Venting: If Not Now, When?
What I have to say may not win me warm fuzzies, but it has got to come out before it eats a hole in my gut. So, here it is in all of its venting wonder and unfiltered glory.
Please, straight people and Log Cabin queers, please stop trying to mollify me or dismiss my concerns about the current administration's queer policy positions. Please. I beg you. Please stop telling me that, "Golly, there are just so many super important issues and everybody wants his to be first in line, and gosh, gay rights matter, but this torture thing and North Korea are just so urgent, it's not a great time because--let's face it--people aren't really dying over it, not like they used to be, and marriage is kind of a farce anyway, what with the divorce rate being so high. Besides, look at where you live! Things are changing, see? And, yeah, I read the first paragraph of that brief, and maybe I'll get around to the rest, but you know all of that legalese is kind of boring, and anyway I still choose to believe that President Obama is an LGBT ally. You are just such a pessimist that it makes me a little crazy to talk with you about this."
I'm not a pessimist, quite the opposite. And I'm not sure what optimism and pessimism have to do with it, anyway. Of course I'm encouraged by our block of sanity, here in New England! That doesn't mean it's not relevant to call attention to legal and political policy activities at the federal level. Has it escaped anyone's notice that former Vice President Cheney's position on same-sex marriage is just slightly left of President Obama's?
Speaking of that odd alignment, there is a glaring inconsistency in promoting state sovereignty and then not honoring the decisions each state makes. If the administration is invested in the right of each state to make it's own rules about same-sex marriage, then where is the discussion of how to honor those decisions in a manner that reflects the will of each state? In maintaining the status quo and subjecting all states to the decisions of some states, the federal government is selecting a deliberate posture that undermines this expressed commitment to state sovereignty. Requiring that all fifty states change their positions before the federal government will act ignores the concept of plurality, bypasses simple majority, and inflicts an unwieldy burden of unanimity--something I doubt the Founding Fathers would affirm as enlightened. It sets an unconscionable standard, which exists in stark contrast to the speed with which the federal government is willing to make critical and global decisions on a regular basis.
I like President Obama's presidency, overall. I think it's unlikely that anyone could be doing a better job of dismantling the politics of fear, extending genuine diplomacy, and seeking to pull together experienced and innovative minds to solve a host of problems. I don't want him to be impeached; I don't think he's a bad President or bad man because we disagree on energy and LGBT civil rights; nor do I think that the fact that I voted for him in the Presidential election places him above criticism or thoughtful detraction. Are you willing to label me unpatriotic? You've already told me that I'm "impossible to satisfy". You've already told me that I'm "imputing false importance to a small minority when there are people dying every day". You've already implied that issues can only be taken on in sequence.
A thought: I am uncomfortable Every Single Day as a queer American. Why should you, in your state of entitled privilege, be immune to discomfort? Why is that my burden to carry, alone? Why is it ok to dismiss me as inconvenient and self-centered? During the previous administration you were ready to go to the mat at a moment's notice, decrying the evils being perpetrated in the name of We-the-People. Just because "our guy" is office, that's not part of the landscape anymore? We don't hold Our Own to the same high standards we demanded of The Opposition? Given his public rhetoric, I don't think that President Obama would support that position. He is not afraid to be uncomfortable, to engage in discussion with people who disagree with him, passionately. In some cases he appears to seek oppositional and critical perspectives as part of becoming better, as a President and as a nation.
Trivializing my concerns and dismissing me as histrionic is your right, but it doesn't change what's true. To wit: it matters that the federal government is committing to a formal and regressive position in an official court document. We have an opportunity, perhaps, to influence its content before the official filing in August.
Legal processes are complex. When the Massachusetts same-sex marriage case was taken to the Supreme Judicial Court, this was a deliberate (if risky) choice: there is no higher court with jurisdiction in Massachusetts and, as such, decisions made by that body can not be elevated to another court for appeal. The US Supreme Court had no power to overturn the ruling. The path the New Hampshire legislation took prevents a repeal by popular vote (unlike Maine's). These details may be a pain in the ass, but they are significant.
