None of Your Fucking Business

One of the reasons I haven't been heard from much lately around my own place is the simple fact of feeling utterly, totally, completely and irredeemably fucking helpless over the massive conflagration in the Middle East. And it seems almost -- ALMOST -- silly to be writing about anything else, when World War III would appear to be making everything else moot.

Of course, that's a stupid fucking way to live; if the world is really coming to an end momentarily, why am I still going to the goddamned gym every morning? Why not just bury myself in a mountain of tiramisu and mashed potatoes, for chrissakes?

Anyway. Irrespective of the end of the world being nigh and all that horseshit, it's still spinning, and while my heart fucking shrieks in empathic agony for every mother watching her baby die, there is other work to be done here i the good ole US of freaking A, where we can actually do something about it.

Every time I hear some sanctimonious fuck spit out, "Marriage is between a man and a woman, in God's eyes," I think of the Max von Sydow line in “Hannah and Her Sisters:”

“If Jesus Christ came back and saw what people have been doing in his name, he would never stop throwing up.”

This is one of many issues that make me weep for humanity. When an entire minority is still disenfranchised in terms of civil rights and adequate political representation, I weep. The fact that so many otherwise intelligent, educated people still believe who someone sleeps with should determine his human rights, still believe that their God considers homosexuality an aberration worthy of eternal damnation to that imaginary construct they call “Hell,” I weep. I rage, too.

Pragmatism seems to demand that liberal politicians tread carefully on this land mine-filled territory. I suppose I understand that. Certainly no one politician thinks s/he can afford to speak the truth and survive, politically. Witness the outrage over "don't ask, don't tell," that misguided and cowardly step in the right direction.

But…

The time has come for a man or woman of conscience to stand before the cameras and tell the truth: that homosexuality, regardless of it being a biological imperative or a "lifestyle choice," is not a crime against man or god. That all men and women, irrespective of their sexual partners, are created equal and have equal rights under every law. That the dark ages are long gone and so should be every vestige of the fear, hatred and judgment of "different."

The time has come for the collective liberal leadership of this backassward fucking country to tell it to grow the fuck up. Tell Mrs. Kravitz to get her nose out of other people's (literal) fucking business, and stop trying to monitor what her neighbours are doing with their genitals. As long as those genitals belong to consenting adults, it ain't none of your motherfucking business where they're going, Gladys. And maybe if you spent a little more time blowing the spousal unit instead of peering out those crappy chintz curtains, you wouldn't feel the need to keep up with the Joneses's joneses.

Perhaps we might discover that the vast majority of people, when introduced to The Truth by articulate, passionate leaders of conscience and courage, will open up their eyes, ears, minds and hearts to that Truth. Just perhaps, mind you.

I am not a Christian or Jew or Muslim. While I occasionally have a conception of a Higher Power that I choose to call god -- simply because it's a lot fucking shorter than "Spirit of the Universe" or even "Higher Power" -- I practice no religion. Further, I do not hold any part of the Bible or the Koran to be the word of god.

One of the basic fucking tenets of the separation of Church and State is that at no time should the government of the United States of America be countenanced as a theocracy. Our laws, while oftentimes influenced by religious beliefs, are not dictated by the Bible (Old or New testament) or any religious text.

The definition of marriage in a religious context is not the definition of marriage in a legal context -- period. I cite the words of the civil marriage ceremony: "By the power vested in me by the (Commonwealth of Massachusetts)..." NOT: "By the power vested in me by God..."

Separation of Church and State, while difficult to maintain at times, is crucial to the continuing evolution of a nation. As a person who does not recognize the validity of the Bible or any other religious text as being the word of god, I DEMAND that the government I support with my taxes and by whose laws I abide leave the religious beliefs of its members out of the equation when making those laws. I do not demand equality or even consideration from any religion; I consider myself and every other person not affiliated with a religion to be outside the sphere of those religions.

When the laws by which I am supposed to abide are dictated by those who would encroach upon my rights as a human being through their own religious beliefs, I must and will protest. I will fight. I am not a Christian, I am not a Jew, I am not a Muslim. I am a human being, and I WILL fight for my fellow human beings.

To the frighteningly large number of politicians and religious leaders who would dictate to the rest of the world that their religious beliefs be enshrined in the Constitution and supported by draconian laws of exclusion and persecution of those who do not share their religious beliefs: You are engaged in malfeasance according to the very same God in whom you profess to believe.


And to every politician of conscience, regardless of religion: Stick to the Constitution.

Amendment XIV
 * Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Blacks, Gays, Jews, Native Americans, Christians, Muslims, Japanese-Americans, Hispanics, Irish, Italians... oh, and Women

Have I left anyone out?

Because I know the aforementioned groups have all been, at one time or another (or all times) left out. Disenfranchised. Dismissed. Oppressed. Repressed. Persecuted. Enslaved. Brutalized.

 Of course, one needn't summon empathy for (let alone, come to the aid of) another segment of the world's population that has suffered or is suffering what one's own segment has suffered. No, no -- This is different, after all. This group is completely different. These circumstances mustn't be compared to ours.

 Such was the message transmitted by the 50 odd African-American religious leaders gathered in Washington, D.C. last year, on the 50th anniversary of the Brown V. Board of Education decision that began in earnest the battle for the civil rights of African-Americans.

 Denouncing the comparison between the struggle for African-American rights and gay rights, the most prominent rationale proposed by these so-called "men of god" turned out to be... "Homosexuality is an abomination."

  Correct me if I am wrong, but at one time in this country, "miscegenation" was also considered (by a majority of the public, no less) to be "an abomination."

 Reverend Joseph Fuiten: "All of Western civilization has been a part of this idea going back to Plato and the Greeks and the Romans. Now, we have activist judges and renegade politicians who want to overthrow Western civilization, federal and state laws, and change the definition of marriage."

 Pardon me? Okay, let's just bypass the obvious argument about Plato and the Greeks and all those little boys. Too, let us bypass the argument against Western "civilization" and the Catholic Church and all those little boys. I'll even let slide the fact that most of the positive changes in Western Civilization and in federal and state laws were made by "activist judges and renegade politicians."

 Let's concentrate on the fact that The Reverend and his peers in the African American religious community are using the same motherfucking arguments against gay marriage that were used against civil rights. I don't know how anyone can argue that this isn't comparable. Gay people want equal protection and rights as promised them under the law. Blacks wanted equal rights and protections as promised them under the law. Gay rights opponents claim that the law is being warped to give special rights to gays. Civil rights opponents... well, you get the picture. Even the religious arguments are the same.

And if it weren't for activist goddamned judges, Reverend, Loving v. Virginia wouldn't have turned out quite the same way, and you and I might be having this conversation in a VERY different circumstance.

 Oh, toss it -- I'll leave the rational arguments to those better qualified. This is a rant, goddamnit.

 If anything makes me crazier than ignorance driven persecution, it is ignorance driven persecution perpetrated by a group of people who ought to know better.

 Humans are one fucked up species. We use our religions, our pocketbooks and our vicious rhetoric to attack anything we perceive as a threat to our status quo, irrespective of logic -- let alone compassion. Change is a scary, scary thing. We just hate it when we're asked to change our views, let alone our lives. And it appears we are willing to do just about anything to avoid dealing with it.

 That includes engaging in behaviours that put our very own lives in misery when they were practiced against us. Hatred born of fear rules the day; deliberate blindness to our own fear based hatred enables it to go unchecked -- by us, at least. We are dragged, kicking and screaming, into change that in retrospect was long overdue. Fifty years later, high school children have absolutely no concept of how revolutionary Brown v. Board of Education was; they look upon the facts of life fifty years ago with the same sort of bemused astonishment that we feel when we watch a period film and realize that birthmarks were for centuries considered to be a sign of demonic possession.

 In fifty years, the only people against gay marriage will be those relegated to the marginalized closets of homophobia where they belong; I'm sure they will have some racist company in there. Hatred never dies completely -- it goes on life support underground, awaiting its chance to emerge and be fed.

 For what is their actual argument, after all? If they would make legal unions between gay people illegal, and deny those gay people equal protection under the law, would they not, by extension, make homosexuality itself illegal? If it is, as they claim, "an abomination," then they must, ipso facto, demand the illegality of homosexuality. You cannot call something an abomination in one breath and in the next admit you are willing to overlook it if the state refuses to sanction its legitimacy. You must demand a return to sodomy laws.

