I've tried going to sleep a few times and not post about this until my anger abated but it was just no use.
Bush has declared that the ruling in Massachusetts for same-sex marriages to be
troubling. Do you know what I find troubling? The fact that it's now 2004 and a chunk of our population is being treated as second-class citizens because of whom they fall in love with simply because Conservative America finds their sexual practices distasteful. "Abomination" is a word that's thrown around, as is "deviant".
You know what's an abomination? Raping kids. I find necrophilia to be rather deviant. What I don't find deviant, however, are two same-sex people doing the same damn things that straight people do to and with and for one another. I certainly don't find the idea of said same-sex couples being married as a threat to the sanctity of my marriage. How could it be? Could someone please explain to me how my union between that man and this woman is in any way, shape or form threatened by the marriage of that woman and that woman? That man and that man? How? Take as many words as you want - explain it to me like I'm three because I am just on pins and needles here. I'm not threatened by the proposal of gay marriage but maybe I missed the memo with the earth-shattering reasons why I should be.
Britney's whirlwind "marriage" didn't diminish the importance of the promise I made to my husband. My neighbor's fourth divorce doesn't cheapen what I have. If the so-called "sanctity" of my marriage can withstand such straight slings and arrows of outrageous nonchalance, how can a gay marriage break it? Do we honestly think that our unions are so fragile? The only threat to your marriage or my marriage or anyone's marriage comes from
within. Your own failings as a human being are what will cause your marriage to fail and your strengths are what will make it succeed. What, are there really straight people out there who think, "Well, gee, I'd really like to get married, but all the gays are doing it, so if I do it then people will think I'm gay!" If anything, letting gay people get married would probably
encourage straight people to do it...have you noticed the increase of spray-on tanning salons since Kyan did it on "Queer Eye"? In the past two months, three of them have popped up in my neighborhood
alone. Let the gay men bring marriage back
en vogue for all of the bored, ennui-laden anti-suburbanite youth out there. Trust me, once you start featuring fabulously gorgeous gay men on the cover of "Bride" magazine, the post-Gen X-scarred by parental divorce and scared of marriage crowd will be flocking to courthouses around the country. This is basic marketing, people.
The Kinsey estimate of ten per cent of the population being homosexual has been
attacked by the right as being either deliberately or unintentionally skewed. Kinsey interviewed sex offenders! He spoke with male and female prostitutes! Of
course he's going to find sexual deviance in these groups and it stands to reason that his estimation of the homosexual population would be high. Perhaps that's the case. Maybe it really was all pro-gay propaganda. Just like the claim that gays were killed in the Holocaust was a
myth.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the National Health and Social Life Survey conducted in 1994 identified a
mere 2.1 per cent of the population as identifying as openly and exclusively gay. However, no study is going to give an accurate number by virtue of the sheer number of homosexuals who are still in the closet for whatever reason. Then there is the transsexual group - many of whom do not identify themselves as gay regardless of their pre- or post-operation status. If a man feels he should have been born a woman and is attracted to men, he wouldn't classify himself as gay. His identity is that of a straight woman who was born in a man's body. Yet, a marriage - even a post-op, male-to-female transsexual - between this man and another man would not be allowed. But where does this personally-straight-identifying yet "legally" gay contingent fit into the equation? There are many shades of grey to consider in any report of this nature.
So Kinsey says ten per cent. The NHSLS says 2.1 per cent ten years ago. A
Gallup Poll says that American believe that one in five of us are gay. Where do we split the difference? How can we really know? We know for certain that there's at least 2.1 per cent of the population that identified openly as being gay in 1994 - what's the rate of inflation on that figure, I wonder?
Here's something kind of interesting...the population of Native Americans, Eskimos and Aleuts in the country amounted to
less than one per cent of the population just five short years ago. Asian-Americans only made up about
3.7 per cent of the US population in 1999. It's interesting to think about these numbers...think about it - if there are no gay Native Americans, Eskimos or Aluets (so that they wouldn't be included in the 2.1 figure above) the entirety of their combined races would barely make a dent in the population of openly homosexual people in America. Hell, I can think off the top of my head three people on my blogroll who have direct ties to the Native American heritage alone, and I may be able to rustle up an Eskimo if I put in the research.
These numbers have nothing to do, per se, with the population of homosexuals in this country until you consider this - if you replace half of the Asian-Americans you know with homosexuals, you'll have a fairly accurate representation of the gay population in general. Excuse me - I meant to say "of the exclusively homosexual population of ten years ago in general".
I personally know roughly twice as many closeted homosexuals than openly gay. Selectively closeted, that is, as in their orientation is known to only a few close friends. I have known people who have attempted suicide rather than out themselves. I've known a man who succeeded. Think about that - there are people out there who would rather die than answer "gay" on a survey. That's not melodrama; that's bona fide fact. I do not for one second believe that the NHSLS estimate to be accurate of the population as a whole - indeed, I believe they qualify their findings by stating the 2.1 per cent figure as the percentage of the population that identifies as "openly and exclusively gay" and is not representative of the entire gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender population.
