The Day Equality Won
Today will be one of those days I will remember for where I was when I heard the news. As a matter of fact, I was glancing at my Twitter feed when the momentous decision overturning Prop 8 was announced. This is the beauty of Twitter - instantaneous news feeds, and in an instant the world learned that a great injustice had been overturned, at least for now. This decision will certainly make it's way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then the Supreme Court because it's a social issue whose time has finally come, just as separate but equal finally made it's way to the Supreme Court and was struck down over 40 years ago, when those laws and sanctions based on ignorance and bigotry were held up to the standards set by our Constitution and found unlawful.
I am ecstatic over this news, although this isn't a reaction post. It's a musing on the sentiment that the idea of gay marriage invariably invokes, because for all the celebration going on all over the country today, the haters, bigots and religious fundamentalists are gearing up for the final battle which will, of course, be the Supreme Court. We, as a nation, can pretty much condemn idiots like the Westboro Baptist Church, and their hateful picketing, but we can't seem to make the leap that people like them are just the extremes, but some very nice people in very nice towns, living very nice lives, also feel disgust at the idea of two men or two women who are in love having an equal right to marriage, and these 'nice' people will vote their bigotry into law. Attitudes like theirs raise so many questions: why do people feel such prejudice against gay men and lesbians, and why do religions continue to preach intolerance against a proportion of the population, even though modern psychology has ruled out homosexuality as a deviancy? And lastly, why are we so ignorant about the history of marriage, although so many look to defend it, and keep gay men and women from enjoying equal status?
Homophobia is ingrained in our lives in many ways, including culturally. It's nothing for kids to say 'That's so gay' as an insult, or to read the message boards about out performers and the hateful, derogatory remarks that inevitably ensue. Up until very recently, and I mean very, very recently, gay men and women in the movies were routinely killed off in the final reel, or made to suffer in some way because of their 'unnaturalness'. I've posted this before, but movies like that are insidious - they not only seep into cultural consciousness, but they seep into the minds and hearts of gay boys and girls, reinforcing the belief that they are lesser, while their straight friends' bigotry is confirmed. Television is no better - John Barrowman was actually turned down for a role on 'Will & Grace' because he didn't qualify for the character of Will, a character who seemed to spend most of his time with Grace, rather than a boyfriend. The other gay character on the show was a caricature, someone who played the equivalent of Stepin Fetchit for the straight viewers. Today, television is a little better, but mainstream tv still has a very long way to go before we can say gay people are included proportionately in meaningful roles, and not as background filler. Higher visibility is the first step towards acceptance and the destruction of years and years of accumulated bigotry.
It's not just our popular culture that is to blame. Our churches, some of them, continue to spew homophobia from the pulpits. As a Catholic, I am deeply saddened as well as offended by this Pope's public statements on homosexuality, which are judgmental, ignorant and above all, unchristian. I am sorry he can't find it in his heart to be loving, but I find hope and solace in the many Catholics I know, religious and lay alike, who absolutely reject this homophobia. I also wish the media would contact a wider selection of articulate Catholics on these issues. Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League, is someone who literally makes my stomach turn, and I say that as one who was at a function where he was the guest speaker, and couldn't get away fast enough, he made me so ill. And yet, this blatant homophobe is the one the networks choose to identify with the Catholic voice in America, much to our continued embarrassment. As a man who is presumably educated, he has a lot to answer in for conflating homosexuality and pedophilia, or perhaps he's simply too busy spewing hate to remember the commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness...".
