Thoughts on passing Prop 8

Jump to Comments

About a year and a half ago, I was on a gay family cruise in the Caribbean. We left from Miami, and about an hour or two into the first night, we noticed that the engines had stopped. A staff member came over the PA system, and said not to worry–that someone was injured and had to be airlifted back to Florida, so we were just holding tight until the helicopter got there. People shrugged and went about gorging themselves on the buffet, wondering what had happened. Story got around that a woman had fallen in the shower and broken her leg.

But it wasn’t true.

Not many people actually knew the truth (but, me being me, I had quickly fallen in with the right people that had the dirt from the staff). An hour after we had left shore a woman had fallen in the shower–that much was true. But she hadn’t broken her leg. She had had an aneurysm. She, her partner, and their two children were airlifted back to Miami and rushed to the hospital. The woman was still conscious when they admitted her, but the hospital staff would not allow her partner nor her children to come any further than the lobby, since she wasn’t her spouse, and the children were biologically the other woman’s kids.

The woman died, alone in a hospital emergency room far away from home, separated from her family, a few hours later.

Out of respect for the family and the fact that the public was not told, I have never told this story. But it’s one that needs to be told, because in my mind, this is what the gay community is fighting right now.

Just last week as I filled out paperwork for an IRA at work, there was a page to list beneficiaries. My choices were “spouse”, “trust”, or “other.”

And no, even if I was straight, I would not have checked the “spouse” box, since we aren’t married yet. But it hurts knowing that, legally, I may never be able to.

When Amy and I got engaged this summer, it wasn’t because suddenly we could, it was because we wanted to. And from May until now, gay people in California have been able to legally wed, and check that “spouse” box. They want to, and they can. Some 17,000 couple could and wanted to.

But not now.

A friend of Amy’s is one of those 17,000 couples. They have now had three ceremonies. They do not know what the change in law will do to their legal status yet again. And she is as good humored about it as possible, and said “well, next time I think I’m going to buy a new wedding dress.” No one should have to buy another wedding dress to continue to be married to the same person. It’s just not right.

For what I believe is the first time in US History (my googling skills are not the best, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), an issue was declared unconstitutional, legally granted, and within six months stripped away. Where this differs from civil rights issues such as anti-miscegenation is that once Loving vs. Virginia was ruled upon in 1967, no amendment was put forth, and subsequently passed, to rule what was found unconstitutional actually constitutional after the fact.

On what should have been an extremely exciting and hopeful election day, Amy and I went to bed that night with two very different thoughts. As I watched the election returns scroll across the bottom of my screen as Obama gave his acceptance speech and declared:

I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.

the numbers reported from California showed a different story. I headed to bed soon after the speech, deflated and desolate. Amy stayed up for another hour or two, constantly hitting the refresh button on CNN.com, trying to convince herself that there were only 65% of precincts reporting…only 72%…only 80%…

She came to bed bitter and a bit angry.

As we sat at our respective workplaces the next day and our emails zinged with their usual rapidity, we didn’t talk about it. We talked about her co-worker quietly whispering “Obama!” each time she passed Amy’s desk. We talked about my co-worker announcing, “I didn’t like voting yesterday. This guy called me a racist because I voted for McCain. It’s not racist because I’d rather be governed by a white guy than a black guy”. We talked about pressing our luck and seeing if we could score tickets to the Wicked lottery that evening.

We decided to try for the show, but we weren’t successful. Instead, we headed next door to get a couple drinks and some dinner before walking home. The combination of libations and very slow service got us a bit tipsy, and only then did we allow ourselves to begin discussing Proposition 8, culminating in Amy’s pronouncement that she “didn’t want to sleep with a fundamentalist mormon duck–or a flock of ‘em!” (I prefer the alliteration of “I don’t want to fuck a flock of fundamentalist mormon ducks” myself, so that’s how I choose to write it).

After the jump, the issues that we talked about in a Scottish bar on Hennepin Avenue over beer, vodka tonics, and not the best bar food.

Our respective moods were totally the other person’s fault

See, if we weren’t so happy and shit, and weren’t engaged, we totally wouldn’t be so bitter. Or desolate.

Proposition 8 was defeated in part by the false information presented by out-of-state fundamentalist religious funding

If there’s anything the people of this nation (well, any nation) are susceptible to, it’s being persuaded out of fear. It doesn’t matter if it’s fear of another depression, terrorists blowing up the Mall of America (which if they hadn’t planted that one would, you know, stimulate the local economy a bit), or our mortal souls being in danger because we refuse to let bureaucracy be dictated by theocracy. Case in point is this ad (if you can watch it without throwing up in your mouth a little bit, no matter what side of the issue you fall on):

I kind of thought that lying was also considered a sin, but apparently not when pushing a moral agenda. And, related:

The fear created by much of the “yes” campaigning is regarding issues not covered by Proposition 8.