Furthermore, all of this push-back and defensiveness comes in response to what, precisely? I asked you to read a legal brief and, if your conscience moved you to do so, contact your elected officials and let them know what you think. Period. I didn't dictate that you ought to take from it the same things I did. I didn't demand that you contact anyone. I didn't argue whether or not the court case, itself, ought to be dismissed. Hell, I didn't even insist that you read the thing: I asked you to. This is an invasion that requires such intense rebuff?
Here's the thing: until the straight and passive LGBT communities get active, things won't change. Some of you knew that when the issue was race, or religion. Some of you thought nothing of pledging solidarity in the name of what is just and humane then. But let the issue be queers, and suddenly there's this sucking sound: it's cool to rail about at a cocktail party; cool to project one's own rightness and preen in front of the mirror of having a progressive opinion; cool to have queer friends; but that's it.
And you know what else? You might consider taking a lesson from Governor Lynch. His personal feeling is that the word "marriage" should be restricted to mixed-sex couples. Signing the New Hampshire bill into law was not something he took lightly. He had to consider the twin issues of his personal conscience and his elected office, and find a way to resolve them, such that he could make peace with himself. He deserves admiration and respect for his willingness to put so much energy into that process, because he could have simply not signed the thing and let it become law, passively--at any time. But, he didn't.
There are so many logical arguments to be made regarding an arbitrary limitation based upon 1/92 of a couple's chromosomal array, so many ways in which the policy falls down functionally (e.g., if one member of a married XX/XY couple undergoes sexual reassignment, do they get to stay married? if one member of an XX/XX couple undergoes legal sex change, are they then eligible to marry? upon what basis will federal offices vet marriage licenses from states which remove sex/gender information from marriage license applications? how come we don't test for/prohibit marriages between people carrying genes on other chromosomes that hold dire consequences for offspring? etc.). To create and maintain a second process and status set is costly. Where's that discussion?
You may pat yourself on the back for not being a Neocon. You may think I'm a pain in the ass because I insist on full marriage equality. You may feel like your composting, organic, recycling, hybrid-driving lifestyle exonerates you from having to sift through the details. What's true is that whether or not you take them on is up to you. What's not true is that you can ignore them and continue to polish your halo and claim nobility. When the folks who voted for the DOMA in Ohio were appalled to discover what it meant at the daily details level, they were not any more to blame than you are, today, for continuing to sit on the sidelines, satisfied that you did your part by being outraged at the passage of Prop 8, and tsking about it with your friends.
Just because this issue is slow-moving and unsexy doesn't mean it's unimportant. The daily civil status of American citizens is at least as important as global warming, health care (believe me when I tell you that health care issues are persistent and ridiculously complex when you're queer), and the economy. To say otherwise suggests that some people matter more than other people do, inherently. Is that what you think? If so, then please tell me who matters more: Palestinians or Israelis? Afghanis or Iraqis? Africans or Asians? Rich Americans or impoverished Americans? Straight people or queers? I just want to keep the hierarchy clear in my mind when addressing you.
Are you really ok with the fact that LGBT people are denied spousal COBRA, spousal Social Security benefits, and get taxed on the value of employee benefits they provide their partners/spouses? If not, then what are you doing about it? I feel reasonably certain that if someone got the wind up to make the value of your partner's benefits taxable income, you'd think it was a timely issue.
Similarly, if this "isn't a good time" as you so compassionately suggest, with the sincere hint of regret in your tone, please let me know when that will be, so that I can mark it in my calendar. Please identify the date upon which you are certain that there won't be anything else you consider to be more pressing on the docket. I want to be ready.
How about this? Until the question of marriage for all American citizens is resolved, how about we just suspend the institution and the legal ramifications for everyone? Let's have true parity while this stuff gets hashed out. Instead of selling off a word to the control of one invested group, let's just remove it wholesale. How would that sit with you? Would you be ok with having your marriage annulled? Would you be ok with losing the privileges of inheritance, hospital access, spousal benefits, etc? It's not my first choice, but if it will see us through the time you think appropriate to wait until same-sex marriage is a going concern, as equals, I'm for it. I don't want special rights: I want the same rights you enjoy every single day.
