Hypocrisy Train
12 Jul 2010 Leave a Comment
in Current and Personal Events, Queer Issues
You know what’s hilarious? Conservatives who champion states’ rights suddenly having to face up to the idea that gay marriage is also protected by states’ rights, as per last week’s decision in Gill et al v. Office of Personnel Management et al. The emerging hypocrisy isn’t even the least bit subtle. Some folks started out on the right track, like Shelby Blakely, executive director of The New Patriot Journal, who said, “As far as an assertion of states’ rights goes, I believe it’s a good thing. The Constitution does not allow federal regulation of gay marriage just as it doesn’t allow for federal regulation of health care.” She then swiftly added, “But I don’t want to come off saying I support gay marriage.”
You can’t hide behind the 10th amendment when it suits you, and throw it out when it disagrees with your moral code (which is a laughable thing to call any code that openly supports bigotry). Again, the only consequence of gays getting married is, well, gays marrying. And if the love between a man and a man or a woman and woman truly tears at the fabric of society and degrades the sanctity of marriage, then what of marriages of convenience? What of marrying for a green card? Or for money? Oh, gay-bashers. You’ve forced me to whip out the editorial on gay marriage I wrote back in high school (the days when I thought I was a hetero). I hope you’re read to get school by a straight, high school girl.
It is simply ridiculous that in the, supposedly, “freest country in the world” some of the United States’ citizens are denied the right to marry due to their sexual orientation. Not allowing marriage to homosexuals robs them of over a thousand benefits married couples receive, which is outright discrimination. It’s no different from forbidding interracial marriages. Take the case of Zach and Brad, a gay couple whose marriage is recognized in the state of Massachusetts—and only Massachusetts. “Zach will not be able to take advantage of the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for Brad when he is ill, nor will he be eligible for the surviving-spouse benefit offered by the Social Security Administration if Brad dies. In fact, Zach and Brad will not enjoy any of the 1,049 benefits and protections afforded to married couples by federal statutes” (Cloud 59). On the simple basis that a legal marriage certificate provides a couple with so many government benefits, it should be legal for any couple of any size, color, and gender to be wed.
Marriage to many couples, however, is more than governmental recognition. Homosexual relationships currently only last half as long as the average heterosexual relationship because they are not supported by society the same way straight couples are. For homosexual couples there is “less social glue—marriage, family, expectations, children… there’s no one rooting for them to stick it out… there’s no ceremony that invokes traditions of what it means to be a couple” (Lemonick n.pag.). American society doesn’t give homosexual relationships much of a chance for survival. By failing to recognize a gay marriage, we fail to recognize the validity of the relationship. It is unjust, in the “land of opportunity,” to deny gay couples their opportunity to a real life recognized in the eyes of the law.
The most frustrating part of the argument with gay marriage is the religious fanatics who cry out that homosexuality violates the laws written in the Bible. Though in many places in the Bible this rings true, it has nothing to do with whether or not gay couples should be allowed civil marriage licenses. The United States is supposed to practice separation of church and state. According to a poll taken by Time magazine 51% of those polled said that gay marriage is morally wrong, while luckily 45% realized the truth—that gay marriage is not a moral issue (Cloud 60). The church may very well disagree with the idea of homosexual couples, but advocates for gay marriage are asking that their rights as a wed couple be recognized under the law, not the church. Churches can and very well should have the right to say no to gay marriage in their own congregation, but gay marriage should nevertheless still be a civil option (Sullivan 104).
Groups against gay marriage claim it threatens the sanctity of marriage as it has previously been established. The argument is that “it would damage the institution of the family” (Cloud 60), which is ironically why gay marriage should be allowed. Gay couples aren’t looking to simply receive the same benefits as married straight couples, but they seek the “sanctity” of marriage as well. “When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about family. It’s about love” (Sullivan 104). It’s unjust to discriminate, to deny two people who love each other the right to marriage and the right to start a family simply because they’re not a traditional couple. Family comes in all different shapes and sizes; the ideal nuclear family is non-exist. Where there is love, there is family, whether it’s between a man and a woman, two men, or two women.
Sorry I was only able to dig up one of the sources; this was written for a journalism class and we were all using the same sources, so while I referred to them in the editorial itself, I didn’t write out full citations. I actually think it’s worth unpacking this a little. Some of my opinions have stayed very much the same, namely civil unions for all (gay or straight) and marriage for the religious at the church/synagogue/temple’s discretion. Additionally, I think the comparison of gay marriage to interracial marriage remains an extremely valid one– remember, interracial marriage was once illegal too, and I think the vast majority of us can agree that was absurd and unjust.
What I would like to reexamine is this idea that there is less “societal glue” holding gay couples together (a interesting point), and therefore homosexual relationships don’t last as long. Is the latter really true? Unfortunately, gay marriage has not been around in most places long enough to have reliable information on divorce rates. However, it is worth noting that Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, has the lowest divorce rate of all the states in the Union. Gays do not create any less loving homes than heterosexuals do. In fact, a recent study came out (no pun intended) showing that children of lesbians “scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.”
