"Sure, I'm for gay rights, but I'm voting for Romney." "I don't agree with him on gay marriage, but overall, I agree with his values." "Gay rights is just one issue; I'm looking at the whole picture." Each time I hear a statement like this, it irks me anew. But why? Do I really think my right to get married is more important than homelessness, health care, or the economy? Geez, I don't think so. But even if I didn't disagree with Romney on these issues, I'd have a hard time voting for him. The crux of the problem is that for me, gay rights isn't "another issue," but a prior question--that is, a question that has to be answered before another one can be asked. For example, if I ask, "What kind of cookies should we make?" I've already answered (or implied the answer to) the prior question of: "are we going to make cookies?" To discuss issues with someone, I have prior questions. A central one is: are we equals? I am using "equals" in the sense of people who see each other as people, discussing and exchanging ideas--in the "all people are created equal" sense. Does the person value me and consider me valid as a human? To me, someone who does not believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians sees me (and/or my behavior) as subhuman. They do not believe that my full, real self is equal to their full, real self. They do not see me and my life the same way they see themselves and their lives. For this reason, the answer to the prior question of whether this is a person with whom I can engage in rational debate is "no." If you don't see me as your equal in terms of the human rights I deserve, it's very, very difficult for me to think you're worthwhile to engage with about anything else. This doesn't mean that someone needs to think I'm awesome, or love my choices. I think some people make terrible choices or are cruel people. But this doesn't mean I think they deserve fewer rights than I do. I dislike people who objectify women, but I would not favor a constitutional amendment that denied them the right to get married or prevented their partners from getting health care. And this, dear readers, is why gay rights isn't "just another issue" for me. Is it for you? Have you ever heard people say the things I quoted at the beginning of this post? How did you respond?
10 Comments
via www.godammit.com/category/houseboys/ Holy matrimony, Batman! Lately I've gotten lots of questions from brides in heterosexual weddings asking what to do with a butch lesbian bridesmaid, since many of us would rather pierce our own eyeballs with blunt toothpicks than wear a fetching dress of sea foam green chiffon. Here are some FAQs for traditional or semi-traditional brides-to-be: Q: Should I make my butch lesbian friend wear a dress if she's my bridesmaid? A: No, no, no. Give her that option if you want, but don't expect her to take it. You asked a butch dyke to be your bridesmaid, and you should respect who she is. If you had a male best friend and wanted him to be a bridesmaid, would you make him wear a dress? Of course not. Years later, I remain grateful to my friends E&R for inviting me to wear a suit and tie as a bridesmaid at their wedding. Q: Should I wait till she asks me what she should wear, or until she asks if she has to wear a dress? A: No. I can guarantee you that if you've already asked her to stand by your side, but haven't told her what to wear, the poor dyke is sweating bullets in fear that she will be forced to choose between: (1) wearing a dress and feeling horribly uncomfortable; (2) pissing you off. Let her off the hook ASAP (and ideally as soon as you ask her to be a bridesmaid) by telling her that you won't make her wear anything that will make her uncomfortable. Q: But my Aunt Mildred is a devout Christian and will freak out about a woman in guys' clothes! A: Having your butch friend wear a tie doesn't mean you're disrespecting A.M.'s religion. Explain to your aunt that you allowed your friends to wear what they're most comfortable in, and that this will help everyone enjoy your wedding. If necessary, remind her that Jesus loves everyone, no matter what they wear. Or: don't tell her in advance at all. People are usually on their best behavior at weddings, even if they're surprised by something. Q: But if my friend doesn't wear a dress, the wedding parties won't be perfectly symmetrical! A: Oh no! They won't be symmetrical? Holy crap--why not call the whole wedding off? Come on: When you look back at your wedding photos in 10 or 20 years, you'll think fondly of how much fun everyone had, not admire how well everyone matched. When I married my DXH, I had one of my best friends be the "usher" instead of a bridesmaid simply because he's a guy and I thought I was supposed to have the "sides" look the same. What a stupid choice! What matters is that your closest friends are by your side on your big day. Oh: and that the wedding cake doesn't suck. And that the photographer isn't wasted. And that the music is good. (See how many more interesting things there are to worry about?) Q: Okay, so what should I have my butch bridesmaid wear? A: [Rubbing hands together] Here's the fun part! You've got a ton of options. I'll throw out a few, but be aware that the possibilities are practically endless:
Q: How do I treat my butch bridesmaid's girlfriend? Does she sit with the wedding party? A: Do whatever you're doing with your other bridesmaids' significant others. Which I hope is seating them with the wedding party, but if there's not room, people will understand--you just need to treat everyone the same. Q: If I'm giving all my bridesmaids the traditional gift you give people in your wedding party... what do I give the butch one? A: If it's a "girly" gift that she'll hate, get her something else. (What is your hubby-to-be getting his groomsmen? That's one option.) Other ideas: a pocket knife (I'd suggest either a cool folding knife like this one or a multitool type like this one) , a Bespoke box of awesome, or a set of cuff links (I love these, these, these, these, and these). Q: What about the bachelorette party and stuff? Will she feel totally comfortable there? A: This is a hard one, because she might not, especially if she doesn't know all the other bridesmaids. But you should still invite her. If you want to do girly things, emphasize that you'd love to have her there and give her options that might make her comfortable. For example, if you're all going for manicures, tell her she's welcome to get a men's pedicure or a foot massage instead. Or, say she can come be the official photographer whenever she doesn't feel like participating (butches love having duties). If she expresses discomfort about parts of it, tell her to come to whatever parts she wants to. And no, you aren't obligated to invite her girlfriend to the bachelorette party. See? With a few small tweaks, you too can have an awesome butch bridesmaid who's stoked about her duties. How about you butches out there who have been bridesmaids at het weddings? Any tips? Happy anecdotes? Horror stories? I had an interesting conversation with a straight female friend of mine yesterday. She happens to have a bunch of polyamorous friends, though she and her (amazingly wonderful) boyfriend happen to be monogamous. Anyway, this friend recently attended a polyamorous commitment ceremony. Here's the situation, as I understand it: The ceremony centered around (A) a man and (B) a woman (already married to each other), plus (C) a second woman who has a relationship with both of them. The point of the ceremony was for the woman to affirm her commitment to this married couple, and vice versa. Their parents were there (as if coming out to your folks as LGBT isn't hard enough, right?). A, B, and C live together. Two of them also have at least one relationship outside of the trio (to D and E, who are unconnected). The husband and wife (A and B) used to have a relationship with another husband-and-wife couple (F and G), but A broke up with G. B and F are still together. Whoa. Before we go any further, a working definition: Polyamory is when you have a relationship (usually emotional and physical, but certainly emotional) with more than one person simultaneously. Often, polyamorous people have a primary partner with whom they have their "main" relationship, and one or two other people with whom they also have enduring emotional and sexual relationships. Polyamory is sometimes referred to as "responsible non-monogamy," because a central tenet is that there aren't any secrets--everyone knows whom everyone else is dating. This is different from an open relationship because (typically) in open relationships, both people in the relationship agree that they can sleep with other people, but are emotionally monogamous. Often, these couples have an agreement that they can't have "repeat" partners (in order to avoid becoming emotionally connected to anyone besides their partner), and/or an agreement that if they do start to have feelings for another person, that they will no longer sleep with that person, and/or an agreement that they will not sleep with mutual acquaintances. As you might imagine, there are practically unlimited configurations. I know one gay male couple who has a list of 5-10 people with whom they are each allowed to sleep. They have to get sexual partners pre-approved by one another, their lists can't overlap, and they aren't allowed to have sexual escapades with any of these people in their own house, or spend the night with them. They can get emotionally attached to these other people, as long as these attachments don't rival or interfere with their attachments to each other. (I don't know if they consider their relationship "open" or "poly.") Some polyamorous folks live together in groups of three or more, and may even raise children together. Others keep calendars; they might spend Tuesdays and Wednesdays with their second lover and the other with their primary partner. These arrangements make my head spin. I don't think they're wrong in an objective sense, but I don't think they'd work for me. The main reasons:
Successful practitioners of polyamory manage to overcome these challenges, so I know it can be done. But I think I'm wired for monogamy, the same way I'm wired to be a butchy lesbian. This got me to thinking: if I'm "wired" for monogamy, then probably some people are wired for polyamory. Does this mean that polyamory is a sexual orientation? Or is it a sexual preference? I've heard both from polyamorous people, and maybe different things are true for different people. If polyamory is a sexual orientation, this has major implications. For one, I believe that a person's sexual orientation should be protected by law. Does this mean that poly marriages should be legal? And if so, what does this mean for things like tax breaks and health insurance? (For more on the legal implications of polyamory, check out this article I just found.) As I've written about before, I'm not entirely sure that the government should be in the business of endorsing marriage relationships at all, aside from allowing people to form contracts about issues like child-rearing, inheritance, etc. Getting the government out of the business of regulating these relationships would be a step towards poly equality, I suppose. In theory, I totally support poly equality. In practice, I have a gut reaction against it. I flinch at the idea of polyamorous households adopting kids. And I can't articulate a concrete reason why, except that it goes against my idea of what relationships "should" be. Which, when you think about it, makes me no better than gay marriage opponents who want their moral inclinations to prevent people like me from getting married. Would I vote for governmental recognition of polyamorous marriage? I'd like to say, of course! And in the voting booth, I believe my answer would be yes. But it would be an uncomfortable yes. And this discomfort makes me feel guilty and hypocritical. What do you think about this, dear readers? Have any of you monogamous types felt the kinds of things I'm describing? And I know I have some poly readers, too: I claim no real knowledge about polyamory, so feel free to jump in, correct me, enlighten me, etc! Do we want state involvement in this? How much? _Lately, I've been pondering the whole idea of marriage as a state creation, and the government's involvement in family structure. First, let me be clear: I'm just trying this argument on for size; I'm not entirely convinced it's right. But as a thought experiment, follow me down this road for a minute. Imagine that the government was no longer in the business of sanctioning any family structure at all. First, suppose that there was no such thing as state-sanctioned marriage. No tax benefits for being married, no deductions, no implications for social security credits. Instead, marriage would simply be something that people do privately to announce their commitment to their friends or their church or their family or their God. There would be no legal implications for this, only psychological and emotional ones. Taking the government out of our private lives would have implications for family structure, too. There wouldn't be tax deductions for having kids, for example. Why should the government give people a financial incentive to have a particular family structure?) Instead of making sure that your employer gives you leave if you have a child (biological, adopted, whatever), the government could make sure that everyone got a certain amount of leave time to do whatever they wanted. If you want to have a kid, great. If you want to write a novel or volunteer at the local animal shelter with that time instead, great. It's not that people with families would be "punished;" it's simply that family-related activities wouldn't be privileged over other activities. Similarly, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) could still exist, but it wouldn't just be to take care of a family member. Instead, you could use it if you needed to take care of anyone who was sick, even a friend. I can imagine downsides to this approach, not to mention logistical difficulties associated with a lack of default rules about various matters (e.g., who can visit you in the hospital). Health insurance could be problematic, too (though, uh, if we gave everyone health care, this wouldn't be an issue...). But there's no reason we couldn't find solutions to these problems. Since, statistically speaking, most people benefit from the laws and policies and practices that endorse particular family structures (and particular activities related to the creation and maintenance of these structures), I doubt that the government is likely to disentangle itself from these anytime soon. But when we talk about whether gay marriage is worth fighting for, I can't help but wonder if these fights are beyond the point. As long as marriage remains a government creature, I will remain fully dedicated to marriage equality. But maybe the real problem is that the government rewards and incentivizes particular ways of living over other ways, calling the structures it endorses "American values," and implicitly branding all others deviant. If this is so, it is a problem that goes well beyond gay and straight. I'll be interested to know what you think about all of this, dear readers. Should marriage be a government creature at all? At the very least, I think it's worth pondering. _ As most readers have heard, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling on Prop 8. I know it's hard as hell to keep track of all the cases and ballot measures (let alone understand them), so I've written a step-by-step guide/timeline that you don't need a JD to understand. State and federal courts: the basic setup First, California state courts have three levels: 1. Superior court (lowest level, where trials happen) 2. State appellate courts (also called "district courts;" middle level) 3. California Supreme Court (highest level) Then we have the federal courts. Three levels there, too: 1. District courts (lowest level, where trials happen--not the same as #2 above, despite the name) 2. Federal appeals courts (also called "circuit courts," middle level) 3. U.S. Supreme Court The California Supreme Court interprets California laws, deciding whether those laws violate the state constitution or the US Constitution. When it comes to the California Constitution, the California Supreme Court gets the final say. But not so for the U.S. Constitution; the federal courts get to have the final say over that. So it's important to understand that there are two kinds of "constitutional" violations that people talk about--the state constitution and the federal constitution--and a different set of courts gets the final say over each one. Understanding all this will make it easier to follow my breakdown. Okay, here you go: California Gay Marriage Timeline 2000: California voters pass Prop. 22, which is a state law saying that "marriage" means one man and one woman. 2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom issues same-sex marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite Prop. 22. Anti-gay groups file lawsuits in SF superior court (state trial court), saying that Newsom's actions were illegal and the marriage licenses are invalid. Newsom says that Prop. 22 is unconstitutional, and that it's not illegal to violate an unconstitutional law. 2005: The SF superior court says that Prop 22 is illegal. Outlawing gay marriage is gender discrimination. The anti-gays immediately appeal to the state appellate court. Before the state appellate court decides anything, the California legislature passes a bill saying same-sex marriages are allowed. But a few days later, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes it, saying the court should decide. 2006: The state appellate court overturns the lower court's decision. It says that preventing gay marriage is not gender discrimination, that the state's interest in protecting the "traditional definition" of marriage is valid, and that the definition of marriage shouldn't be decided in court. Of course, the gay rights lawyers appeal (those activist gays!) to the California Supreme Court. 2007: The California legislature passes another bill allowing same-sex marriages. Schwarzenegger terminates this bill, too (HAHA, get it? 'Cause he's the TERMINATOR!? Ha… ha?). 2008: The California Supreme Court rules on the Prop 22 case, saying that marriage is a fundamental right, and that voters can't just sweep it away. After all, what if people voted to take away the freedom of speech? You can't just "vote away" a fundamental right. You have to actually amend the state or federal constitution. So… the anti-gay folks do exactly that, and propose an amendment to the state constitution. (California lets its state constitution be amended by popular vote.) This is what's known as Prop 8. It's different from Prop 22, because Prop 22 was just a law; it didn't change the state constitution. Prop 8 passes. The California constitution now says that "marriage" means one man and one woman. (Interestingly, this means that trans people who legally change their sex can get married, as long as it's to a person of the opposite sex. Hmm... a rare case of trans "privilege!") 2009: Gay rights lawyers file a suit in federal district court (the lowest level of federal court) saying that the California constitution now violates the US Constitution. (See, states can say basically anything in their constitutions, as long as it doesn't violate the US Constitution.) So that's how a state decision got into federal court. 2010: There's a trial in federal district court. The judge (Vaughn Walker) rules that the state has no "rational basis" for denying a right (marriage) to a particular group (gays). Even though sexual orientation doesn't get special constitutional protection under the law like race and gender does, you can't single people out for no good reason and deny them a right. Anti-gay groups appeal to the Ninth Circuit (the federal appeals court), saying that Judge Walker got it wrong, and that there are good reasons for denying marriage to gays. They also say that since Walker is gay himself, he was too biased to hear the case. 2012: Today's decision: the Ninth Circuit upholds the ruling. They say that Judge Walker was fine to stay on the case (duh). The big question is whether there was a rational reason to take away a right from a specific group of people. The decision goes through all the supposed reasons for Prop 8 and says, come ON--banning gays from getting married doesn't promote ANY of these goals. The only goal it DOES promote is harming a particular group, and that's not a legitimate/rational reason for a law. Next, the anti-gays will undoubtedly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which may or may not take the case. In a future post, I might talk a little more about this. But for now, let's all bask in the happy afterglow of the Ninth Circuit's decision! |
|