The Empty Boat

A friend shared a cute little story with me and I had to share it with all of you.

A man was crossing the river in his rowboat when another boat collided with his. The man became very angry. He turned to the person manning the other boat, cursed, and shouted at him to steer clear. The next day, the man followed his routine to cross the river when yet again, another boat collided with his. Furiously, he turned around, ready to unleash his anger and vocabulary of profanity at the person in the other boat. However, to his surprise, the other boat was empty. Immediately, his anger subsided and he gently pushed the empty boat away.

Why is it that we would not be angered if an empty boat collided with ours, but we would be most unhappy if the boat was manned? Why are we forgiving and respectful to an empty boat but not to another person?

I should learn to control my temper...

MJ

Depression - The Death of Bradley

The other day I was talking to a close friend of mine who is suffering from depression and was thinking of committing suicide. I shared with him the story of my lover Bradley. I will now share that story with y'all.

I meet Bradley my sophomore year of high school. I attended Amos Alonzo Stagg High School and he attended Victor J.Andrew High School. We started talking on AOL and then decided to meet. At first we decided to be friends and then it turned into a secret relationship (because I was closeted).

By junior year I could no longer keep it a secret and I told some of my close friends about him. All was going well until one day I found out that Bradley had cheated on me with one of my close friends. I was destroyed. I told Bradley to f*ck off and I never wanted to speak to him again. But he was persistent and wanted me to give him a second chance. Me being me and knowing I was still in love with him decided to forgive him with the understanding that it would never happen again.

During my senior year Bradley asked me to commit my life to him. I was so excited. We worked day and night on the plans for our civil union. And I thought all was going well in my life. But I was wrong. I found out that Bradley was cheating on me again with the same friend. This time I made it perfectly clear to him that it was over for good.

Then on the night of September 17th, 1999 I received a phone call from Bradley. He kept begging me to forgive him. I told him no. He then made a threat that if I would not take him back he was going to kill himself. I told him to f*ck off and my life would be better off if he did kill himself. (I let my anger get the best of me).

Well the morning of the 18th, I awoke to a phone call at 3 am. It was Mark, Bradley's brother. He called to tell me that Bradley took their father's gun and killed himself. I closed off my life to those close to me and I also attempted suicide.

A friend of mine made me go see a councilor. On my first visit she wanted me to write a letter to Bradley explaining the pain he caused me by his actions. In the back of my mind I thought that this was a stupid idea. It wasn't going to change anything. But it was a great outlet for my emotions. It helped me sort out what really going on inside my head.

As I wrote this letter I noticed that my hatred for Bradley and what he did started to grow. How could he of been such a hypocrite. When ever the topic of suicide came up among our friends, he always said that only someone so mindless and heartless would turn to suicide. My friends tried to rationalize that Bradley really did love and care about me. But I felt like I mattered so little to him and that was how he was able to end his life without batting an eye.

I also came to the realization that I did not only hate Bradley for what he did, but I also had so much self loathing for saying the things I said and letting him think that I did not love him anymore.

There has not been a day that goes by that I don't think of him and the love that I still carry around in my heart for him. If he was still with us maybe my life would of went down a different path. But I will never know because what he did that night was permanent.

Advice to any depressed readers

Depression hits different people for different reasons - whether it be a depression that only last a few hours or days; to a depression that leads to suicidal feeling, you should think about getting help. I've learned that you have a lot of options available to you. I have fought a long battle with depression and I know that it may never go away. But you can't just stop living your life because of it.

I have a few things I like to do when I feel depressed:

1.) Go out with friends - even if I didn't feel like going out in the first place, I forced myself and it helped me keep my mind off of what was making me depressed. Friends are there for good times and bad.

2.) Treat myself to something special. If there is a CD or DVd I've been meaning to get? I go and get it! Spend a bit of money, and get something you've been wanting. Or just go window shopping - if you see a book you like, go get it!

3.) Do something I enjoy doing. You probably don't feel up to much, but give it a go. If you like swimming, go and do it, at least for twenty minutes - you might do it longer when you realize you're enjoying it.

4.) Listen to some "happy" music. I have a few tunes that I find make me happy - I just can't help moving my feet, and enjoying it. I don't know how many other people this works for, but try it.

If your depression is more severe, you'll need some more severe methods of tackling it. But don't dismiss the examples I've given above - at least try them. They won't work for everybody, but it's worth trying. If not, don't worry. There is always an answer.

The next step is to confront your depression. Not so much your depression itself, but what is causing it. Think about what's been happening in your life recently, and write a list of the problems that may have caused your depression. After you wrote these things down it is now time to do something about it - work your way through the list, sorting out the problems, and checking them off one by one. You can do it immediately, or over a day or week. But make sure the problems are sorted.

If you can't sort out the problems by yourself, it might be time to talk to someone about it. There are many places to look for help. Try looking close to you at first - your friends and family. Ask them if they would mind spending an hour or so with you - they might be able to throw a new perspective on things. The main aim is to sort out the problems together - if you can't get rid of the depression, aim for the heart of the problem.

You might feel that parents, brothers or sisters, friends or teachers aren't the right people to talk to. Find a councilor who deals with depression. Don't be ashamed - everyone has problems they need to deal with, and it is a lot easier to do with help.

When Bradley died and I was seeing my councilor I felt like it was a waste of time. But even though she couldn't give advice, she asked questions about what happened, and it helped me understand it more; to put it in some sort of logical order.

I hope I have inspired ideas for you to deal with your depression. I am very sorry if I haven't managed to help - but please don't give up hope. And what ever you do please don't give up.

- MJ

Illinois Politicians support Gay Equality.

Illinois, best known for the corruption in their government -- now has not one but two very visual and vocal fighters for equality for the LGBT community in their government.

The first one is Alexi Giannoulias. And in the interests of fairness, let me first say, that I think Alexi is hot!!!! But now it turns out he's smart, he open and accepting, and he's gay friendly!! Well that makes him perfect in my book. . . .

Alexi, who is a candidate for the Illinois Senate has come out a week or so ago in favor of legalization for same-sex marriage and, if elected, would seek to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. I didn't hear him mince any words. His speech was very plain spoken and to the point. And, yes, still hot.

Alexi also believes that individual states should be able to decide for themselves whether they allow same-sex couples to marry, but that all states should be required to afford legal recognition to same-sex marriages performed in states where they are sanctioned. He would require the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages, now prohibited by the Defense of Marriage Act, something he wants repealed. He says this would have the effect, in part, of allowing gay and lesbian couples to file joint federal income tax returns and receive Social Security survivor benefits.

To top it off, he wants to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

"This goes to what this country was founded on -- equality and fairness," said Alexi Giannoulias, emphasizing that he sees same-sex marriage as a constitutional and legal issue in the context of past civil rights struggles.

I say, Go on with your hot, bad self Alexi!

And not only me but many other gay activists in Illinois believe that Giannoulias, currently the state treasurer, is the first major candidate in a statewide race to stake out a position in favor of gay marriage.

Alexi Giannoulias: "This is what I believe in, and I'm sure not everyone is going to agree with me....I'd like to think the public is more accepting of gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships. It could be risky, but it's what I believe....While marriage as a religious institution should be governed by people's faith and the tenets of their religion, marriage as a civil institution should be governed by principles of fairness. Civil marriage should be equal for all people and provide the same protections under the law, with all legal rights and responsibilities. They're equal rights."

Alexi also believes people will look back on the marriage equality debate 10 or 15 years from now and "be amazed we didn't do this sooner."

In an Alexi Giannoulias world, and wouldn't it be a hot hot world.....okay, I'll stop.....a same-sex couple from Illinois who get married in Iowa, where gay marriage became legal earlier this year, would have the same rights here as a married heterosexual couple. Those rights like: inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits and all other legal protections granted married couples.

"I don't think we're asking for special rights," Giannoulias said. "They're equal rights."

Alexi Giannoulias, I think I love you.

Okay, now for the second Politician from Illinois. This man isn’t as hot as Alexi Giannoulias, but hey who is. Illinois Congressman Mike Quigley released a statement earlier this week speaking out in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act of 2009. That's the new legislation introduced by Jerrold Nadler that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Mike Quigley: “Today, in supporting this Act, I am an arch conservative. Why is that? Because when you think about it, what have the conservatives said for all time about government’s role? That government’s role is to stay out of people’s personal lives.

