It boggles the mind.
In November 2002, Aaron Price beat Gregory Love with baseball bat and allegedly narrated the event with comments like "What are you looking at faggot?" and "I hate these Morehouse faggots," Morehouse being the all boys school where the beating took place. I can say that Price beat Love because he never denied it and indeed was recently convicted. However, I must still put "alleged" in front of the rest of it because Price is claiming he felt threatened by Love and the jury acquitted him of a hate crimes charge.
First of all how can you feel threatened by someone in a dorm shower if you have time to leave the showers, go back to your room, return with the bat and attack the guy from behind? Now it should be pointed out that the victim is not gay. Love says he mistook Price for his roommate since he was not wearing his glasses in the shower. Apparently Price felt Love was being more familiar with him that Price felt was appropriate. A simple examination of Love's prescription could easily settle the issue of mistaken identity. Since I have never seen that information mentioned in a news article, I'm guessing that Love's prescription is indeed strong enough that he could make such a mistake. Before my father underwent Lasic surgery he could not tell his own children apart without his glasses. In fact, my father's vision was so bad that even after surgery he still needs glasses. The point of the surgery was to make it so he could at least function without them. Love's claim is not far fetched.
The point here is not whether or not Love is gay. Perhaps the fact that he is not is what induced the jury to acquit Price of the hate crime charge. But whether or not Love is gay is really immaterial to the question. That he was percieved as gay is. Gay men and women live with the fear of this kind of violence every day. You don't have to actually be gay. You just have to appear gay. Like Love. Like the man in San Antonio who was severly beaten because he happened to be holding his wife's purse while she went into a public restroom.
Hate crime legislation is about the movtivation for the crime. Period. It's about terrorizing an entire community with an act of violence. You would think that Americans would be able to grasp that concept now. Apparently not. Or maybe it's just that the jury in Georgia thinks that gays should be beaten from behind with a baseball bat.
Getting past the hype…finally.
Too bad it's in Canada. Yesterday the Ontario Court of Appeals upheld the legal right of same-sex couples to marry. The court's opinion stated rather simply what should be blindingly obvious to anyone with more than a few functioning brain cells.
The [Attorney General of Canada] has not shown that the opposite-sex requirement in marriage is rationally related to the encouragement of procreation and child rearing. ... The law is both overinclusive and underinclusive. The ability to 'naturally' procreate and the willingness to raise children are not prerequisites of marriage for opposite-sex couples. ... Simultaneously, the law is underinclusive because it excludes same-sex couples that have and raise children.
Finally. Someone in authority has said it. What does the ability to "naturally" procreate have to do with marriage? There are a few states that require blood tests for a marriage license. I'm not aware of any who require that both parties prove they are fertile and capable of procreation. Nor have I heard of an incident where a couple's marriage has been declared null and void because of their inability or lack of desire to procreate. (At least not one instigated by the state. I'm sure more than a few guys have used that one to get out of a marriage they didn't want.) There are quite a few childless couples who enjoy the legal and financial benefits of marriage. In point of fact, no one would even dream of denying these couples the right to marriage.
When it comes right down to it, what does the ability to naturally procreate have to do with sex? With the Supreme Court set to rule on Lawrence v. Texas in the next week or two there has been much discussion about sodomy in recent months. Sodomy is defined as non-procreative sex acts. This includes sex with a condom or any other means of birth control, people. But let's set that aside for the moment and get back to couples who, for whatever reason, are unable to conceive. Can you imagine anyone suggesting that such couples--who are physically incapable of procreating--should refrain from sexual relations with each other? Even buttheads like Santorum, who think the government has a vested intrest interest in regulating activies in the bedroom, would draw the line at sexual relations between married couples. All the absurd rhetoric from the right is aimed at homosexuals, fornicators and adulterers. Do you really think that if push came to shove Santorum would suggest outlawing birth control or outlawing sex that is merely an affirmation of the love between husband and wife and not intended to produce children? He may be an idiot, but he's not stupid. The problem is, no one stops to consider such things, focused as they are on a particular class of people that does not include themselves.
Well, maybe it's about time they did.
Pride Day 2003
Yesterday was Gay Pride Day here in Utah. I imagine Salt Lake's gay pride festivities are miniscule compared to larger metropolitan areas or even places similar in size, but less conservative than our little valley (which wouldn't take much). Pride was notable this year in only insofar as this was the first year I marched in the parade instead of just watching it. Well, marched is stretching it a bit. It was more like running interspersed with attempts at dancing.
I swim with QUAC, the local gay and lesbian swim team. Yes, QUAC. It stands for Queer Utah Aquatics Club. The first thing my sister said to me upon hearing the name of my swim team was "Did you just say 'Queer?'" "Yes," I sighed. "You know. Quack, duck, water, swimming? UGLAC (Utah Gay and Lesbian Aquatic Club) just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?" Anyway, this year the team decided to participate in the parade. Twelve of us learned a little dance routine. The rest were passing out flyers and throwing water on the dancers to keep us from overheating.
I was rather nervous about the whole thing. Not only was this my first time marching in a gay pride parade, I was going to be doing it damn near naked. Eleven of the twelve dancers were in their racing speedos (though in Pricilla's case, that was a full body racing suit) or in some other tight fitting lycra somethingorother. I was the one hold out. I told them I would dance with them, but there was no way in Hell I was going to do it in a speedo.
Once the parade got going, I didn't really have time to worry about being in my little swim trunks dancing through downtown Salt Lake City. It was actually a lot of fun. Unfortunately we underestimated the speed of the parade. We assumed there would be other groups doing routines that would keep the parade moving at a sensible pace. Wrong. By the time we had gone through our little routine once, the parade was nearly a block and a half ahead of us. We spent most of the time running to keep up.
No. There are no pictures...at least none in my possession. There was one press guy who followed the team most of the parade route and was snapping pictures every time I noticed him. I am sure there were more than a couple cameras going in the crowd. I had asked a friend to video it for me. Unfortunately we were in catch up mode as we went by where he stood and ended up jogging right past him. I'm sure there's bound to be photos that end up on the Internet somewhere. It's up to you to find them, though. 'Cause if I find 'em I sure ain't gonna tell you where they are.