There is a certain hypocrisy to those who say that they are against gay marriage but believe people should have the right to love and enjoy benefits of a union. It’s the same hypocrisy I find in the “hate the sin, love the sinner” mentality (of course, I have a cynical philosophy that all humans are innately evil). This proposition, nor the original ruling in favor of gay marriage, has anything to do with educating your children about homosexuality. It has nothing to do with the degradation of your own sacred union. It does not mandate that churches sanctify a gay union. Corporations are fantastic in stretching the truth to market their products (anyone seen the high-fructose corn syrup ads the last few weeks?), but even in the most heinous of marketing, there is a prerogative to put the fine print somewhere, isn’t there?

The proposition passed due to high-voter turn out in the African-American and Latino communities supporting Barack Obama.

I don’t know if I actually believe this or not. But from articles and studies (and episodes of Law and Order and The Wire) that I’ve read and seen over the years, there does seem to be a higher level of homophobia amongst these communities, due in part (in my opinion) to the paradigm of “being a man” in African-American communities, and the “Machismo” philosophy in the Latino community. Where Amy and I differ is this: do we give them a pass because it’s “part of their culture”, or is it okay to work within those communities to educate and show the same vitriol that many members of the gay community show the religious community for holding the same cultural (I would call religion a culture, personally) values and beliefs? I don’t know the answer. I don’t know where I stand on this.

Marriage, in the eyes of the law, is a contract. A legal contract.

That one doesn’t need any further commenting, I don’t think.

Marriage gives benefits to people when they have entered into said contract.

Again, a given.

Humans will do what is in their best interest.

Maybe this is again my cynicism, but if given the choice to do what’s best for others and what’s best for oneself, I think a person would always do what’s best for themselves. In a relationship that allows for tax breaks? I’m probably going to make sure I’ve got the paperwork done to ensure that. Want to make sure I won’t die alone in a hospital bed when there’s someone I want at my side? I’m probably going to take the steps to see that that’s fine. Hypothetically, let’s say you left the corporate world to pursue a dream of living the life as a writer and musician and work in the arts, but you’ve also got a couple chronic illnesses that, if not monitored properly, could end up being life-threatening, but you don’t make enough money to buy the insurance on your own that gives you the piece of mind and while you have insurance through a part time job, it’s roughly 10% of your bi-weekly pay and the nature of the policy is such that it will not cover pre-existing conditions, while your partner has fantastic medical coverage at a cheaper rate which would cover pre-existing conditions but because you are unable to call yourself a spouse, no matter how long you’ve been together, you are unable to enjoy those benefits which can be granted to people who have gotten drunk, met, and married in one night in Vegas. That seems…wrong.

People will enter into contracts that are mutually beneficial.

One argument I often see on the conservative side is that allowing gay marriage will lead to bestiality. Um, no. Because, at the basest level, what would having a relationship with an animal do for me (see above, humans will do what is in their best interest).

There is only one practical choice.

Either allow gays to enter into a contract termed “marriage”, or remove marriage as a condition for governmental benefits. Anything less would be unconstitutional.

Allowing gay marriage will not lead to polygamy.

Irony: one of the largest funders of the proposition 8 advertisements was the fundamentalist mormon church.  Note: I know that polygamy is now against the laws and principles of the Mormon church.  For me, it’s historical irony.

As always, I admit when my opinions are mine and my knowledge is limited. But I’ve never heard of a case where those in a polygamous relationship benefited or weren’t participating in behavior that was legal under existing law (I’m thinking women’s rights here). The gay community isn’t asking for existing criminal law to be repealed. We are simply looking to enjoy the same rights without discrimination to the gender of the one we choose to love.

Hence,

Schnappi does not want to fuck a flock of fundamentalist Mormon ducks.

We just want to love each other, and to be able to enjoy the protection, benefits, and perks of entering into a civil marriage, like many of our friends have–or could.

I respect the will of the people. Voting is essential in our democratic process when it is done fairly and with the necessary amount of education and free of prejudice so that voters understand the actual issue.

I am just a writer. An observer. My skill is not as a doer; it is as a recorder. In the long run it isn’t much. But it’s what I can give.

For the first time in my life, I feel the call to be an activist. I asked Amy if she was up for being a political firestorm, being that she works for the government. She shrugged and said, “they can’t take my pension.”

I do not know where this journey will take me. But it feels like the beginning of one.

I will continue to write my thoughts, fueled by the news, people I meet, and my unique brand of philosophy.

As I finish this very long essay, Aaron Copland’s “Tis a Gift to be Simple” from “Appalachian Spring” is playing on my iPod. If only that were true.

Game on. The Monkey’s coming for you.

4 Comments

Filed under gay politics