This will allow people privacy and the right to make decisions that are most important to them. But most of all, it is about respect for what they decide to do with their own lives as long as they’re not hurting anyone else. So what, I would ask, is a more intimate, more important, more critical decision, a more sacred decision than who we love—and how we express that love?”...

Through DOMA, which was signed into law 13 years ago, on September 21, 1996, the federal government can single out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them more than 1,100 federal protections and responsibilities – including Social Security and immigration benefits – that otherwise apply to married couples.

This policy is discriminatory and harmful to families, preventing the government from honoring its legal commitments and the needs of families, even though these couples have assumed the obligations of civil marriage under state law and contribute as citizens and taxpayers.

So who would of guessed, that with the bad image past Governors and other Politicians had given Illinois -- that two great men would stand up and put a new light on Illinois. Placing Illinois right in the foreground of a great movement that is taking this country one state at a time.

MJ

Get Rid of Your Labels About Sexual Minorities

Hello everyone. First off I want to take a moment and plug 2 events that Join The Impact Chicago is hosting tonight. The first one is an information session about the march on Washington from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Thursday night at the Rogers Park Public Library branch, 6907 N. Clark St., called "National Equality March: What it is and Why You Should Go." The International Socialist Organization is co-sponsoring the session.

After the information session Thursday night, join JTIC at The Glenwood, a bar at 6962 N. Glenwood Ave., for the "Fashion for Equality" fundraiser. Their will be raffles and the bar's TVs will be tuned into "Project Runway". This event will be going on from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.

So since the fundraiser tonight is going to be at a bar, I decided to write about a company that is doing something to show that they support our efforts to make a difference and fight for equality for all. This company is Absolut Vodka, and they're putting their marketing campaign where their mouth is, by creating a labelless bottle. The point? To plug equality by saying that no matter what's on the outside of the package, it's what's on the inside that matters. And that kind of relates to people, too.

Absolut has been at the forefront of LGBT advertising for years, winning plenty of awards from organizations like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) along the way. But this campaign takes on the power of language and words to label, and how those labels create trouble when it comes to discrimination, prejudice and fear-mongering.

"For the first time we dare to face the world completely naked. We launch a bottle with no label and no logo, to manifest the idea that no matter what’s on the outside, it’s the inside that really matters. We do it in support of the people who spend their entire lives, stamped with labels by other people," said Absolut PR Manager Kristina Hagbard.

Even sleeker than a bottle with no label? Absolut has launched a blog to talk about the no label campaign, rife with information (and a heaping dose of sarcastic snark) directed toward prejudice within and toward the LGBT community.

Companies market to us LGBT folks all of the time. But companies rarely immerse their product in the thick of the LGBT world to make a broader point about equality. This is one advertising campaign whose central message is one everyone can buy into, whether they drink alcohol or not: In an absolute world, there are no labels.

"The Violets in the Mountains Have Broken the Rocks."

The other night a good friend and I were talking about slogans we could use to describe our battle for equal rights. And we came up with a wonderful quote from Tennessee Williams. We decided that this quote is appropriate to this time in our history, and to the rights that LGBT people and our straight allies are fighting for.

"The violets in the mountains have broken the rocks."

Okay, I know what you are thinking. What does this quote have to do with our battle for equal rights? That’s simple, to me this quote is saying that the hard, cold and oppressive will--at long last is being broken apart by a force that is beautiful, natural, colorful and alive. Everyone who is active in the battle for equal rights are violets which are breaking through the rocks of bigotry and hate.

And look at the momentum we’ve built around our movement. No one can deny that we are cracking away at the rock of hate and falsehood. Just the other day a bill called the Respect for Marriage Act which was introduced to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. This is a great step forward for our movement, but it is just that a step forward.

All we have to do is look across this great country of ours and you will see people who were born and raised in towns where a gay couple wouldn't dare walk down a street are now coming out and showing their support for their fellow man regardless of their sexual orientation. You will see blue-collar workers looking up from their work, grandmothers speaking up at the dinner table, even political leaders standing at press conferences; and they are saying something to members of their family, co-workers, and even strangers who are against gay marriage. They are saying in one, increasingly-loud voice, "Rather than worry about who someone else loves--and why, think about who you hate--and why!"

