S. customs agent claimed he couldn't give us the family allowance for duty-free purchases. Since we had two separate last names, how could we prove we were married? In that particular situation, I ripped my wedding ring off my finger to show him my partner's name inside -- since then, I've carried a copy of our marriage license just in case anyone else decides to try to make us cry "uncle!"
And I do mean "uncle." Because human beings are really more than flexible enough to commit more than one name per social unit to memory. No, the idea is that women, once married, are supposed to be subsumed, to disappear as independent beings, while men are not. It's just like being labeled "Mrs." No-one expects men to be defined by whether or not they're married. It's "Mr." whether single, wed, straight, gay -- because men are seen as individuals under any circumstances. This is why "Ms." is so useful, and why we should fight to maintain its use. It serves the same purpose for women. (Although one could argue it might be interesting to find a universal honorific or title that doesn't immediately point to gender at all...)
Why "Mrs." or "Miss"? Actually, "Miss" is something that gets awkward if used for any female above the age of about 12. Let's compare our situation with that in Germany, where the titles are really interesting. Men are referred to as "Herr," which means "Gentleman" ("Mann" would be "man.") Women used to be called "Fraeulein" for "Miss" and "Frau," which just means "woman," for "Mrs." In the last two generations, the use of "Fraeulein" has all but ceased (except for little girls), and all women (above the age of say 14) are usually called "Frau." But isn't it interesting that men are ranked as "gentlemen," while all women are just the generic "female"? But at least, with current usage, women aren't automatically classified as derivatives of their male partners, if they have such. (Although it does give one pause to consider that well into the 20th century, a German woman would only be called "woman" if she was married, while she'd remain a "little woman" (Fraeulein) into her 90s if she stayed single!)
OK, must quit while I'm behind. I have to be somewhere in twenty minutes. But these surely won't be my last ruminations on this subject!
Which leads me to one of my pet peeves: reading the Sunday Styles section of the New York Times on a weekly basis and encountering the widespread phrase "The bride is taking her husband's name." Even women in their 50s and 60s are becoming "Mrs. His Name." Now, I understand this if it's a means of getting rid of a former husband's name, but still! The whole phenomenon is like a retro DEvolution. I've gotten to the point where I cheer whenever the announcement says "The bride is keeping her name" or its equivalent!
It's not a coincidence that there's a convention that all but demands that women who marry (and any children of that marriage) take their husbands' last names. It all harks back to thoroughly patriarchal law, as expressed by a famous 18th-century English jurist (William Blackstone) who said, centuries ago, "In marriage, two become one, and that one is the husband." The idea is that women's only claim to social significance (and still, quite often, to economic survival) is as the "helpmeets" (to use biblical language) of their husbands. Every woman's first duty is to create a nurturing cocoon for "her" man, in other words, to serve as his support system, taking care of pretty much every trivial, repetitive chore so that he can shine, at whatever cost to her own individual career (if she aspires to one) or creative work or simply time and room to breathe and be as herself.
Of course, the women are stuck in a bind. If they keep their "maiden" names (wince), they're almost certainly hanging on to another patronymic (father-derived moniker). If they opt for their mother's "maiden" name, they're pretty sure to be choosing her father's handle. Some like to make fun of the '70s feminists who renamed themselves "Sarachild" or "Mariedaughter," but nearly the only way to claim a female-derived name in the dominant U.S. culture is to create one. Something not true of every culture, by a long chalk. For example, Iceland's citizens generally add a suffix meaning "daughter" or "son" to the first name of one of their parents. It used to be standard practice to use the father's name, but it's not necessarily that any more!
I like to think that if I'd been a more evolved life-form when I got hitched, more than two decades ago, my partner and I might have considered choosing a mutual last name we both identified with and which had nothing to do with our family trees. Instead, each of us just kept our own last name, which works very well in our immediate circle of friends and didn't cause any major ructions among our family members.
But living in the Southland, it's amazing how much energy a woman has to devote to getting people to call her by her own last name rather than her husband's! It's a none-too-subtle attempt at social policing that reminds me of a visit to the Bahamas we made about ten years ago. On our return journey, a U.S. customs agent claimed he couldn't give us the family allowance for duty-free purchases. Since we had two separate last names, how could we prove we were married? In that particular situation, I ripped my wedding ring off my finger to show him my partner's name inside -- since then, I've carried a copy of our marriage license just in case anyone else decides to try to make us cry "uncle!"
And I do mean "uncle." Because human beings are really more than flexible enough to commit more than one name per social unit to memory. No, the idea is that women, once married, are supposed to be subsumed, to disappear as independent beings, while men are not. It's just like being labeled "Mrs." No-one expects men to be defined by whether or not they're married. It's "Mr." whether single, wed, straight, gay -- because men are seen as individuals under any circumstances. This is why "Ms." is so useful, and why we should fight to maintain its use. It serves the same purpose for women. (Although one could argue it might be interesting to find a universal honorific or title that doesn't immediately point to gender at all...)
Why "Mrs." or "Miss"? Actually, "Miss" is something that gets awkward if used for any female above the age of about 12. Let's compare our situation with that in Germany, where the titles are really interesting. Men are referred to as "Herr," which means "Gentleman" ("Mann" would be "man.") Women used to be called "Fraeulein" for "Miss" and "Frau," which just means "woman," for "Mrs." In the last two generations, the use of "Fraeulein" has all but ceased (except for little girls), and all women (above the age of say 14) are usually called "Frau." But isn't it interesting that men are ranked as "gentlemen," while all women are just the generic "female"? But at least, with current usage, women aren't automatically classified as derivatives of their male partners, if they have such. (Although it does give one pause to consider that well into the 20th century, a German woman would only be called "woman" if she was married, while she'd remain a "little woman" (Fraeulein) into her 90s if she stayed single!)