Please let me know where I fit into the scheme of things--when I deserve to not have to spend some portion of every day trying to figure out what my status is in a given situation; when I am free, as you are, to fill my time with other concerns; when the question of whether or not I am afforded the full responsibilities and privileges of enfranchised citizenship is worthy. Seriously. I'm waiting to hear when that is. Does that time come before or after global warming is resolved? Do carbon credits (a.k.a. the privatization of air) factor in? Do we have consensus? Is the Right Time before, or after, the economic troubles of today are resolved? What are the markers that will demonstrate we've crossed that line? Will the Right Time appear before or after the diseases that plague tropical areas are eradicated? Before or after Guantanamo Bay is shut down? Before or after our food supply issues are addressed, and to whose satisfaction? Before or after our educational woes are resolved? I just want to know if we're talking months, years, decades, or generations.
Me? I don't believe that these issues have to be taken in sequence. Seems to me like we are dealing with most of them at the same time, right now. So, what do you really mean when you tell me that my conversaton is ill-timed? Is it that you simply don't want to hear it because it takes the shine off of your love affair with complacency, or with a Super Hero fetishized version of President Obama?
How about instead of dismissing me as an ungrateful and spoiled malcontent, you allow yourself to consider these things as meaningful, simply because they are meaningful to me. I am your friend, daughter, sibling, co-worker, customer, and neighbor. If you care about child abuse as a hot button issue, I'm going to listen and consider and act. If you are passionate about global warming, I'm going to listen and consider and act. No one can champion every issue; we are each called to the ones that resonate with our own special souls. I just ask that you stop judging mine as too messy and inconvenient for you to contemplate, and that you stop trying to shut me down as a result.
Find my tone in this post contentious? Your passivity is no less contentious, it's just hidden behind a false benevolence. Until you decide to address me as though I matter as much as you do, we'll be at odds and part of my mission will be to keep you uncomfortable. It's a shame that you can't be motivated by justice for justice's sake, but there it is.
-Dot
Copyright 2009 Dot's Stuff. All rights reserved, but you are welcome to a change of heart.
Please, straight people and Log Cabin queers, please stop trying to mollify me or dismiss my concerns about the current administration's queer policy positions. Please. I beg you. Please stop telling me that, "Golly, there are just so many super important issues and everybody wants his to be first in line, and gosh, gay rights matter, but this torture thing and North Korea are just so urgent, it's not a great time because--let's face it--people aren't really dying over it, not like they used to be, and marriage is kind of a farce anyway, what with the divorce rate being so high. Besides, look at where you live! Things are changing, see? And, yeah, I read the first paragraph of that brief, and maybe I'll get around to the rest, but you know all of that legalese is kind of boring, and anyway I still choose to believe that President Obama is an LGBT ally. You are just such a pessimist that it makes me a little crazy to talk with you about this."
I'm not a pessimist, quite the opposite. And I'm not sure what optimism and pessimism have to do with it, anyway. Of course I'm encouraged by our block of sanity, here in New England! That doesn't mean it's not relevant to call attention to legal and political policy activities at the federal level. Has it escaped anyone's notice that former Vice President Cheney's position on same-sex marriage is just slightly left of President Obama's?
Speaking of that odd alignment, there is a glaring inconsistency in promoting state sovereignty and then not honoring the decisions each state makes. If the administration is invested in the right of each state to make it's own rules about same-sex marriage, then where is the discussion of how to honor those decisions in a manner that reflects the will of each state? In maintaining the status quo and subjecting all states to the decisions of some states, the federal government is selecting a deliberate posture that undermines this expressed commitment to state sovereignty. Requiring that all fifty states change their positions before the federal government will act ignores the concept of plurality, bypasses simple majority, and inflicts an unwieldy burden of unanimity--something I doubt the Founding Fathers would affirm as enlightened. It sets an unconscionable standard, which exists in stark contrast to the speed with which the federal government is willing to make critical and global decisions on a regular basis.