Even if it doesn’t seem like it at times, America really is a country with common sense. We are a country of innate goodness--although a goodness that is sometimes slow to action. As Winston Churchill said, "Americans are always ready to do the right thing. After they have exhausted all the other possibilities." Well we have exhausted all the other possibilities, and it is time to call an injustice an injustice.

It is an injustice that we send a gay or lesbian soldier to die in a war--to give their life for a country that won't let them be legally bound to the person they love.

It is an injustice that a soldier gives their life for a Military--an exemplary Military in every way--except one in which they cannot have the picture of their lover cut-out in the shape of a heart and taped to their locker because that would be "telling." Such a ugly word.

It is an injustice that many of us pay our taxes to the very public institutions that deny us the same rights as other Americans enjoy. Our tax money goes to public schools that will not accept us as legal parents. Our tax money goes for the paper on which they print the goddamn marriage licenses on that we cannot get.

And while we are paying our tax money for all of the above, a preacher stands at the pulpit of a multi-million-dollar mega-church advocating the damnation of gay Americans and does not pay one thin dime in taxes.

The LGBT community and our straight allies are violets and we are starting to break through the mountain of straight, white, male lawmakers in Washington. Their time is over and they know it. Which is why they are looking increasingly ridiculous and stressed.

I believe it is time Obama starts to stand up for those issues he promised to fight for along the campaign trail. My God, Dick Cheney announced that he is in favor of gay marriage. And on that very day, the National Weather Service reported hell froze over.

So Mr. President, please catch up. Newsweek magazine just said about gay marriage--and I quote: "This train's left the station. Time to get on board." Oh--there is still a lot of work to be done. But it will happen.

And when it does--when "Don't ask don't tell" is scrapped, when gay men and women can marry the people they love--when that day comes, people across this great land will be looking for a place to party.

Yes, across America we will celebrate because, at long last, that day will have arrived. But to the people reading my blog--that day will not only have arrived for us, it will have arrived because of you.

"The violets in the mountains have broken the rocks."

MJ

Overturning DOMA is the fist step of many.

Just recently a whole new generation was turned on to one of the greatest gay rights activist in our history, Harvey Milk. Thanks to a little film called Milk where Sean Penn played Harvey people were once again reminded of the trials and triumphs Harvey faced in his time. It has been over 30 years now since Harvey was assassinated. Yet today we are still fighting the same battles Harvey was battling back then. It is true that LGBT people have won limited rights in a handful of states, but we are still seen as second class citizens throughout the United States.

Harvey once said, "It takes no compromising to give people their rights."

Earlier today I was informed that Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced a bill into Congress to repeal the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." If his bill passes through the Congress, Representative Nadler’s legislation would be a real big step forward in our battle for full equality. I applaud him in his efforts, but still believe that we must stop settling for compromises and half measures congress puts out about our equal rights.

When will people start to realize that equal rights are not just a "gay" issue, rather they are about our shared human rights: safety in our schools and jobs, equitable healthcare and housing, and protection for our families, to name a few.

Aren’t LGBT people guaranteed the same equal protection under the law by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution as our straight counterparts? Our straight counterparts do not have to except compromises and half measures when it comes to their equal rights, so why should we settle for anything less. This is why I am marching on Washington next month. I am going to demand equal protection for all LGBT people under all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states and I want it now.

When Harvey spoke at Gay Freedom Day at San Francisco City Hall in 1978, he invoked the words of the Declaration of Independence: "All [people] are created equal. No matter how hard you try, you can never erase those words."

No more compromises. We are equal.

MJ

PS.... I know times are tough and we are in a recession,but brother or sister can you spare a dime? It's easy to do --- see the button that says donate under Join The Impact Chicago on the left side of your screen, just click it and donate. I am not asking for hundreds of dollars here, just a small donation. All the proceeds raised from this go directly to providing buses for the March on Washington. Even if you can't contribute very much, please remember that every little bit helps.

How much does it matter? That's for you to decide. In my opinion, there is nothing at stake here except our future.

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives Part 5

Sorry this is so late. . . But here is part 5.

Why This Is A Civil Rights Issue

When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters like the fact that we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may be estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and totally ignore our wishes for the treatment of our partners. If that hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in nearly all cases. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results actually intended to be inimical to the interests of the patient!

