Log inskip to content

I Support Gay Love

Friday, June 17th, 2011

This past week has been a landmark one in the gay rights movements.  While some states came closer to allowing same sex marriage, prospective Obama-2012 voters lashed out at the President for his lack of support and failed campaign promises to the community.  The week was rounded up by a former football star commenting that allowing gay marriage to happen would create utter "anarchy".

In light of all this, I would like to re-post a portion of a post I wrote a couple of years ago, "Not Special, Just Equal", when I was dissenting with a fellow HuffPo commenter on whether or not gay rights mattered at all.

The end of the post goes to something I have been saying all along - this is not about sexual partners, but LOVE and who a person can and will love.  That seems to get forgotten by the anti-gay rights folks when they are spewing their often ignorant and bigoted hate.

I don't just support gay marriage or, even, all gay rights.  I support GAY LOVE (or, better, LGBT LOVE).

Here is the end of that post, reiterating this very stance:

What bothers me, too, is that in all the hubbub and din, all the people decrying "gay sex" as deviant and gay people as aberrant for engaging in it - just for larks, of course - is the idea of Love.  Being gay isn't just about - isn't really at all about - who you have sex with or want to have sex with.  It's about who you can and will Love.  Yes, homosexuals are sexually attracted to the same sex.  But do not forget, that attraction - just like with straight people - can and does lead to more than just meaningless sex.  It becomes relationships, it becomes lasting partnerships, and long-term affairs.  It becomes Love.

And that is what this battle is really about.  No one can choose who they fall in love with - not straight people, gay persons, bi individuals, or anything in between.  And, therefore, it is not a choice for the lesbian who falls in love with the woman who becomes her partner of 20 years or the gay man who falls head over heels for the person he knows is his soulmate, no more than it is a choice for the woman who marries her high school sweetheart or the man who rekindles a romance with the woman he never got over from college.  We don't choose who we love...love has it's own agenda.

The most beautiful thing about this is that Love always wins.  It will prevail; it always does.  And gay people will win their rights.  I guarantee it.

In the meantime, to all the naysayers, I say think long and hard about the reasons you are against homosexuals or gay rights/marriage.  Remember what this country stands for, and take some time to re-read the teachings of the man you base your religion on.  You have a "choice", now - and the choice is to choose acceptance, understanding, and compassion over denial, ignorance, and hatred.  You like to ask, "What would Jesus do?" and so I posit that to you now - what, indeed?

The Evolution of Marriage

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

One day - in the not-so-distant future - same-sex marriage will be a legal right afforded to all gay Americans.  It will happen, no matter how hard the dissenters try to stop it from happening.

Marriage is not a sacred inexorable establishment.  In fact, the institution of marriage has metamorphosed and evolved over time; changing through the centuries to fit the times in which it was applied.  Marriage today is nothing like marriage in the 1200s, for example, and even further removed from marriage (which the commoners rarely even did) in any B.C. era.

Contrary to popular belief, the Church has no claim or hold on matrimony's origins.  Church control over the institution did not heavily begin until the 1300s, and even then it was arbitrarily administered, at best; banes, divorces, and annulments were meted out to royalty and aristocracy for the right amount of money or if an alliance or division suited their own political and power play maneuverings.  The rules and regulations were ever-changing as befit the times, the political atmosphere of the day, or the whims of sovereign rulers or religious leaders.

In fact, Popes and Catholic priests were often married despite the cessation of the practice as decreed in 325 at the Council of Nicaea as part of the Nicene Creed.  Regardless of the Creed's dictate, however, priests and even a number of Popes continued to enjoy wedlock up until the eleventh century when Pope Urban II tried to put a kibosh on the practice by selling priests' wives into slavery and forcing them to abandon their children in 1095.

Even with such heinous measures, the tradition took a long time in dying out (as traditions often do) and in the fifteenth century, 50% of all priests were married and accepted as such by their parishioners.  The last recorded married Pope was Felix V (1439-1449); he and his wife had one son.

Even within the supposed sacred sanctity of the Church, the history of marriage is one of change, adaptation, and growth.  The major divisive action of Henry VIII that created the Protestant movement, all so he would be allowed to divorce his wife, is ample evidence that, as far as the confines of the Church, the institution of marriage is not the steady stalwart many believe it to be.

The idea of marrying for something as capricious as love would have been foolish, to say the least, to our not-so-distant ancestors.  In fact, it would have been unthinkable and, even more importantly, forbidden by the lovers' parents.  Marriage was a business deal, (hopefully) a step up in one's and their family's wealth and status.  For royalty it was a contract that allowed for alliances, accumulation of land, and legitimate heirs to pass their title and assets onto.  It was not much different for the aristocracy and other upper class echelons.  Due to this, young adults were not allowed to choose their prospective mates; it was entirely too important a deal to be left up to the vagaries of youth and hormones.

One of the things that always comes to mind when people talk about "traditional marriage" is one of its not-so-distant customs.  Not that many years ago, parents were the decision-makers for a young couple's future.  Plans were made, often without consulting the children.  If we went back to "traditional" marriage, then your parents would be choosing your mate and you'd have no say-so in the matter.  If you refused, not only would you be shunned by your parents but by your entire community!

The fact of the matter is that marriage is not the stable, resolute practice many believe it to be.  Anti-gay marriage proponents feel that allowing homosexuals to marry somehow ruins the "institution of marriage" or changes an "age-old tradition" and this will all, somehow, destroy marriage as we know it  This is erroneous thinking; this is simply a new age and a new time with modern circumstances that require a face lift to the current state of matrimony.

Not Special, Just Equal

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

This morning a comment was directed towards me at HuffPo on yesterday's article about the NY gay marriage failing, New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage.  I had left a number of comments on the article; commenting on others' comments, agreeing wholeheartedly with some and arguing the finer points of marriage with others (few know its actual history...that's a forthcoming blog post).

A comment, by user mg moore, in particular, bothered me.

Originally he had said:

Maybe now NY can get on to something useful.

I, and others, disagreed with this sentiment.  I stated:

Such as? I think this is a pretty important issue - as do most people.

mg moore disagreed, naturally, that the issue was important at all.  Apparently human rights are of no concern to him, and living in a hypocritical country - promising equality for all but denying rights to some - fails to stir him.  He responded with the comment that irked me enough to bring this debate to my blog:

If most people thought it was important it would have been reflected in the voting of the legislators. The outcome reflected the relevance. Gays should quit pretending they are as special as Faberge' eggs and simply stop whining. Their lifestyle choices put them outside the mainstream. Deal with the consequences.

I don't understand people that think this way.  I am trying to, but it's hard.  Can anyone help me out?  Is there anyone that agrees with this man's assertion that can offer me some insight into your mindset?  I won't judge you or condemn you; I am genuinely seeking answers here.

Part of my responses to mg moore were as follows  (I left two):

1) Gay people don't they think are "special" - that is the entire point of this whole thing! They wanted to be treated exactly the same as everyone - equality is the issue here, not "special". If you don't see that, you are missing the entire point of all of this, as are the people that voted down this legislation.

This whole idea that gay people are asking for some kind of "special treatment" when all they are asking for is "equal rights" infuriates me.  How is it "special treatment" to, simply, be afforded the same rights and benefits as the rest of society?  How is it "special treatment" to ask that Americans stay true to what this country stands for - freedom and equality for ALL?

Homosexuals are people - they are no different than you or I, except that they prefer the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex.  Homosexuality is natural - it exists in nature - and normal.  Fear and ignorance keep people from treating our gay brethren with respect and amity; fear of the unknown and ignorance of the truth that gay people are no different than straight people.  And they deserve the same rights.

Indeed, there is no good or logical argument for denying them these rights - all fall flat and resort back to simple bigotry, ignorance, and condemnation; usually based on religious morals and ideals.  Where in your Bible does God or Jesus preach to treat others as inferior?

2) And if you honestly and truly believe that gay people choose to live a life of condemnation and ridicule, then you are far too ignorant for my impassioned plea to reach your ears.  I am sure you are a very intelligent person, but on this issue itself you remain ignorant; I can assure you - it is not a choice.

If it were, then choose to be gay for a day and have sex with someone of the same sex - just do it, it's just a choice.

I'm sure you find the idea repulsive and ridiculous - just as someone who is gay generally finds the idea of being with someone of the opposite sex! It doesn't appeal to them because that just isn't who they are or how they are made! It is NOT a choice!

Ah, the age-old "choice" debate.  This one never gets old.  I fail to see how being gay is a choice; why would anyone in their right mind choose a life in which they will be judged, condemned, and ridiculed?  Who would prefer a life that very well - and often does - ostracize them from family, community, and the religion they were raised with?  How could they, willingly, accept a lifestyle that takes away their rights, and would not allow them to see their mate of decades as they lay dying in the hospital or make any decisions about their care?  Trust me when I say to you that no one would choose this.

People are born gay.  It's that simple.  I know gay people and I know people that have been gay since childhood (when I also knew them).  As the realization came to them, they - like so many others - fought a great and virulent internal battle.  They tried to be straight.  They chose to be straight.  Some married and had children.  But in the end, the "choice" to live a false life could no longer be upheld; eventually they had to be true to themselves.

Understand this - that is the only choice in it - the choice to be who they were born to be.  Every gay person I know suffered through the I-can't-be-gay battle during puberty.  Some embraced it, many others denied it and tried to be someone and something else.

It is our society that teaches them to hate what they are, to question it and fear it.  Some, as you know, commit suicide.  Why?  Because it isn't a choice, and if it was - many of them - at least in the beginning, would choose not to be gay.

Why?  Because society condemns them for being so, and they know they have a hard life and treacherous path before them.  They may lose family, friends, jobs, community, and their religion.

And, yet, you think they choose this?  You think they flaunt all conventions and decide to just "have lots of gay sex" and, therefore, have no right to demand equal rights?  People like mg moore do think this way, and that is a sad state of affairs.

What bothers me, too, is that in all the hubbub and din, all the people decrying "gay sex" as deviant and gay people as aberrant for engaging in - just for larks, of course - is the idea of Love.  Being gay isn't just about - isn't really at all about - who you have sex with or want to have sex with.  It's about who you can and will Love.  Yes, homosexuals are sexually attracted to the same sex.  But do not forget, that attraction - just like with straight people - can and does lead to more than just meaningless sex.  It becomes relationships, it becomes lasting partnerships, and long-term affairs.  It becomes Love.

And that is what this battle is really about.  No one can choose who they fall in love with - not straight people, gay persons, bi individuals, or anything in between.  And, therefore, it is not a choice for the lesbian who falls in love with the woman who becomes her partner of 20 years or the gay man who falls head over heels for the person he knows is his soulmate, no more than it is a choice for the woman who marries her high school sweetheart or the man who rekindles a romance with the woman he never got over from college.  We don't choose who we love...love has it's own agenda.

The most beautiful thing about this is that Love always wins.  It will prevail; it always does.  And gay people will win their rights.  I guarantee it.

In the meantime, to all the naysayers, I say think long and hard about the reasons you are against homosexuals or gay rights/marriage.  Remember what this country stands for, and take some time to re-read the teachings of the man you base your religion on.  You have a "choice", now - and the choice is to choose acceptance, understanding, and compassion over denial, ignorance, and hatred.  You like to ask, "What would Jesus do?" and so I posit that to you now - what, indeed?

The Defenders

Saturday, May 30th, 2009

The Defenders (2009)

Simply love this video - it lays it out simple, plain, and true. Equality for all means *just that* and I believe love will win out in the end; it always does.

A Sad Day for Love & Equality

Monday, September 20th, 2004

Louisiana Voters Decide on Same-Sex Marriage Amendment

I'm not surprised, but disappointed. I was expecting it, but it still hurts.

I'm hoping for the results to be scrapped - to have another vote. A lot of New Orleans' voting spots didn't have voting machines due to delivery being screwed up by Ivan. The majority of Louisiana's gay population is in New Orleans, so how can that be fair? If a huge chunk of one side didn't get to vote because of the weather (some who left the area decided to stay away the entire weekend to avoid the coming-back traffic), how is that a fair vote?

Louisiana already has a law acknowledging only male & female marriages, but this new amendment goes even further. Louisiana now, also, will not acknowledge out of state gay marriages nor will it accept or allow civil unions. For a state with a heavy gay population, this is devastating. How can we discriminate like this? How can those who believe in this ban sleep at night - is securing "a place in heaven" justice enough to promulgate such prejudice?

Perhaps it's naive of me to think it should be any other way. We live in a world filled with bigotry, discrimination, ignorance, & hate. It's okay to hate gay people because they're different. It's okay to discriminate against gay people because they're different. It's okay to go against Love & Equality because people think god prefers it that way. Human beings have an aversion to things they don't understand - to things that are "different". What was I expecting exactly? That this would suddenly change?

Forgive my bitterness - being reminded what a hateful world we sometimes live in bruises my very soul.

Let Your Voice Be Heard

Thursday, September 16th, 2004

It hasn't even rained.

Ivan decided it didn't feel like making a stop in Louisiana and veered on over to wreck havoc on the rest of the Gulf. Hope all of my towards-the-eastern-gulf-side friends are doing okay.

I'm still trying to figure out if we should go in to work today. We haven't heard anything. As of yesterday, we had today off. Can they just, after 8am, say "Come on back in now"?

Now that the threat of Ivan has passed though, I'm back to focusing on something that's very important to me: the upcoming vote on making gay marriage uconstitutional in the state of Louisiana this Saturday.

Imagine my horror when I clicked on a local news station + local newspaper's combined website and saw the headline Same-sex ban backers say 70% for amendment.

I really don't know what I was expecting. Other than New Orleans, Louisiana is a decidedly conservative state.

There are a lot of gay people in Louisiana, but will they turn out and vote? That's what I'm concerned about. I believe there are enough here to make a strong voice - but will they stand and make that voice heard?

Some parts of the article that bothered me:

"In Lafayette, Michot said passage of the amendment would further protect marriage and the family unit, which he said have been undermined."

Undermined by who? The heterosexuals. Letting gay people marry isn't going to destroy something that's already been destroyed by the same people trying to "protect" it and keep it "pure".

"He said the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman belongs in the state constitution."

Wrong. Remember separation of church and state - one of the fundamentals of our nation's constitution? It's there for a reason. The only document that people are using as reference for "only between a man and a woman" is the Bible. Just because it's in the Bible does not mean it should be part of any constitutional amendment. People's religious views should not even factor into an amendment - and that's all this is about. I can't abide by that.

Bishop Jarvis Harmon Sr., regional director for True Vine Ministries, took a stronger stance, calling same-sex marriage "an abomination before the Lord."

Maybe the Bishop believes that it is - it doesn't mean that state law should uphold his or anyone else's religious beliefs.

Please - please - if you can vote in this state, and you believe in equality for all, the very thing America is supposed to stand for, make your voice heard.

Revisiting “Sodomy or Bust!”

Friday, September 10th, 2004

I originally wrote this piece in late June 2003, but with the upcoming Louisiana vote on the constitutional ban on marriage, I thought it would be fitting to post it again.

That's right fellow-Louisianians - September 18! Go & VOTE! Remember what this country stands for - equality for ALL; and that LOVE has to win out in the end. Cast your vote and make your voice heard.

And now...

Sodomy or Bust!

Frist Endorses Idea of Gay Marriage Ban
By WILLIAM C. MANN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States.

My first question here, among all the other obvious ones, is why in the fuck we're wasting money and time on worrying about gay marriages when there are so many other important issues out there the government needs to be concerned with. Protecting us from terrorist attacks is high priority for government, whether a man and a man want to be legally united is not.

At least, it shouldn't be. The problem with lawmakers getting their panties in a wad over gay marriage is that it's completely personal. They're not pushing a ban because they think it will help their country or even win them votes. They're doing it because they're ignorant, bible-beating assholes who think they have a right to interfere in people's personal lives if they believe said personal life disagrees with their views on their god.

Sen. Bill Frist "said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned." I didn't know the Supreme Court made any decisions about "gay sex". They made a decision about "anal and oral sex", but I didn't hear anything about gay sex. Yes, the law is generally viewed as a law against acts that homosexuals commit - but if that were truly true, wouldn't cunnilingus be listed, also? Are lesbians more legal than gay men? And besides, are we saying here that straight people don't practice oral or anal sex? I didn't think so.

Yet, the more blaring part of Sen. Frist's ignorance is that the decision "threatens" to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned. I'm not sure where Frist is gathering his data, but no one's going to run out in the streets and start having lewd, public acts of anal sex just because a ban has been lifted. The number of people getting it up the ass (straight and gay) is not going to rise just because the Supreme Court has now made it legal. You have people that say "if marijuana became legal, I would smoke it" – no one ever said "if anal sex becomes legal, I'm going to do it." Because people have always done it - and they will continue to do so, quietly and in the privacy of their own homes. The Supreme Court's decision was a banner for the gay community because the law was used against them (even though it was not supposed to specifically target them), and it opens the door for them to have the same rights as everyone else. That's all.

Now, if Frist is saying (as I believe he is) that this big step for gays is going to start an unprecedented wave of violence in America - or corrupt the "family values" that people still stupidly cling to in this world of broken homes and murdering mothers - it only proves the ignorance I've applied to him throughout this essay.

"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually - or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week."

Who lets morons like this run our country? What the fuck is he talking about anyway? What criminal activity in the home? So, Mom and Dad can now legally suck, lick and stick it in nefarious places? That's already going on, Sen. Frist. Are you married? My condolences to your wife.

In one of the largest in-depth studies of American attitudes, a national survey of 5,700 adults found that almost 30% of divorced adults cited physical abuse as the reason for their divorce. 89% of children witness abuse at home. In some states, 63% of the children in jail for murder are there for the killing of an abusive parent. Something tells me that most violence in the home has little to do with whether Frank and Eric, the gay couple living next door, are packin' the fudge every Tuesday night. Ridding America of the sodomy law isn't going to "condone" violence in the homes. Sodomy has nothing to do with violence in homes. But there I go again stating the obvious.

Frist also said "absolutely" that he was all for banning gay marriages. Of course - if we let them fuck and it magically makes violence grow, can you imagine what would happen if we let them marry?! For chrissakes, it'd be the end of the world as we know it. Armageddon.

Their big bitch is that we'd be ruining "family values" (those still exist?); the traditional man-woman marriage is the only way to keep this country pure and good. I didn't know we were. What's this big deal about keeping marriage sacred anyway when, in 1997, the likelihood of new marriages ending in divorce was at 43%. And the number keeps growing. Marriage isn't sacred anymore - more than half the time, it doesn't even last. Why all this hype about keeping marriage for only the straight people? They've fucked it up all to hell. 'World magazine culture critic Gene Edward Veith notes that the homosexual drive to gain marital benefits is destroying the institution of marriage itself as people abandon commitment and embrace the "gay" notion of serial monogamy with "sex partners."' First, the statement seems to assume that gay people can't fall in love, that their reasons for wanting to get married are somehow "wrong" or "impure" as opposed to the reasons straight people get married. Can we reflect for a moment on some of the reasons straight people do get married; getting knocked up, money, a need to not be alone, 'it's just what you do', etc, etc. Enough said. And as for "destroying the institution of marriage" - get over it people. Get over it people. The "institution of marriage" is dead - and has been for quite some time. No one's going to be able to destroy something that's already been abused, shattered and soiled - by the very people that are crying to protect its sanctity.

The above listed web page is yet another group of people hiding behind the gripe that letting gays be gay is corrupting America, when, in fact, it simply offends their sensitive religious ideals. This is from their site, too: "When marriage is undermined, entire communities suffer. Fagan notes that broken households increase the risk for children of:

health problems;
retarded cognitive, especially verbal, development;
low educational attainment;
behavior problems;
low impulse control;
warped social development;
physical and sexual abuse;
crime in the local community.

The breakdown in marriage even leads to shorter lives. A study in the American Journal of Sociology found that "for both sexes, the hazard of dying falls significantly with marital duration, suggesting a cumulation of the benefits of marriage over time."

Now, while every statistic listed above is undoubtedly true (or half-way believable, at best), those statistics have nothing to do with gay marriages. They are statistics written about marriage as it stands today - in heterosexual households. Letting gay people get married does not undermine marriage - they sure as hell can't fuck up the tradition as badly as we have. Having a gay couple in the neighborhood, isn't going to make your household or your marriage suffer. Try minding your own damn business - it works wonders.

As a conclusion, the "concerned women" (i.e. uptight, unsatisfied housewives with way too much time on their hands), state, "The stakes are very high: Absent a marriage-based culture, can America continue to function as a self-governing republic? History indicates that the chances are slim."

First of all, we're not self-governing. If you believe that your freedom is really free, you need to wake up. If we were really free, people in government wouldn't have the right to tell you who you can and cannot love, have sex with, and be joined with. Besides, we aren't even a marriage-based culture anymore, we're a divorce-based culture, and adultery-based culture, an abuse-based culture - we're attacking the simple fact that gay people want to have sex and be married by saying that it will increase the violence in our homes and communities, that it will ruin our morals and corrupt our children when in fact, the main problem with violence and immorality in our lives is because we refuse to take responsibility for our own actions. Stop worrying what all the gay people are doing, and pay attention to your own life - your own failing marriage and your own bad kids. Stopping violence and re-establishing family values is as simple as putting as much work into your home life as you do trying to ban others from having one. Live and let live - and mind your own fucking business.

(Written: 30 Jun 03)