I like President Obama's presidency, overall. I think it's unlikely that anyone could be doing a better job of dismantling the politics of fear, extending genuine diplomacy, and seeking to pull together experienced and innovative minds to solve a host of problems. I don't want him to be impeached; I don't think he's a bad President or bad man because we disagree on energy and LGBT civil rights; nor do I think that the fact that I voted for him in the Presidential election places him above criticism or thoughtful detraction. Are you willing to label me unpatriotic? You've already told me that I'm "impossible to satisfy". You've already told me that I'm "imputing false importance to a small minority when there are people dying every day". You've already implied that issues can only be taken on in sequence.
A thought: I am uncomfortable Every Single Day as a queer American. Why should you, in your state of entitled privilege, be immune to discomfort? Why is that my burden to carry, alone? Why is it ok to dismiss me as inconvenient and self-centered? During the previous administration you were ready to go to the mat at a moment's notice, decrying the evils being perpetrated in the name of We-the-People. Just because "our guy" is office, that's not part of the landscape anymore? We don't hold Our Own to the same high standards we demanded of The Opposition? Given his public rhetoric, I don't think that President Obama would support that position. He is not afraid to be uncomfortable, to engage in discussion with people who disagree with him, passionately. In some cases he appears to seek oppositional and critical perspectives as part of becoming better, as a President and as a nation.
Trivializing my concerns and dismissing me as histrionic is your right, but it doesn't change what's true. To wit: it matters that the federal government is committing to a formal and regressive position in an official court document. We have an opportunity, perhaps, to influence its content before the official filing in August.
Legal processes are complex. When the Massachusetts same-sex marriage case was taken to the Supreme Judicial Court, this was a deliberate (if risky) choice: there is no higher court with jurisdiction in Massachusetts and, as such, decisions made by that body can not be elevated to another court for appeal. The US Supreme Court had no power to overturn the ruling. The path the New Hampshire legislation took prevents a repeal by popular vote (unlike Maine's). These details may be a pain in the ass, but they are significant.
Furthermore, all of this push-back and defensiveness comes in response to what, precisely? I asked you to read a legal brief and, if your conscience moved you to do so, contact your elected officials and let them know what you think. Period. I didn't dictate that you ought to take from it the same things I did. I didn't demand that you contact anyone. I didn't argue whether or not the court case, itself, ought to be dismissed. Hell, I didn't even insist that you read the thing: I asked you to. This is an invasion that requires such intense rebuff?
Here's the thing: until the straight and passive LGBT communities get active, things won't change. Some of you knew that when the issue was race, or religion. Some of you thought nothing of pledging solidarity in the name of what is just and humane then. But let the issue be queers, and suddenly there's this sucking sound: it's cool to rail about at a cocktail party; cool to project one's own rightness and preen in front of the mirror of having a progressive opinion; cool to have queer friends; but that's it.
And you know what else? You might consider taking a lesson from Governor Lynch. His personal feeling is that the word "marriage" should be restricted to mixed-sex couples. Signing the New Hampshire bill into law was not something he took lightly. He had to consider the twin issues of his personal conscience and his elected office, and find a way to resolve them, such that he could make peace with himself. He deserves admiration and respect for his willingness to put so much energy into that process, because he could have simply not signed the thing and let it become law, passively--at any time. But, he didn't.
There are so many logical arguments to be made regarding an arbitrary limitation based upon 1/92 of a couple's chromosomal array, so many ways in which the policy falls down functionally (e.g., if one member of a married XX/XY couple undergoes sexual reassignment, do they get to stay married? if one member of an XX/XX couple undergoes legal sex change, are they then eligible to marry? upon what basis will federal offices vet marriage licenses from states which remove sex/gender information from marriage license applications? how come we don't test for/prohibit marriages between people carrying genes on other chromosomes that hold dire consequences for offspring? etc.). To create and maintain a second process and status set is costly. Where's that discussion?