One couple I know joking always says: "...partners and lovers for 20 years, yet still strangers before the law." Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. Is this fair?

In most cases, even carefully drafted wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's grave. As survivors, they can even seize a real estate property that we may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick us with the remaining debt on a property we no longer own. When these are presented to a homophobic probate judge, he will usually find some pretext to overturn them. Is this fair?

These aren't just theoretical issues, either; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you horror stories of friends who have been victimized in such ways.

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony or whether an announcement is accepted for publication in the local paper. It is not a matter of "special rights" to ask for the same rights that other couples enjoy by law, even by constitutional mandate.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the arguments against gay marriage don't hold up to close scrutiny.
Neither the arguments traditionally raised nor the real feelings of the opponents make much sense when held up to the light of reason.

So let's get on with it. Let's get over our aversion to what we oppose for silly, irrational reasons, based on ignorance and faulty assumptions, and make ours a more just and honorable society, finally honoring that last phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance; "With liberty and justice for all."

MJ

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives Part 4

Hey everyone, only one more part after this. I will try my darnest to try to get tomorrows blog up at the earliest convenience because I am leaving for Florida and not sure if I will have wireless at the place I am staying. But not to worry, I will go to a local coffee shop if I have to.

The Anti-Gay-Marriage Propaganda Effort

The Players

That the organized opposition to gay marriage is primarily from groups with an obvious homophobic agenda should be self evident if one looks at who they are and what they are doing outside of the arena of the gay marriage debate. That many of them call themselves "Christian" does not, in any way, relieve them of the responsibility for the fact that preaching hate is still preaching hate, even when the hate is dressed up in the form of religious doctrine. Putting lipstick on a pig does not make it any less a pig.

These are some of the most respected religious organizations in the United States. One of the most persistent and vigorous players is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, better known as the Mormons.

It was the vigorous organization and strong fundraising effort by the Mormon church that raised approximately 70% of the money that came into California from out of state, to push the campaign for Proposition 8, a ballot measure that amended that state's constitution to prohibit gay marriage and even the recognition of gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Other players were the usual suspects, the Catholic church, several of the more conservative Protestant denominations, the American Family Association, Focus On The Family, their various political subsidiary groups, and a whole host of smaller right-wing political and religious organizations, including a few out-right hate groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center maintains a watch on many of these groups.

The Tactics

What these groups do, persistently, is to try desperately to legitimize what is clearly a campaign of hatred, fear and disinformation. The people of California saw that recently, when the campaign for Proposition 8 used just that tactic relentlessly, for months on end, spending millions of dollars in the process. Eventually the fear and disinformation campaign took its toll, emotion overtook reason, the majority in favor of gay marriage slowly eroded, and the proposition passed rather narrowly.

Hatred by itself, dressed up as religious dogma has been used for so long that it is beginning to lose its effectiveness (eventually people begin to figure out that it is mostly a tactic for filling pews, collection plates and campaign coffers more than it is a way of reforming lost souls and improving society), so the more clever of these organizations have begun to move onto a slick propaganda effort based on that long-time favorite winner, fear.

Of course, the all time favorite among those fear mongering tactics is that logical fallacy called the slippery-slope argument, described briefly earlier. One sees the slippery-slope fallacy in almost every one of their arguments, because they have few logically sound arguments to which to resort.

Take, for example, one of the most popular anti-gay-marriage web sites out there, one so frequently clicked-on that it frequently comes to the top of Google results, the "Ten Arguments" page at nogaymarriage.com (as retrieved on 6/3/09). This web site is operated by the notorious American Family Association, run by Donald Wildmon, and one need only read that organization's Wikipedia entry (in its entirety) to understand just what kind of organization is behind this page. Among those "ten arguments," the slippery-slope fallacy (often more than one) can be seen clearly in every one of the ten. But for every slippery slope argument that Wildmon's organization has identified here, there is not a shred of verifiable evidence given for even a single one. That is a clear demonstration of just how logically fallacious those arguments are - no evidence, just disinformation, just fear mongering.

