Thursday, May 15, 2008

Wow. I got mail.

If you’ve been under a rock, today the California State Supreme Court ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, thereby making California the second state to make said marriages legal. Sally Kerns (the Oklahoma state representative I discussed a while back who believes that gays will destroy this nation) must be completely out of her head at today’s news.

But apparently, California has some analogues of Sally here as well, because somehow, I wound up on a email list “alerting” me that THE GAYS IN CALIFORNIA WILL DESTROY THE NATION. That is, if I’m following their “logic” correctly.

Up until today, the only mail I’ve received has been spam and a few messages from friends, plus a couple of autoresponses to things I’ve sent out. I never figured this ’blog would be popular—Democrats and most thoughtful people would be put off by the “Republican” in the title, and most Republicans would be put off by the word “Thoughtful.”

(Is “antipandering” a word?)

In any case, I don’t think this “alert” was sent out by any political group; it seems to be the work of a mildly illiterate individual trying to convince his or her sympathetic fellow Californians to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November.

It’s already clear that the homophobic (in public, anyway) prudes (in public, anyway) that currently run the GOP will be chittering madly at this development. But there are several reasons why actual Republicans would welcome this decision.

First: It’s none of the government’s business

What I do with any part of my body or any of my property with another consenting person or persons is none of anyone else’s business provided it does not harm anyone outside our group.

This is why no American constitution (so far as I know) has ever addressed sexual conduct—and frankly, if one did, we should be horrified at the sheer nerve to intrude in such a private area of our lives.

Moreover, I would argue that it’s none of the government’s business (or yours) who I choose to live with, in what circumstances, with what financial arrangements, in whatever state of clothing or debauchery, provided that we are all otherwise law-abiding citizens, and that we are all legally able and willing to consent to the circumstances we choose.

Period.

Second: Marriage—not all that sacred

I’m sorry, I’m just not buying that heap of swill anymore. It’s an argument that relies entirely on a ridiculous premise.

The sacredness of marriage is a relatively recent notion. Throughout most of human history, marriage has been a matter of practical needs rather than religious affairs. Even as late as the 1700s, marriage was usually a matter of business—it was one of the ways that men (through the practice of dowry) raised capital and set out to establish heirs. Partners were chosen with their value to the family and community in mind. Even for the upper classes, who presumably had the luxury for romance, marriage was far more often more a political and business matter than a romantic one. Even the religious overtones were often more of a matter of getting sanctioned by the church rather than being blessed.

But even in today’s world, the heterosexuals are sucking any of our newfound “sacredness” right out of marriage. Two names should sum that up for you: Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. There are countless other couplings that share that sense of catastrophic failure, whether famous or not. Many of those couplings have taken place in the pseudoconservative community—brought to you by people like David Vitter, Vito Fossella, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde—just as they have in the liberal community.

We have shows like The Bachelor, we have drive-through Elvis wedding chapels . . . how is this in any way “sacred”?

You wanna talk sacred? Love. That’s sacred.

Third: Marriage—not just for procreation

When the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 ruling in July of 2007 that upheld that state’s ban on same-sex marriage because, among other things, such unions do not further procreation, an initiative was introduced (I–957) that would require couples to prove their procreative abilities in order to get a marriage license, and require married couples to have children within three years or have their marriage annulled.

Of course, it wasn’t a serious attempt to change the law, but simply cast a hard light on one of the silliest claims of the right-wing regarding marriage.

Sterile people are allowed to marry. Elderly people are allowed to marry. Sexually disabled people are allowed to marry. Marriages that don’t involve procreation are certainly allowed, so denying same-sex marriages on this basis is . . . well, ridiculous, and the five judges on the Washington State Supreme Court who ruled this way should be ashamed of themselves for making such a ridiculous argument.

Fourth: Separation of church and state

In spite of the drumbeat of the hypocritical theocrats currently running the GOP, Republicans should have a very strong desire to rebuild the wall of separation that has been so eroded in the last twenty-five years.

If you view marriage as a strictly religious rite, then the government has no business getting involved at all. If you view marriage as a social right, then the government is obligated to ensure that all citizens may enjoy that right as they see fit.

You can’t have it both ways.

If we were serious about this, we would stop recognizing all marriages and only honor civil unions, leaving marriage as a religious ceremony unregulated by the government. All married couples would be required to bond in a civil union to retain the benefits that they currently enjoy in marriage. However, the impracticality of that would make that a daunting choice, so from the government’s point of view, it’s easier to expand the franchise to all Americans.

Fifth: It’s economical

Forcing same-sex couples into that second-class form of marriage called “civil unions” is going to result in more expense.

Certificates of marriage won’t be enough; we’ll have to print up certificates of civil unions as well. This “seperate but equal” schtick has all the same problems as it did in the South: you have to maintain two drinking fountains, two sets of bathrooms, have a separate section of the theatre—only in regards to this issue, you’ll have to have two sets of forms for marriage, two sets of forms for divorce, different procedures to maintain, and so on and so forth.

In addition, it simplifies matters with regards to things like power of attorney, filing taxes (one form instead of two), and dozens of other issues that same-sex couples have to take extra steps to deal with.

Sixth: It’s the right thing to do

C’mon. We’ve gotten over segregation in this country. Why the need for sexual apartheid?

I go through life generally assuming that those interested in same-sex relationships do so as naturally and avidly as I’ve pursued opposite-sex relationships. There was never a doubt in my mind as to which gender had my attention. Sure, I had friends of the same sex, but I never wanted to snog any of ’em. No, my devotion has always been to the soft-spoken curvy ones, and if they had freckles, all the better. That’s just how I’m wired. But I look at some of my friends who are in stable same-sex relationships, and I see the same sort of devotion and ardor that I’ve experienced in my own opposite-sex relationships, so it seems perfectly rational to assume that that’s the way they’re wired.

One of the couples I know has been together now for over 40 years now, and they still seem crazy about each other, calling each other several times a day to share a story, check in, plan dinner, whatever. Heck, they give me hope that someday I should have such a stable, mutually supportive relationship. I cannot imagine why these two wonderful, generous people should be relegated once again to second-class status.

Ten years ago, at a housewarming party, both of them said that they would love to be able to marry. They had reason. The previous year, one of them (whom I’ll call “Alan” here) had sustained a head injury in an accident; he was unconscious with a life-threatening brain hemorrhage, and had to be rushed into surgery. Robert was the one who notified Alan’s parents (who were still having trouble handling the fact that their son was gay), and was at his bedside when Alan’s parents showed up. They asked hospital security to have Robert escorted out. Alan was still unconscious four hours after his surgery, and his parents took the time to call Robert to let him know that if Alan died, they would be suing Robert for everything he had so that he couldn’t “steal” Alan’s property. It wasn’t until Alan woke up a few hours afterwards that he was able to make his wishes known to the hospital staff, and Robert was allowed back into the building. Shortly after that, Alan’s parents left, but their last words to Robert were, “You just wait.”

I wish I could say this was an isolated story. This is just one involving people that I know personally. By the time of the party, Robert and Alan had set up a corporation that would own all their property (hence, the housewarming party). It would cost them extra money to gain the property rights that married couples enjoy, but they didn’t have any other recourse at the time. As of this writing, I’m pretty sure that’s still the case.

These are two people in love. They aren’t any of the things that the theocrats believe about homosexual men: they aren’t promiscuous, they aren’t unstable, they aren’t suicidal, they don’t pursue high-risk activities . . . and so what if they did? They’re adults, they’re living the life they want to live in a country where freedom is supposed to be one of our fundamental values. They also both attend church, have Bible studies, and really try to live up to Christian ideals, donating time and money to women’s shelters and hunger relief.

That’s better than most of the “Christians” who would revile them on Biblical grounds.

Seventh: Christians only: It’s not a sound Biblical interpretation

It always amazes me how crazy-eyed “Christians” can ignore Leviticus 17, haul out Leviticus 18 as justification for their hatred of homosexuals, ignore Leviticus 19, and then haul out Leviticus 20 for more gay-bashing.

There are, of course, other Biblical verses that such people use to justify their discrimination against homosexuals. “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1 : 28) is something I think we can safely say has already been done—with well over six billion people on the planet, in fact, we would do well to consider moderating our pursuit of fruitfulness before things get out of hand (some would argue that the population strain is already too great). In addition, millions of people are sterile anyway, and so cannot obey this edict.

Some use a couple of verses from the second creation story (Genesis 2 : 23–24) to justify only opposite-sex relationships, but the Bible does seem to ignore those who are celebite, sterile, post-menopausal, or “intersex” (1–3% of people are born with hermaphroditic characteristics).

Then there’s the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18–19), wherein Lot offers his virgin daughters to a mob in order to protect his angelic guests from being “known” by a mob of incongruously aggressive homosexual rapists—by which I guess houseguests were more important to God than children. But does the story condemn homosexuals? Or homosexual rapists?

There are other verses in the Old Testament whose interpretations are hotly debated, of course. In the New Testament, we have . . . well, Paul, whose writings have been used to justify persecution of women, racial minorities, homosexuals, Jews, divorcées, and many other groups. Even Peter wrote (in 2 Peter 3 : 15–16) that Paul wasn’t easy to understand all the time. Romans 1 : 26–27, 1 Corinthians 6 : 9–10, 1 Timothy 1 : 9–10, and other verses have been used to justify the persecution of homosexuals—but again, this is usually another case of picking and choosing what verses one wants to focus on—and virtually ignores John 3 : 16, which promised salvation to all believers regardless of gender, race or orientation.

Ultimately, the soundest advice probably came from Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 7 : 1–5:

Judge not, that he be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

So, no panicking

Same-sex marriage won’t destroy America. Honest.

In fact, by allowing same-sex marriage, we may well be contributing to the stability of our communities. It’s a matter of simply accepting reality. There are always going to be people who are wired for same-sex relationships, just as there will always be people who are wired for opposite-sex relationships. Homosexuality doesn’t harm society. Hatred and persecution, on the other hand, can damage society quite a bit.

I will be voting against the inevitable proposal that will hit California ballots in the fall. I would hope that any thoughtful American would do the same, no matter what their orientation, religious beliefs or personal stances—because allowing all Americans the pursuit of happiness requires it.

As Jefferson said in his Notes on Virginia,

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

The same goes, certainly, for relationships of all sorts.