OK, must quit while I'm behind. I have to be somewhere in twenty minutes. But these surely won't be my last ruminations on this subject!
Monday, November 17, 2008
"What Is It To You?"
This is just a brief post, I'm pressed for time today, but I had to talk about what is on my mind again and again as I contemplate the 2008 elections. I'm really angry that my great joy in the election of Barack Obama, a win I feared would be negated by the same sort of dirty tricks that so terribly marred the 2000 and 2004 elections, was robbed from me within hours by the sorrow I feel over the passage of four horrible anti-gay and -lesbian measures (in Arkansas, Arizona, California and Florida).
Keith Olbermann of MSNBC managed to put my feelings into very eloquent words, which anyone can find on YouTube: just input Olbermann Proposition 8 into the YouTube search feature. Less than seven minutes, a special comment at the end of his "Countdown" program, that brought me, my very stoic spouse and my tough as steel mother to tears. "What is it to you?" he asked the people who supported these terrible anti-GLBT measures.
I too ask, what is it to these people, these homophobes? Why do they feel threatened by whom others choose to love? Why do they need to enshrine their revolting bigotry in our state constitutions?
Now, I'm a rational being. I know that part of the problem is that many people just don't want anyone to see that there are plenty of workable alternatives to a "traditional" heterosexual male-female union, complete with male dominance, female subordination and so forth, and served with lashings of ostentatious hard-line Christianity (or Judaism or Islam). But "traditional" religions and people must feel very weak indeed to think they need to "ban" (as if one really could) any kind of human relationship other than the stereotypical "Adam and Eve" one. And what's worse, I think many voted on these awful measures without much thought at all, or with a feeling of self-righteous superiority.
I think it's deeply despicable to tell two women or two men who happen to love each other that our country, supposedly all about freedom, equality and the pursuit of happiness, denies them all the benefits (far more than a thousand, under law) of marriage and the recognition of a stable family unit. And jeopardizes or restricts (or denies) their rights to raise their children, care for each other in sickness, inherit from each other upon death, etc.
What's particularly troubling is that so many of us appear to be so weak, with egos so fragile, that we think we "need" some "out-group" that it's "O.K." to discriminate against. And since it's no longer O.K. to dump very publicly on women and non-white (straight) males, these elements seem to cling all the more stubbornly to the demonization of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders.
Let me put this very simply: Who you love, or are sexually attracted to, does not determine whether or not you are of good character. These are independent things. Heterosexuals range from wonderful to absolutely awful, and so do non-heterosexuals. Being gay (or L, B or T) does not make you inferior, evil, lesser, or sinful. It may, given our larger society's ugly tendency to assume that being gay (or lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender) DOES make you inferior, evil, lesser, and/or sinful, make it harder to feel good about yourself and develop a healthy self-esteem that can make it easier to do the right thing. But all of that hasn't stopped my gay and lesbian friends from creating shining examples of honorable, positive, loving, decades-long marriage. And I'm going to go on saying "marriage," and fighting for their right to BE legally married just like I am, as long as I live.
Keith Olbermann of MSNBC managed to put my feelings into very eloquent words, which anyone can find on YouTube: just input Olbermann Proposition 8 into the YouTube search feature. Less than seven minutes, a special comment at the end of his "Countdown" program, that brought me, my very stoic spouse and my tough as steel mother to tears. "What is it to you?" he asked the people who supported these terrible anti-GLBT measures.
I too ask, what is it to these people, these homophobes? Why do they feel threatened by whom others choose to love? Why do they need to enshrine their revolting bigotry in our state constitutions?
Now, I'm a rational being. I know that part of the problem is that many people just don't want anyone to see that there are plenty of workable alternatives to a "traditional" heterosexual male-female union, complete with male dominance, female subordination and so forth, and served with lashings of ostentatious hard-line Christianity (or Judaism or Islam). But "traditional" religions and people must feel very weak indeed to think they need to "ban" (as if one really could) any kind of human relationship other than the stereotypical "Adam and Eve" one. And what's worse, I think many voted on these awful measures without much thought at all, or with a feeling of self-righteous superiority.
I think it's deeply despicable to tell two women or two men who happen to love each other that our country, supposedly all about freedom, equality and the pursuit of happiness, denies them all the benefits (far more than a thousand, under law) of marriage and the recognition of a stable family unit. And jeopardizes or restricts (or denies) their rights to raise their children, care for each other in sickness, inherit from each other upon death, etc.
What's particularly troubling is that so many of us appear to be so weak, with egos so fragile, that we think we "need" some "out-group" that it's "O.K." to discriminate against. And since it's no longer O.K. to dump very publicly on women and non-white (straight) males, these elements seem to cling all the more stubbornly to the demonization of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders.
Let me put this very simply: Who you love, or are sexually attracted to, does not determine whether or not you are of good character. These are independent things. Heterosexuals range from wonderful to absolutely awful, and so do non-heterosexuals. Being gay (or L, B or T) does not make you inferior, evil, lesser, or sinful. It may, given our larger society's ugly tendency to assume that being gay (or lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender) DOES make you inferior, evil, lesser, and/or sinful, make it harder to feel good about yourself and develop a healthy self-esteem that can make it easier to do the right thing. But all of that hasn't stopped my gay and lesbian friends from creating shining examples of honorable, positive, loving, decades-long marriage. And I'm going to go on saying "marriage," and fighting for their right to BE legally married just like I am, as long as I live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