So, if there’s no evidence showing that gay marriage results in more broken homes or maladjusted children, and in fact there’s evidence to the contrary, what are the gay-bashers so afraid of? Perhaps it’s the sexual revolution that inherently comes with society embracing homosexuals. Granted, I know my fair share of prudish homos, but most of us seem to be pretty comfortable with sexuality. After all, chances are that if you’re out and Proud, at some point you had to question the assumption that you were straight. It’s not a far jump to then wonder if you’re actually straight-laced, either. While this is a personal survey, most of the kinksters and polyamorous people I know are either queer or bisexual, and none of them have been homophobic. It is a fact, though, that gays are rewriting the traditional rules of matrimony, either just by getting married or, like this couple, by having open marriages.
Of course, little can stop people like Maggie Gallagher, Chair of the right-wing “National Organization for Marriage,” from running her mouth:
“Does this federal judge want to start another culture war? Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade? The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court.“
Maggie, if a “culture war” is what it takes to get justice– whether it be for women, gays or any other minority group, then absolutely. We’ve only begun to fight. So, dear reader, if you have a moment, please sign your name to this letter to President Obama, asking him not to appeal last week’s decision against DOMA.
Of course, Hawaii Governor Laura Lingle doesn’t see what all the to-do is about– after all, we don’t allow siblings to marry. No, I’m not kidding. She compared gay marriage to incest. I… really don’t even know how to respond to that. Lingle states that she doesn’t see gay marriage as a civil rights issue, so I’m curious as to what she does see it as. ”Special rights” for gays? I guess equality is pretty damn special. It’s so easy to be a bigot when you don’t even recognize your own privilege.
Also on today’s hypocrisy train, the Republican nominee vying for Harry Reid’s senate seat, Sharron Angle. You’ve probably heard by now about her “advice” to young girls impregnated by incest: “Make lemons into lemonade.” Or, better yet, if you get raped, don’t sweat it– because “God has a plan.” That’s right, according to Sharron Angle, your right to choose– be it to have an abortion or to simply not have sex– is irrelevant, because it’s all part of God’s plan. I think this pisses me off more than her anti-choice stance. I’ve gotten used to anti-choicers saying stupid things, but by saying that rape is God’s doing actually removes responsibility from the abuser/rapist. It likens sexual assualt to a “natural” disaster. Hey, I might not be able to stop a tornado, or keep Angle from flapping her gums, but I’ll be damned before I sit by and accept that there’s nothing to be done about the rape pandemic. Rape flourishes when we turn a blind eye or pretend there’s nothing to be done about it. Rape flourishes when we stay silent. Rapists get away with rape because we, as a society, have a huge attitude problem. ”What was she wearing?” “Is she promiscuous?” “What she drinking?” “She was asking for it.” BULLSHIT.
There’s a fabulous organization called “Men Can Stop Rape.” While I think this idea desperately needs to be expanded, since men are not the only ones who rape and not the only ones who allow it to continue, they’re on the right track. The idea behind the organization is that attitudes need to change. Particularly, for MCSR, the visions of male strength that exist, and how traditional views of masculinity encourage men to dominate women, rather than be an ally to them. What other pervasive attitudes encourage the disempowerment of women and rape victims of any gender?
Oh, and to respond to Angle’s anti-choice attitude, a quote:
“Women can be glorified, burdened, scorned, restricted, endangered, beloved, and martyred when they are forced to reproduce. But when they are forced, women end up enslaved by their reproductive capacity. They remain partial, not full citizens. Under these conditions, full citizenship refers only to men.”
–Rickie Solinger
It’s not all a bust, though. Last week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg insisted that Roe v. Wade shall not be overturned. ”Over a generation of young women have grown up, understanding they can control their own reproductive capacity, and in fact their life’s destiny,” Ginsburg said. “We will never go back to the way it once was.” I feel better already.
But then this schmuck, Senate Republican Jon Kyl, had to come along. More stupidity courtesy of good ol’ Arizona. Jon Kyl, while one of the Republicans blocking the extension of unemployment benefits for millions of struggling, unemployed Americans, said on Sunday that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be extended. The hypocrisy of this is so obvious and so appalling, I really don’t have much to say about it. It speaks for itself. I will say, however, that it isn’t in the best interest of America’s wealthy to keep screwing the middle class– after all, where are they going to get all their money once they’ve destroyed the middle class? Don’t forget who lines your pockets, you greedy bastards.
Despite all this, and the fact that I managed to give myself a migraine writing about it, I actually had a lovely weekend and start to the week (who knew Mondays could not suck?). B and I spent some real quality time together. He’s actually moving out of state in two weeks, and I’ve been pretty anxious and worried about it. But, with his girlfriend out of town, we got some time to be BFFs like it used to be. Plus, when his girlfriend is out of town, I get to ride on the back of his motorcycle. (Note to self: I need to get me one of those… And, uh, learn how to ride.) We saw Steve Carell’s new movie, Despicable Me, which we both agreed was utterly delightful. If you have the opportunity, go see it! It’ll make you laugh, smile, and maybe even tear up a bit. We also decided to fill up my inflatable pool in the backyard and split a bottle of Pinot Grigio. We debated the English language, rehashed old college memories, and when the wine was all gone, we put the empty bottle, the empty glasses and all the ice cubes in the pool.
It turns out, empty wine glasses, when set afloat, will repeated toast themselves.
Songs for Today:
“Sort of” by Ingrid Michaelson
“Us” by Regina Spektor
“Impossible” from Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella
