Oh, my heck.
SB89 has cleared committee in the Utah legislature. SB89 "provides for the creation of mutual dependence benefits contracts, which allow two adults, not eligible for marriage, to share certain rights and responsibilities regarding property ownership or health-related matters." In other words, it's a baby step toward civil unions in Utah.
I'm still not sure how I feel about this. Gay groups are hailing it as a step in the right direction. I still can't help but see this as something akin to a back handed compliment. "Mutual dependance benefits contracts?" You've got to be kidding. How long did it take them to come up with that so they wouldn't have to call it civil unions? Since G.B. Hinkley recently expressed concerns on national television about civil unions being a slippery slope to gay marriage, it's hardly surprising the contortions people are going through to avoid the term.
Supposedly this not a response to Amendment 3 forbidding the legal recognition of gay relationships which passed in November and went into effect January 1.
(1) marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman; and
(2) no other domestic union may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect
The irony is SB89 is being hailed as "a fine piece of legislation" by Republican leadership and appears ready to sail through the Utah legislature. I am apparently in a minority of people who think this stands in direct contrast to Amendment 3. "SB89 is not a gay-marriage-by-another-name bill," says Jane Mardquardt, chairwoman of the board for Equality Utah. Whatever.
Apparently SB89 is not a contradiction of Amendment 3 because no sexual relationship is implied. Marriage implies a sexual relationship? I'll bet I could find more than a handful of men and/or women who would beg to differ. Shouldn't item one then read "marriage consists only of the sexual union between a man and a woman?" I'm so glad that I have finally been disabused of my illusions about marriage. Here I thought it was because two people wanted to build a life and a family together and all the time they just wanted to get laid.
I guess one can also duck the amendment thanks to that "substantially" they stuck in there. "SB89, with its five guaranteed rights, in no way approaches the more than 1,200 rights and responsibilities that automatically accompany traditional marriage," continues Mardquardt. Indeed all discussion surrounding the bill emphasize the fact that is not about gay relationships, it's about any two adults desiring shared benefits—such as a grandmother and a granddaughter. So does this trump normal inheritance rules then? If the grandmother has a rat bastard son she wants to cut out of the picture, couldn't she just change her will? Isn't that what opponents of gay marriage have been telling homosexuals to do? Set up legal contracts. Use powers of attorney. Create wills. Grandma has always had attorneys at her disposal. So what exactly does this bill do? It allows her to do it for $20 at the State Health Department instead of paying a lawyer $500-$3000 to modify her will.
But wait. When was the last time you heard Grandma complaining about the cost of modifying her will other than in generic "@#!!(*)@#($) lawyers!" terms? When was the last time Grandma complained about any inequity in the process? She hasn't because there isn't any. Any person can modify their will to their heart's desire. Costs may vary from state to state and from attorney to attorney, but the costs associated are the same no matter who is altering their will. So why does Grandma suddenly need this cheaper option? Grandmas have been around a long time haven't they? They have been cutting their ne'er-do-well offspring out of the inheritance for a long time haven't they? Granddaughters have been caring for their elderly Gran for a long time haven't they? If the intervening parent is missing then the granddaughter is automatically empowered to act for Grandma. If there exists some truculent relative with greater legal claim to grandma, then powers of attorney have surely been used to assert the granddaughter's right to act on Gran's behalf. Why hasn't this "need" come up before? It's not because homosexuals have been raising a ruckus about the inequity of the marriage process is it? It's not because homosexuals are outraged that it costs them thousands of dollars to secure the legal protections for their relationships that straight couples can obtain with a $5-$20 marriage license. No. Of course not.
Yes. Fine. It's a step in the right direction. All right. You take what you can get in a state as conservative as Utah. I do not believe that people are not aware of the contradictions here. What seems to be happening is both sides have agreed not to discuss it. It's all about spin. It's all about not poking the sleeping dog. "Here. You can have these few benefits just as long as we don't have to talk about that icky gay thing." This is better than living in the closet how? Bastards.
Matters of Faith
There is much furor in the country right now over religious expression. Liberals seem to really get their knickers in a twist if anyone makes some public statement of faith. The theoretical urge to not offend is as admirable as it is silly. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect humans to say and do nothing that offends anyone. I mean, my hell, I am gay. My very existence offends some people. To all the atheists who get all worked up every time they have to endure a prayer, I say, "You are in the minority in this country. Get over it. You being offended by a believer invoking the protection of his God is about as stupid as would be me being offending by a man and a woman holding hands at the mall. It's a waste of time and energy."
Michael Newdow, after his unsuccessful attempt to remove "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, is now trying to ban prayer at presidential inauguration. Once again, the logic is by invoking God, or specifically George Bush's god, all who believe differently would feel left out, that allowing religious expression during such a ceremony would be tantamount to the government endorsing religion. Well, doesn't our government endorse religion? Wasn't the point of America religious freedom? Doesn't it seem rather counter to the ideals that formed the United States to forbid public expressions of faith? How come no one is screaming about first amendment rights to free speech? If George Bush wants to start his second term in office with a prayer, why shouldn't he? If Joseph Lieberman had been elected and wanted a rabbi to bless his presidency, why shouldn't he? If Michael Newdow had been elected and wished no such ceremony that should be equally fine.
And if you want to start talking about faith, the liberal left does have faith in a higher power, it's just not God. It's government. A recent political cartoon shows George Bush about to take a sledge hammer to a toaster labeled Social Security. Not sure exactly what he's implying. Is he trying to say social security is as fragile as a toaster? (I mean, how many toasters have you owned in your lifetime?) Or is he saying that George Bush's proposals that would allow me to manage my retirement would be a death blow to social security? This governmental higher power knows better how to manage money? There's certainly no rational or historical proof of that. Is there some sacred text I don't know about?
It seems to me to make more sense to teach respect for other's viewpoints, to allow all views to be expressed and respond to those which offend with restraint, reason and respect. That sounds more like a world I would enjoy living in and one more people would be willing to work for.
Up to here!
Varifrank delivers a one-two punch to the liberal left in a recent blog entry. One Amercian who's had enough bullshit from our "allies" in Europe. An excerpt:
Today, during an afternoon conference that wrapped up my project of the last 18 months, one of my Euro collegues tossed this little turd out to no one in particular:
"See, this is why George Bush is so dumb, theres a disaster in the world and he sends an Aircraft Carrier..."
After which he and many of my Euro collegues laughed out loud.
and then they looked at me. I wasn't laughing, and neither was my Hindi friend sitting next to me, who has lost family in the disaster.
I'm afraid I was "unprofessional", I let it loose -
"Hmmm, let's see, what would be the ideal ship to send to a disaster, now what kind of ship would we want?
"Something with its own inexhuastible power supply?
"Something that can produce 900,000 gallons of fresh water a day from sea water?
"Something with its own airfield? So that after producing the fresh water, it could help distribute it?
"Something with 4 hospitals and lots of open space for emergency supplies?
"Something with a global communications facility to make the coordination of disaster relief in the region easier?
"Well 'Franz', us peasants in America call that kind of ship an 'Aircraft Carrier'".
It starts.
A golf club in Atlanta allows the spouses of its members equal access to the club facilities and also allows the spouse to inherit the membership should the member meet an untimely end. When gay members of the club complained that their partners were not extended the same benefits, the club told them those were privileges reserved for married couples only.
The gay members of the club took their complaint to the city, which had passed a non-discrimination ordinance in 2000. The club was found to be in violation of said ordinance and fines were levied, though none have as yet been collected.
The club is now suing the city, claiming the ordinance is unconstitutional in light of Georgia's recently passed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and prohibiting any relationship other than marriage from obtaining "the benefits of marriage." It is unlikely that the city will win the suit and the nondiscrimination ordinance will be struck down.
Here we have a fairly clear example of what a farce "compassionate conservatism" is. The club can claim they do not discriminate against homosexuals because they allow them membership in their club. And yet, when homosexual members asked to be treated in the same manner as their heterosexual comrades, all kinds of walls jump up. Exactly how does a golf club refusing gay couples equal privileges protect the institution of marriage? The only thing it protects is the club's bottom line.
Here also we see the hypocrisy evident in the occasional noises made from the right that civil unions might be an acceptable alternative. Every amendment that has passed specifically bans civil unions. As did the failed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for which Bush continues to voice support. Remove the language forbidding "the legal incidents of marriage" from being given to any other relationship and the amendment will pass without so much as a hiccup. "Merely" reserving the word marriage as the special province of heterosexuals is not, however, the aim of conservative groups pressing legislation prohibiting gay marriage. Their aim is nothing less than making sure homosexuals always remain second class citizens. However you choose to justify it—God usually gets the blame—that is bigotry.
The assumption that continues to be offensive to me and many other homosexuals is that we and our relationships are inferior. I am still waiting to hear an explanation of why this is. Let me rephrase that. I am waiting for an explanation that is sound and reasonable. I have heard all kinds of explanations that barely count as excuses. Every one easily proven fallacious. I haven't heard one because one doesn't exist. There is no mojo associated with the union of a man and a woman. If there were, the divorce rate wouldn't be any where near what it is. Spousal and child abuse would all but cease to exist. More children would grow up well adjusted and productive members of society.
Perhaps that is why conservatives are fighting so hard to ensure that homosexual unions do not obtain any parity with heterosexual unions. It is too radical a departure from their way of thinking to admit that life is more about being human than straight or gay (or black or white or Jew or Arab.) It is interesting to note that those areas most vocal about the need to protect marriage are those areas where marriage is weakest. It's an age old human response: make yourself feel better by putting others down.
On Being Gay
It is an interesting aspect of the human psyche that those who are the least secure in their lives are the ones most unaccepting of others' lives. They demand conformity from everyone around them. Their preaching and exhortations aren't so much to bring light to others as it is to convince themselves they are better than they believe in their hearts they are. This is especially true where homosexuality is concerned.
If you want a good measure of how comfortable someone is with their sexuality watch for comments like: "I'm gay but that is my sexual preference not my personality." I understand the sentiment. A friend of mine, who I met shorty after he came out, brought his teenage son to meet several of us. Afterward, my friend asked his son how he felt about it. "Well, they're just a bunch of normal guys," was the confused reply. Apparently he had been expecting everyone to be "Just Jack!" It's a rather frustrating perception. Hello! Will is gay, too!
Still, I don't think anyone is doing themselves any favors by trying to put distance between themselves and other gay men who live their lives differently. We are not asking to be accepted for who we are anymore. We are caving in to pressure, trying in some way to conform, to be a part of mainstream society. We end up perpetrating on each other the same discrimination which each of us faces from those hostile to homosexuals, discrimination that is still acceptable in this country. Folks, we are never going to be mainstream society. Even 30 years from now when my children are running the country and nobody cares if you are gay or not anymore, we will always be a minority.
"I don't like fags. They squirm when they chance breaking a nail. (There are gays & fags. One of them [fags] makes us look bad.)" Look bad? Look bad to whom and why do you care? I occasionally hear rants about Pride parades and how they demean gay life and make us look unsavory to our adversaries. For starters, Pride is a party, plain and simple. No one looks at Mardi Gras and assumes that is how heterosexuals live their lives. Would our effort to obtain equal marriage rights be easier if Pride parades were tame and less hedonistic? Probably. Is sacrificing our individuality and conformity a price worth paying to obtain them? Absolutely not.
Being gay is what you make of it. Admitting that you are gay doesn't define you as anything different from who you are. You are not obligated to don a tutu. I am no more or less gay than the drag queen on stage. I am no more or less gay than the flaming homo up the street. I am no more or less gay than the leather daddies at Club 161. None of those is my lifestyle. That doesn't make me a better person. Just different. How many people even know what the rainbow flag stands for? It is a celebration of diversity. Almost always we are looking outward, asking the world to accept us and our divergence from "the norm." Perhaps it wouldn't hurt us to spend some time looking inward as well.