Why Not Gay Marriage? or A Change is Gonna Come

Since the California Supreme Court upheld the ludicrous, church-driven Proposition 8 this week, I've been trying to find the words to voice exactly how I feel. I haven't been able to do it really, since I'd addressed the topic of gay marriage/civil unions in the past, and my opinion has been on record since 2004. Everything I scrawled down was a reflection or a modification of something I had written before.

In 2004, while I was writing for the alt-weekly newspaper Planet Weekly, in Jackson, Mississippi, I wrote the following column. I've decided to post it here, because it reflects what I feel now, what I felt then, and what I've felt for a long time. I simply don't understand why others feel differently, and a look askance at the justifications they give.

I haven't changed a word, or reference of the body of the text, and have only removed the link to our former website at the bottom. A point of pride: when this hit our blog at the time, I was impressed how many Mississippians chimed in and agreed with me - that the issue of sexual orientation simply shouldn't matter.

Like it or not, people, the world is going to change. It may change around you, but it's going to change.

----------------------------------------------

"Civil Unions"

For the first time, the issue of gay marriages – or civil unions – has been brought up for serious discussion. With the Commonwealth of Massachusetts deciding that they are legal, there is finally real, tangible discussion about this issue. Yes, the State of Vermont allowed civil unions several years ago, but Vermont is a small state with little influence on others. When Massachusetts took this big step, it became major news.

The conservatives’ views on this issue are already well known. In a nutshell, they believe that allowing gay marriages leads to the end of civilization, as we know it. This is not a surprise. A bit more surprising is the mixed reactions occurring in the various liberal camps. Even my man Wesley Clark splits this particular hair, supporting “civil unions,” but not going so far as to call them “marriages.”

Personally, I don’t see the problem. I totally support the idea of gay marriages. And I don’t feel a need to qualify the statement. I don’t think they should be called “civil unions.” I think that if a marriage is recognized in one state, it should be recognized in every state. I think a gay married couple should be allowed every right that a straight married couple receives. Call me crazy, plenty have, but I simply don’t believe that allowing gay men and women to marry will cause the downfall of the American Way.

If anything, it should strengthen it. In a nation where “Family Values!” has become an actual battle cry, the idea of preventing people from forming families is ludicrous at best, discriminatory at worst. If gays wish to form families, and raise children, they should have the same rights as those who are not gay.

What we have to lose in this situation are our prejudices. What we have to gain is much more important: an understanding that one need not be a part of a mother-father-two-point-two-children family, to be part of a family.

But what we have come to, as we so often do when dealing with the conservative mindset, is a case of hypocrisy standing in for policy. As usual, the right-wingers claim that they are the ones who stand up for everyone and support equality for all. This is true, unless of course you are different.

The conservatives can give all sorts of reasons for why this discrimination is acceptable, from the irrational “the Bible says so” to the rational, if selfish, “I just don’t like it.” I believe it’s actually a little simpler and far more insidious than that. I believe that they are afraid. Not afraid of what these “wicked” people will do to the American Ideal, but afraid of change.

Our society remains in a state of flux, constantly evolving and changing. Fifty years ago, women were expected to set aside their own personalities, dreams, and desires, to become stay-at-home mothers and wives. One hundred and fifty years ago, it was legal to buy and sell black men and women at will. Two hundred and fifty years ago, the concept of America didn’t even exist.

It’s time to take a step forward, ignoring the crusaders of the status quo; those who would prefer to force their prejudices on others – those who, in the past, also supported the ideas of sexism, slavery, and crown rule. Those were bad ideas then. Fighting a change to create a more tolerant society is a bad idea now.

Show me some spine, folks, and tell me what you think. All responsible viewpoints are welcome at… Incoherent ramblings will probably be okay, too.

On Gay Marriage and Boobs

Yesterday was a banner day for Californians of a liberal bent. We started out the day with news that former VP nominee and once-and-future punchline Sarah Palin had decided to come out and speak up in defense of Miss California - the current punchline.

As far as I was concerned, it was like Christmas coming early. One brain-dead conservative beauty queen throwing herself back into the spotlight to defend another brain-dead conservative beauty queen. I wish to God I was working for Saturday Night Live or The Onion or someone like that, because that's just comedy gold.

It was all I could do to keep up with the electioneering slogans that jumped to my head:

"Four magnificent breasts, two magnificent boobs!"

"Palin/Prejean 2012: Two crowns, four hooters, and 18 IQ points between them!"

"Palin/Prejean 2012: Why not? You elected W!"

"Fighting to keep hairspray and mascara production here in the U.S.!"

"We love Americans, except for the queers!"

That's the other thing they have in common, which is why the day got even better when the "cautious" (as the press here have dubbed them - apparently needing to agree on one adjective they could all spell) California Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriages and made it harder to discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation.

Personally, I half-believe that the justices were hanging around and heard Sarah Palin yammering about how Carrie Prejean had her "right to speak"* about her dislike of gay marriages and just lost it. I like to think they agreed to make their decision then, than have to spend another day listening to the Dittoheads and the rest of the fringe right's attempt to have Carrie Prejean turned into a saint.

So on behalf of all of us who have been tired of hearing that, I'd like to say: "Thank God for those boobs!" Who knows - if both of them hadn't kept speaking, the Supreme Court might still be deliberating, and gay marriage in California might not be law.

-------------------------------------------------

*Carrie Prejean has the same issue with understanding "freedom of speech" as do many of those propping up her already-dead career: "freedom of speech" may give you the right to say what you want, but it doesn't protect you from people who think you're a stupid, narrow-minded bimbo** without anything decent to say. "Freedom of speech" means you can say it, but it doesn't mean people have to "hear" it or agree with it. It's the position of the fringe right (and always has been) that when they speak, you must listen. If you don't, you're anti-American.

**Oh, all right. Proof she's a bimbo? May as well let you see everything Carrie Prejean has to offer society: http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/13/miss-california-carrie-prejean-topless-photos/