And not a single one of them is allowed to have a nation-wide, legally-acceptable marriage. That thing that so many of us take for granted. That thing that we can make go away with a strongly-worded appeal to a judge mere hours after the fact. That thing that we can do over and over and over again, provided we pay alimony when the fun wears out. Mmmm....I love the smell of sanctity in the morning! Smells a bit like irony.
I am always surprised when I hear women or blacks decry the idea of gay marriage. Once upon a time, the generally-held belief was that a woman's vote would dilute the voice of the man. Once upon a time, whitey thought that letting ol' darkie have a plot of earth to call his own would make whitey's own land ownership seem, well, not so special anymore.
Is it a matter of, "Well, I've got
my civil rights" and walking away from the table? "Not
my problem." Or is it something more sinister? Maybe if we make life difficult for the gay and lesbian population by denying them the basic rights of families that they'll go straight? I know there's a huge population of people who believe that being gay is a choice and I'm not going to rehash that whole argument - until there's absolute, concrete proof either way we're never going to agree on that one. Hell, even with proof people will still deny it - how long did it take before we believed the earth was round? That orbits were elliptical? Once upon a time, a mere utterance of these strange ideas was cause for the death penalty - as if scientific proof would ever validate the homosexual population in the eyes of the skeptics and the self-righteous.
Do people still believe women shouldn't vote? Do people still think blacks shouldn't own land or have a voice in their own government? Of course! That's a sad fact of human nature. But the majority of us don't feel that way and the rest of us shouldn't. Because we are all equal, and that's what the Constitution says.
Let's imagine, for a moment, that homosexuals are to be excluded from that whole Constitution thingamajig...after all, I don't believe I've ever seen the word "homosexual" in the Constitution, have you? Actually, I don't remember the word "marriage" in there at all. Come to think of it, there's no mention of marriage in the amendments, either. So what the hell is George Bush on about? What is he wanting to "amend" in the Constitution and its subsequent articles?
Hmmm...well, this certainly seems like a likely candidate...article ten states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So let's look at this for a second..."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" - that would include marriage, right? - "nor prohibited by it to the States" - again, marriage certainly qualifies here, correct? Obviously such, as each state has its own rules and regulations governing marriage laws - "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Think about that -
reserved to the States respectively. Under this article, under the laws
guaranteed by the Constitution, each state has the right to make up its own damn mind as to whom it will allow to get married. No other state can say, "Hey, you Massachusetts gays - you can't get married!" because as far as the Constitution is concerned, that's up to Massachusetts.
This is where the "Defense of Marriage Act" comes into play. What does it say? It says that no state that doesn't accept the legality of gay marriage should have to recognize a gay marriage from another state. That's fine, because it's still on a state-by-state basis. But don't think that Massachusetts is your only option for a legal marriage if you're gay - the thing here is that Massachusetts is the only state that has a court-ruling that strikes down the ban on gay marriage. To be sure, this is a huge accomplishment because this state
used to ban gay marriage but doesn't anymore. Vermont allows same-sex civil unions, and there are a slew of states that don't ban gay marriage at all: New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Oregon, Wyoming, New Mexico, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland. California, District of Columbia and Alaska have state registries for same-sex couples.
When you look at it this way, gay marriage doesn't seem like such an uphill battle, does it? At least you know that your Massachusetts marriage will not be opposed - if not condoned - in a number of other states. Because it's the choice of every single state - and the inhabitants therein - to decide for themselves.
Oh, and about that whole "definition of marriage and spouse" thing in the Defense of Marriage Act? It's very clear that these two words are defined for purposes of federal law. And, as I addressed above, there is no federal law at issue here with the exception of federal benefits and their disbursement to a "spouse" within a "marriage". So, yeah, if you're in a gay marriage you can count out that $250 Social Security spousal death benefit. Bet that one smarts, huh?
The real story here is about what George wants to change. He wants to take away the rights of states with a Constitutional amendment. He won't say the exact words, but I think his intent is pretty clear:
If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.
The Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress and Bill Clinton in 1996, isn't harsh enough, as it basically reiterated exactly what Article Ten states - with the exception of the definitions of "marriage" and "spouse" as it regards federal law.
You know why I think there's nothing specifically outlining marriage laws in the Constitution? Because our Founding Fathers who drafted this wondrous piece of legislation felt it was too trivial to be a federal matter. And it is. What they were very clear about, however, is the equality and civil rights that should be afforded to all of us.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard.
Indeed, they should, and
your vote matters.
Long winded-iousness,
Natalie
I love that whole "on an issue of such great consequence" part. Bravo to his speech-writer for that delicious little gem. What consequence? I don't - I really do not get it. Oh, and I know I got a bit glib in places, but that was only my lack of sleep making me a little slap-happy. I'm sure if I wrote about this while fully awake you'd have a much angrier little bean on your hands. ()