Other churches, I'm happy to add, have reviewed the infamous Leviticus injunctions and found them, historically, as binding as the injunction not to wear cotton and wool together, or eat pork. In fact, bible scholars have already interpreted that famous verse to mean the practice of temple prostitution as opposed to a same-sex union, an insight which has a great deal of merit, considering the unique friendships of David and Jonathan, or Naomi and Ruth which are described using the very much the same language as heterosexual relationships. Bible thumpers also conveniently ignore the scholarship that tells us there was no word for homosexuality when the bible was written, and Sodom, whom the fundamentalists throw out as their antigay trump card, in fact refers to the the taboo of inhospitable behaviour towards strangers. In those same verses, Lot offers his own daughter for rape to the people clamoring on the door for his visitors? Can anyone really believe that is a morally superior stance? But the same mentality that once used biblical verses as 'proof' of the moral right to own slaves is now picking out verses without examining them to deny gay men and women their rights. These are the times when I really wonder what Jesus would do - would he hang with the homophobes and throw rocks, or would he welcome all with love? My own religious beliefs are simple: God is love, Judge not, lest ye be judged, and Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with thy Lord, and so I believe he would do the latter. Furthermoe, if he were to return today, he might well find the only authentic Christian communities are those who are led by love .
But religious objections to the contrary, marriage is a civil union in the US. If it were not, a couple would not have to go to the town or city to fill out forms and procure a marriage license. Marriages that are performed in churches without these licenses are invalid, a point not understood by the haters. As a civil union, today's ruling clearly states that everyone has the right to the same liberty under the constitution, no exceptions because of minority status or because others don't like them. It clearly comes down on the side of the separation of church and state, and that should be good news to the churches who don't wish to perform marriages, because their rights have also been upheld, although I doubt if they will see it that way. Mary Matlin, the mouthpiece of the far right said today on CNN, with a shit eating face because she had to know how stupid she sounded, that this wasn't a civil liberty case, it was political. I disagree and to her I would say "It's the constitution, stupid."
Gay people live the same lives as straight people, except that they pay taxes for schools for other people's children, and health premiums for other people's families, including maternity stays, fertility treatments, pediatric healthcare. You get the picture. And yet, the arrogance and associated ignorance of those who want to ride the status quo and keep this uneven financial relationship is staggering. And that's only the tip of the iceberg - there are the issues of survivor rights, death and Social Security benefits, end of life decisions, and other legal issues the vast majority of Americans take for granted, some not troubled by the fact that once again, a significant proportion of American citizens is being treated unequally. They just care that they might see two men holding hands, or God forbid, their child's friend might have two mommies who love each other. It's bigoted, ignorant and certainly not the best of us as a people
The history of marriage is one in which marriage has been defined and redefined. Even today, marriage for love is a modern notion, our ancestors marrying for more practical or even financial purposes. In he very recent past interracial marriage was illegal, and before that , marriage between slaves. But Judge Walker has gone farther than define marriage for love: he's defined marriage as the partnership of two equals, which is something that is of profound importance to all, displacing as it does, centuries of patriarchal bias that reduced the woman to a lesser role in the partnership. And there is yet another nuance to his ruling, that of the commonly held assumption and arguing point of people against gay marriage that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation, which is, at it's heart, an affront to older and infertile couples, those who lose a child, or choose to remain childless.It's a step in the right direction to redefine marriage at this point in our history. It puts American citizens on an equal footing, and America on the same page as more socially progressive, humanistic countries who have already enacted laws permitting same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage isn't the end of our civilization, or the corruption of our government by The Gay Agenda. God isn't going to smite us for gay marriage. If God was going to smite us for anything, it would be for the shameful way we treat our brothers and sisters on earth. If anything, gay marriage strengthens the idea of marriage and equal partnership, by allowing those who value both enough to fight tirelessly for years to see this day. I'm thinking of the very famous lesbian couple, names i recognize from the seventies who married before Prop 8. One lived only a short time after the ceremony, but they had been together as a couple for over 40 years. Can anyone deny their love, or devotion? Can anyone with a conscience watch as one man takes care of his partner in the last stages of AIDs, tenderly and with love, and then finds himself out on the street because he couldn't inherit their apartment? These things happened, and will continue to happen until we are all equal under the law. And for the truly evil minded amongst us, and I know they're out there because I read the message boards, this ruling doesn't say someone can marry his goat, or his sister. That's just hate talk, and there will be plenty in the coming months, but I don't care, because today is enough to keep all of us who do want the best for our brothers and sisters to be happy for a long time.