 Which makes you no better than those who would have liked to return to the days of slavery. No better. Possibly worse -- at least they had ignorance on their side, the easier to forgive  when they saw the light, if they ever did. You who would hide your hatred in the pages of your religious texts, knowing full well the volumes of data that prove a homosexual can no more change his sexuality than you can the colour of your skin -- you are in the wrong.

 And I would submit that the God you profess to worship would tell you the same. (These texts you laud as the word of god are, to many others, merely your interpretation of the word of your god, in whom may of us believe not a whit. But leave that aside for the moment.)

If you insist upon using those texts to rationalize your arguments of hatred, I will happily take up that challenge. Nowhere in the New Testament of the Bible does your purported saviour, Jesus Christ, denounce homosexuality. He makes a good argument for homosexual marriage, in fact, in denouncing extra-marital sex.  

 He also says a few things about judging your neighbour and loving your neighbour. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

 He makes a pretty good argument for separating church and state, too -- "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

 But most important: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thy say to thy brother, "Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

 If your brother does, indeed, have a mote in his eye, I submit that you are too blind to judge it accurately, since the beam in your own spans continents and centuries.


PEDANT ALERT


Contrary to popular myth, "marriage" and "civil unions" are not the same; changing the term drastically changes the meaning as well. As mentioned above, marriage is approximately 1,500 reciprocal rights, privileges and obligations, 1,000 from the feds and about 500 from the state. A civil union, on the other hand, is a term coined by the Vermont legislature to avoid granting the "m" word to gay and lesbian couples. Because federal law does not recognize civil unions, a civil union provides only the 500 state conferred rights, privileges and obligations associated with marriage with none of the 1,000+ federal benefits.


But that is not the only difference. In addition to being denied federal benefits, rights and responsibilities, civil unions lack portability - so couples do not have the security of relationship recognition when traveling to other states. Although civil unions may provide a couple some protections at home, when they go on vacation, travel on business or otherwise leave the state, the couple will likely once again be relegated to the status of legal strangers.


Domestic partnership laws provide even fewer protections than civil unions and can vary dramatically depending on the jurisdiction that enacts the law. In some jurisdictions, domestic partner registries do not confer any rights or responsibilities at all and are simply a registration. In other jurisdictions, domestic partners are given a few protections, such as the right to hospital visitation. (The most generous local domestic partnership laws only provide about 10-15 rights). Currently, only three states, Hawaii, New Jersey and California, provide more comprehensive rights and responsibilities under their domestic partnership registration systems. At the local level, most domestic partnership laws provide benefits for public employees and little or nothing else.


So, to return to the initial question, why not just settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships? 1,500 (M) vs. 500 (CU) vs. 10-15 (DP). But what's in a name, right? As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently pointed out, "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."


Now, then. Leaving aside the fact that the federal government does not explicitly recognize civil unions and therefore none of the 1000 or so federal rights accorded married persons will ever be accorded to “civilly united” persons…


The Musgrave amendment (only the first of many such egregious motherfucking attempts to deny gay people their equal fucking civil rights ) stated that:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

That proposed amendment would have done far more than simply deny same-sex couples marriage equality. According to Evan Wolfson, a leading legal expert on marriage and executive director of Freedom to Marry, an organization which supports marriage rights for same sex couples, the White House and "the Christian right" are "being deliberately deceptive." According to Wolfson, the "vague and sweeping language" of the proposed amendment's second sentence "is intended to deny any other measure of protection, including civil unions and domestic partnerships."


If the Musgrave amendment had passed, the issue before us would no longer be whether same-sex couples should receive 1,500 or 500 or 10-15 rights. If passed, the amendment would mean that same sex couples would be denied ALL of the federal AND state rights, privileges and obligations of marriage. Families headed by same-sex couples would be officially denied equal treatment and constitutionally branded as second class citizens.


And… voila. Now not only does the federal government not RECOGNIZE civil unions, but the MUSGRAVE Amendment would have just invalidated all the rights accorded the “civilly united.”


Now tell me again how there’s no fucking difference.


Shameless Plug: If this particular offering ain't your cup of tea, My Left Wing offers a veritable plethora of brilliant political and social commentary -- not only on the Front Page, which features a cornucopia of writings on issues as varied as the Middle East, the U.S. economy, immigration and abortion -- but also in the Community Diaries section, which attracts the best and the brightest of the blogosphere -- and I'm not just saying that because it's true, but also because I love these people.