You may pat yourself on the back for not being a Neocon. You may think I'm a pain in the ass because I insist on full marriage equality. You may feel like your composting, organic, recycling, hybrid-driving lifestyle exonerates you from having to sift through the details. What's true is that whether or not you take them on is up to you. What's not true is that you can ignore them and continue to polish your halo and claim nobility. When the folks who voted for the DOMA in Ohio were appalled to discover what it meant at the daily details level, they were not any more to blame than you are, today, for continuing to sit on the sidelines, satisfied that you did your part by being outraged at the passage of Prop 8, and tsking about it with your friends.
Just because this issue is slow-moving and unsexy doesn't mean it's unimportant. The daily civil status of American citizens is at least as important as global warming, health care (believe me when I tell you that health care issues are persistent and ridiculously complex when you're queer), and the economy. To say otherwise suggests that some people matter more than other people do, inherently. Is that what you think? If so, then please tell me who matters more: Palestinians or Israelis? Afghanis or Iraqis? Africans or Asians? Rich Americans or impoverished Americans? Straight people or queers? I just want to keep the hierarchy clear in my mind when addressing you.
Are you really ok with the fact that LGBT people are denied spousal COBRA, spousal Social Security benefits, and get taxed on the value of employee benefits they provide their partners/spouses? If not, then what are you doing about it? I feel reasonably certain that if someone got the wind up to make the value of your partner's benefits taxable income, you'd think it was a timely issue.
Similarly, if this "isn't a good time" as you so compassionately suggest, with the sincere hint of regret in your tone, please let me know when that will be, so that I can mark it in my calendar. Please identify the date upon which you are certain that there won't be anything else you consider to be more pressing on the docket. I want to be ready.
How about this? Until the question of marriage for all American citizens is resolved, how about we just suspend the institution and the legal ramifications for everyone? Let's have true parity while this stuff gets hashed out. Instead of selling off a word to the control of one invested group, let's just remove it wholesale. How would that sit with you? Would you be ok with having your marriage annulled? Would you be ok with losing the privileges of inheritance, hospital access, spousal benefits, etc? It's not my first choice, but if it will see us through the time you think appropriate to wait until same-sex marriage is a going concern, as equals, I'm for it. I don't want special rights: I want the same rights you enjoy every single day.
Please let me know where I fit into the scheme of things--when I deserve to not have to spend some portion of every day trying to figure out what my status is in a given situation; when I am free, as you are, to fill my time with other concerns; when the question of whether or not I am afforded the full responsibilities and privileges of enfranchised citizenship is worthy. Seriously. I'm waiting to hear when that is. Does that time come before or after global warming is resolved? Do carbon credits (a.k.a. the privatization of air) factor in? Do we have consensus? Is the Right Time before, or after, the economic troubles of today are resolved? What are the markers that will demonstrate we've crossed that line? Will the Right Time appear before or after the diseases that plague tropical areas are eradicated? Before or after Guantanamo Bay is shut down? Before or after our food supply issues are addressed, and to whose satisfaction? Before or after our educational woes are resolved? I just want to know if we're talking months, years, decades, or generations.
Me? I don't believe that these issues have to be taken in sequence. Seems to me like we are dealing with most of them at the same time, right now. So, what do you really mean when you tell me that my conversaton is ill-timed? Is it that you simply don't want to hear it because it takes the shine off of your love affair with complacency, or with a Super Hero fetishized version of President Obama?
How about instead of dismissing me as an ungrateful and spoiled malcontent, you allow yourself to consider these things as meaningful, simply because they are meaningful to me. I am your friend, daughter, sibling, co-worker, customer, and neighbor. If you care about child abuse as a hot button issue, I'm going to listen and consider and act. If you are passionate about global warming, I'm going to listen and consider and act. No one can champion every issue; we are each called to the ones that resonate with our own special souls. I just ask that you stop judging mine as too messy and inconvenient for you to contemplate, and that you stop trying to shut me down as a result.
Find my tone in this post contentious? Your passivity is no less contentious, it's just hidden behind a false benevolence. Until you decide to address me as though I matter as much as you do, we'll be at odds and part of my mission will be to keep you uncomfortable. It's a shame that you can't be motivated by justice for justice's sake, but there it is.
-Dot
Copyright 2009 Dot's Stuff. All rights reserved, but you are welcome to a change of heart.