And Judge Walker? Well, I might just send him a mash note, that's how much I love him, because I, too, am a sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal, but always libertarian kind of woman, and I love a person who comes down firmly on the side of the angels, balls to the wall, as they say. He is my kind of judge.
A
I am ecstatic over this news, although this isn't a reaction post. It's a musing on the sentiment that the idea of gay marriage invariably invokes, because for all the celebration going on all over the country today, the haters, bigots and religious fundamentalists are gearing up for the final battle which will, of course, be the Supreme Court. We, as a nation, can pretty much condemn idiots like the Westboro Baptist Church, and their hateful picketing, but we can't seem to make the leap that people like them are just the extremes, but some very nice people in very nice towns, living very nice lives, also feel disgust at the idea of two men or two women who are in love having an equal right to marriage, and these 'nice' people will vote their bigotry into law. Attitudes like theirs raise so many questions: why do people feel such prejudice against gay men and lesbians, and why do religions continue to preach intolerance against a proportion of the population, even though modern psychology has ruled out homosexuality as a deviancy? And lastly, why are we so ignorant about the history of marriage, although so many look to defend it, and keep gay men and women from enjoying equal status?
Homophobia is ingrained in our lives in many ways, including culturally. It's nothing for kids to say 'That's so gay' as an insult, or to read the message boards about out performers and the hateful, derogatory remarks that inevitably ensue. Up until very recently, and I mean very, very recently, gay men and women in the movies were routinely killed off in the final reel, or made to suffer in some way because of their 'unnaturalness'. I've posted this before, but movies like that are insidious - they not only seep into cultural consciousness, but they seep into the minds and hearts of gay boys and girls, reinforcing the belief that they are lesser, while their straight friends' bigotry is confirmed. Television is no better - John Barrowman was actually turned down for a role on 'Will & Grace' because he didn't qualify for the character of Will, a character who seemed to spend most of his time with Grace, rather than a boyfriend. The other gay character on the show was a caricature, someone who played the equivalent of Stepin Fetchit for the straight viewers. Today, television is a little better, but mainstream tv still has a very long way to go before we can say gay people are included proportionately in meaningful roles, and not as background filler. Higher visibility is the first step towards acceptance and the destruction of years and years of accumulated bigotry.
It's not just our popular culture that is to blame. Our churches, some of them, continue to spew homophobia from the pulpits. As a Catholic, I am deeply saddened as well as offended by this Pope's public statements on homosexuality, which are judgmental, ignorant and above all, unchristian. I am sorry he can't find it in his heart to be loving, but I find hope and solace in the many Catholics I know, religious and lay alike, who absolutely reject this homophobia. I also wish the media would contact a wider selection of articulate Catholics on these issues. Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League, is someone who literally makes my stomach turn, and I say that as one who was at a function where he was the guest speaker, and couldn't get away fast enough, he made me so ill. And yet, this blatant homophobe is the one the networks choose to identify with the Catholic voice in America, much to our continued embarrassment. As a man who is presumably educated, he has a lot to answer in for conflating homosexuality and pedophilia, or perhaps he's simply too busy spewing hate to remember the commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness...".
Other churches, I'm happy to add, have reviewed the infamous Leviticus injunctions and found them, historically, as binding as the injunction not to wear cotton and wool together, or eat pork. In fact, bible scholars have already interpreted that famous verse to mean the practice of temple prostitution as opposed to a same-sex union, an insight which has a great deal of merit, considering the unique friendships of David and Jonathan, or Naomi and Ruth which are described using the very much the same language as heterosexual relationships. Bible thumpers also conveniently ignore the scholarship that tells us there was no word for homosexuality when the bible was written, and Sodom, whom the fundamentalists throw out as their antigay trump card, in fact refers to the the taboo of inhospitable behaviour towards strangers. In those same verses, Lot offers his own daughter for rape to the people clamoring on the door for his visitors? Can anyone really believe that is a morally superior stance? But the same mentality that once used biblical verses as 'proof' of the moral right to own slaves is now picking out verses without examining them to deny gay men and women their rights. These are the times when I really wonder what Jesus would do - would he hang with the homophobes and throw rocks, or would he welcome all with love? My own religious beliefs are simple: God is love, Judge not, lest ye be judged, and Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with thy Lord, and so I believe he would do the latter. Furthermoe, if he were to return today, he might well find the only authentic Christian communities are those who are led by love .