Gay marriage has been a reality for two decades in Denmark, nearly as long in one form or another in several other Scandinavian countries, and for several years now in Canada, and in the form of civil unions in several states in the United States. Can anyone point to civilization collapsing (as was alleged would happen in the recent Proposition 8 campaign in California) or students being taught gay sex in the public schools (another frequent allegation from that campaign)? If twenty years of gay marriage in Denmark has not brought about the collapse of civilization in that country (indeed, it remains higher on the United Nations Development Index than does the United States), I doubt that the collapse of civilization will be brought on in the United States by a couple of dudes saying "I do" - but that simple reality doesn't stop the argument from being made.

Fear always has the effect of nullifying reason, and does so reliably - so all one has to do to nullify a logical argument is to instill fear. As for any of the other arguments raised against gay marriage, an examination of what has happened during the last twenty years in that country and other Scandinavian countries that followed suit shortly thereafter, will show that the fears are misplaced and the slippery slope so greatly feared remains remarkably ungreased.

The easiest way to counter the slippery-slope fallacy is to simply point out that gay marriage has been tried in many places in the world for many years, including the United States, and none of the dire effects insistently predicted have yet occurred to any significant degree.

The Strategy

The anti-gay-marriage campaigners have recently been losing in the courts with increasing frequency. It isn't difficult to understand why. It is hard to argue that gays, unable to access the dozens of rights of marriage available to straights (as identified by the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii), have equal protection of the law, when they clearly do not under any reasonable standard of logic, and so the courts have been ruling that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution, and similar statutes in state constitutions mean that the rights and responsibilities available to straight married couples are due to gays as well, and have struck down numerous state laws forbidding gay marriage. As a result, the anti-crowd has been losing in the courts. Simply putting a measure on the ballot, or getting a law through the legislature to overturn such decisions has not worked, because they run afoul of state constitution requirement for equal treatment under the law, and are therefore promptly struck down again.
So the response has been to place ballot constitutional amendment initiatives on the ballot in the states that allow for that. To date, more than half of all states have passed such initiatives, and in every case, the initiative campaign was based on fear, disinformation and hate mongering. Hardly a surprise, when an appeal to logic is not available to them, so an appeal to emotion, especially fear, is their only alternative.

An additional advantage to the constitutional amendment approach is that it is court-proof. For all intents and purposes, an amendment to a state constitution is by definition, constitutional, and can't be overturned as unconstitutional by a state supreme court, at least under most ordinary circumstances.

Gay marriage is a hot-button issue. There is no doubt about that. And because it is, the strategy is often used to put a gay-marriage initiative on the ballot when interest in an election important to the right is otherwise flagging. It gets out the homophobe vote quite reliably, so when right-wing candidates are behind in the polls, a gay marriage ballot measure is often used as a way to also raise the participation and push a right-winger into office when he would otherwise have lost. Conversely, when there is a hotly contested race between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican, interest in the race is often used to get out conservative votes for a gay marriage ballot measure which may otherwise lose.

Once on the ballot, the disinformation used in the campaign consists of nearly always variations on the same arguments regardless of where the campaign is taking place, nearly all of them lies, generally easily refuted and can be easily seen to be without merit: 1) that homosexual sex (and/or gay marriage) would be taught and promoted in the public schools; 2) that heterosexual marriage would be undermined; 3) that churches would be forced to sanctify gay marriages; 4) that the underpinnings of western civilization (presumed to be heterosexual marriage) would be threatened; 5) that gay married couples would recruit, recruiting especially any adopted children who would then grow up to be gay. It doesn't matter whether these claims are true or not for this disinformation campaign to succeed; as Adolf Hitler himself noted, all it takes for a lie to be believed is for it to be repeated often enough, especially if it is a big lie, and these campaigns repeat the same lies over and over and over again until they finally become conventional wisdom. But there is a looming problem for the anti-gay-marriage crowd. That is the United States constitution, whose 14th Amendment states that all persons are entitled to equal protection of the law, and it makes no exceptions for gays, as the U.S. Supreme Court itself noted in its ruling striking down state sodomy laws. So if straights are entitled to special treatment for being married, gays are, in theory at least, due those same treatments under the 14th Amendment.

Stay tune for the final part tomorrow.

MJ

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives Part 3

Hey everyone, we are halfway through this weeks discussion of the Arguments Against Gay Marriage. Please enjoy part 3. . ..

The real reasons people oppose gay marriage

So far, we've examined the reasons everyone give for opposing gay marriage. Let's examine now the real reasons people oppose it, even fear it:

1. Just not comfortable with the idea.

The fact the people aren't comfortable with the idea stems primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous, mainly because of the objections raised above. But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is necessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority. But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority.

2. It offends everything religion stands for.

Whose religion? Many mainstream Christian denominations, to be sure, and definitely most branches of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but outside those, most religions are unopposed to gay marriage, and many actually favor it. When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all religions in the Baehr vs. Lewin trial in Hawaii, the principal Buddhist sect in that state made it very clear that the Mormon church didn't represent them, and made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry. That particular Buddhist sect claims many more members in Hawaii than does the Mormon church. In a society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to all who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.

3. Marriage is a sacred institution and gay marriage violates that sanctity.

This is, of course, related to the motive above. But it is really subtly different. It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well. It would seem to me that anyone who feels that the sanctity of their marriage is threatened by a gay couple down the street having the right to marry, is mighty insecure about their religion anyway.

Even if one accepts the presumption of the United States as a bible-believing, Christian nation as an acceptable legal doctrine, as many conservative Christians insist, and the bible should be the basis for the sacred institution of marriage, perhaps those Christians should get out their bibles and actually read them for a change. Including all the inconvenient passages that not only permit but can even require polygamy, involuntary marriage and the like.

How about Deuteronomy 25:5-10, for example: "When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man has no desire to marry his brother's widow, then his brother's widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say 'My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me. Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists, saying 'I have no desire to marry her,' then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and declare 'This is what is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house. Throughout Israel his family will be known as 'the house of him whose sandal was pulled off.'"

If the Bible is sacred and inviolate when it comes to the institution of marriage, then the above passage and all the other inconvenient ones require reverence too, do they not? If the Christian is going to say, well, that's old, quaint and should no longer be expected to apply, well, then, that's exactly the point! The institution of marriage as it is practiced in the real world is a culturally defined institution, not biblically defined, as a reading of the above quotation should make quite clear, and it is high time we recognize and face up to the cold reality that cultural values have changed since the bible was written, and the institution of marriage has changed along with it. Gay marriage is simply part of that evolutionary process of social progress.

4. Gay sex is unnatural.

This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes, betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners. The reality is that it is so common that it begs for an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.

5. Making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine.

Well, I've known plenty of very masculine gay men in my day, who, if you suggested was a limp-wristed fairy, would likely rip your head off and hand it to you. There was a long-honored tradition of gay relationships among the tough and macho cowboys of the Old West, and many diaries exist detailing their relationships. Plenty of masculine, respected movies stars are gay. Indeed, Rock Hudson was considered the very archetype of a masculine man. Came as quite a shock to a lot of macho-men to find out he was gay! So what's wrong with all these kinds of men expressing love for each other? Why is that so wrong? A society that devalues love devalues that upon which civilized society itself is based. Should any form of that love for one another be discouraged?


6. The thought of gay sex is repulsive.

Well, it will come as some surprise to a lot of heterosexuals to find out that, to a lot of gays, the thought of heterosexual sex is repulsive! But does that mean the discomfort of some gays to heterosexual couples should be a reason to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? I don't think so, even though the thought of a man kissing a woman is rather repulsive to many homosexuals! Well then, why should it work the other way? Besides, the same sexual practices that gays engage in are often engaged in by heterosexual couples anyway. Prompting the ever-popular gay T-shirt: "SO-DO-MY -- SO DO MY neighbors, SO DO MY friends."

7. They might recruit.

The core cause of this fear is the result of the fact that most virulent, even violent homophobes are themselves repressed sexually, often with same sex attractions. One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex. The fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia is as internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don't have to worry about being aroused by him.

The fear of recruitment is baseless because it is based on a false premise - that gay people recruit. We don't. We don't recruit because we know from our own experience that sexual orientation is inborn, and can't be changed to any significant degree. Indeed, the attempts by psychologists, counselors and religious therapy and support groups to change sexual orientation have all uniformly met with failure - the studies that have been done of these therapies have never shown any significant results, and usually create psychological damage in the process, which is why they are uniformly condemned by mental health professional associations. So the notion that someone can be changed from straight to gay is quite unlikely. Yet there remains that deep, dark fear that somehow, someone might be.

8. Gay marriage would undermine sodomy laws.

Many conservative religionists privately oppose gay marriage in part because it would undermine the legal basis for sodomy laws, which, even though they have been deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, are still dreamed of by those who would seek to legalize discrimination against gays. It would be hard to justify, before a court, allowing a couple to marry and then legally bar them from having sexual relations.

9. Gay marriage would legitimize homosexuality.

This presumes that homosexuality is anything other than simply a normal variation of human development. The reality is that every mental health association has recognized that homosexuality is a perfectly normal variation on how humans develop, and there is now a substantial body of evidence from science that there are sound reasons why it has evolved, and why it is not selected against in evolutionary pressure. It is not perverted, it does not degrade human culture, it is not a threat to humankind in any way. All those stereotypes, long cultivated by homophobes, have been disproven both by experience and by scientific research, but that does not prevent the homophobe from holding to them dearly. And allowing state sanction in the form of marriage, threatens the stereotype by undermining the justification for it.

At the end of the day, the opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, born almost entirely out of religious prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life, just like racism is a very real part of every black person's life. It is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American society than most Americans realize, not just for gay people, but for society in general.

Stay tune for Part 4 tomorrow.

MJ

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives Part 2

Hello everyone. Here is Part 2 of 5 of this weeks discussion on Gay Marriage.

The Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Well, of course there are a lot of reasons being offered these days for opposing gay marriage, and they are usually variations on a few well-established themes.
Here's a summary:

1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.

Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money it stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

2. Marriage is for procreation.

The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings! That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought.

3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children.

That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed?

The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.

4. Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage.

Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law (and none other than the father of the American democracy, Thomas Jefferson, very proudly took credit for that fact), and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they perceive to be mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species.

The proponents of such an argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out through lack of procreation. If the ten percent of all the human race that is gay were to suddenly refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be better off. One of the world's most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy that is resulting from it. Seems to me that gays would be doing the world a favor by not bringing more hungry mouths into an already overburdened world. So why encourage them? The vacuity of this argument is seen in the fact that those who raise this objection never object to infertile couples marrying; indeed, when their retired single parent, long past reproductive age, seeks to marry, the usual reaction is how cute and sweet that is. That fact alone shows how false this argument really is. Let's face it - marriage is about love and commitment, and support for that commitment, not about procreation.

6. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.

That one's contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate sexually, and thereby reduce the number of supposed heterosexual marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. So you would have freedom of choice, of choosing what kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for tightening divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.

7. Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution.

This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history. But by the 19th century, humankind had realized the evils of that institution, and has since largely abolished it. Why not recognize the truth -- that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction?

8. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences.

A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to instill fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market gun dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so every day. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage or child protection issue.

9. Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right.

Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the rest constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.

10. Churches would be forced to marry gay people against their will.

This one has absolutely no basis in law whatever. There are many marriages to which many churches object, such as interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, the marriage of divorcees, etc., and yet no state law of which I am aware requires any church to marry any couple when that church objects to the performance of that particular marriage. The right granted by the state to a church to perform marriages is a right, not a requirement, and to pretend that it would be a requirement in the case of gays, but not in the above examples, is disingenuous on the face of it.

11. If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools.

Gay marriage is already legal in several states and many foreign countries, including Canada, but can anyone point to an example of homosexuality being promoted in the public schools? No. Because it hasn't happened in any significant way. What is being objected to is tolerance of gays, not genuine promotion of homosexuality. And if tolerance itself is not acceptable, what is the absence of tolerance? It is bigotry. If we do not promote tolerance in the public schools, we are accepting that bigotry has a place there. Is this really what we want?

12. Gay marriage and promotion of homosexuality would undermine western civilization.

Homosexuality is as old as civilization itself, and has always been a part of civilization, including this one - indeed, cross-cultural studies indicate that the percentage of homosexuals in a population is independent of culture. So even if promotion were to occur, it wouldn't change anything - people aren't gay because they were "recruited," they're gay because they were born that way, as the population statistics across cultures makes clear. As for gay marriage itself undermining western civilization, it is hard to see how the promotion of love, commitment, sharing and commonality of values and goals isn't going to strengthen civilization a lot sooner than it is going to undermine it.

Stay tune for Part 3 tomorrow.

MJ