But religious objections to the contrary, marriage is a civil union in the US. If it were not, a couple would not have to go to the town or city to fill out forms and procure a marriage license. Marriages that are performed in churches without these licenses are invalid, a point not understood by the haters. As a civil union, today's ruling clearly states that everyone has the right to the same liberty under the constitution, no exceptions because of minority status or because others don't like them. It clearly comes down on the side of the separation of church and state, and that should be good news to the churches who don't wish to perform marriages, because their rights have also been upheld, although I doubt if they will see it that way. Mary Matlin, the mouthpiece of the far right said today on CNN, with a shit eating face because she had to know how stupid she sounded, that this wasn't a civil liberty case, it was political. I disagree and to her I would say "It's the constitution, stupid."
Gay people live the same lives as straight people, except that they pay taxes for schools for other people's children, and health premiums for other people's families, including maternity stays, fertility treatments, pediatric healthcare. You get the picture. And yet, the arrogance and associated ignorance of those who want to ride the status quo and keep this uneven financial relationship is staggering. And that's only the tip of the iceberg - there are the issues of survivor rights, death and Social Security benefits, end of life decisions, and other legal issues the vast majority of Americans take for granted, some not troubled by the fact that once again, a significant proportion of American citizens is being treated unequally. They just care that they might see two men holding hands, or God forbid, their child's friend might have two mommies who love each other. It's bigoted, ignorant and certainly not the best of us as a people
The history of marriage is one in which marriage has been defined and redefined. Even today, marriage for love is a modern notion, our ancestors marrying for more practical or even financial purposes. In he very recent past interracial marriage was illegal, and before that , marriage between slaves. But Judge Walker has gone farther than define marriage for love: he's defined marriage as the partnership of two equals, which is something that is of profound importance to all, displacing as it does, centuries of patriarchal bias that reduced the woman to a lesser role in the partnership. And there is yet another nuance to his ruling, that of the commonly held assumption and arguing point of people against gay marriage that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation, which is, at it's heart, an affront to older and infertile couples, those who lose a child, or choose to remain childless.It's a step in the right direction to redefine marriage at this point in our history. It puts American citizens on an equal footing, and America on the same page as more socially progressive, humanistic countries who have already enacted laws permitting same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage isn't the end of our civilization, or the corruption of our government by The Gay Agenda. God isn't going to smite us for gay marriage. If God was going to smite us for anything, it would be for the shameful way we treat our brothers and sisters on earth. If anything, gay marriage strengthens the idea of marriage and equal partnership, by allowing those who value both enough to fight tirelessly for years to see this day. I'm thinking of the very famous lesbian couple, names i recognize from the seventies who married before Prop 8. One lived only a short time after the ceremony, but they had been together as a couple for over 40 years. Can anyone deny their love, or devotion? Can anyone with a conscience watch as one man takes care of his partner in the last stages of AIDs, tenderly and with love, and then finds himself out on the street because he couldn't inherit their apartment? These things happened, and will continue to happen until we are all equal under the law. And for the truly evil minded amongst us, and I know they're out there because I read the message boards, this ruling doesn't say someone can marry his goat, or his sister. That's just hate talk, and there will be plenty in the coming months, but I don't care, because today is enough to keep all of us who do want the best for our brothers and sisters to be happy for a long time.
And Judge Walker? Well, I might just send him a mash note, that's how much I love him, because I, too, am a sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal, but always libertarian kind of woman, and I love a person who comes down firmly on the side of the angels, balls to the wall, as they say. He is my kind of judge.
A