My big, fat gay rant
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
- 
I’m not going to get into a long, protracted discussion with my conservative colleagues about whether or not I have a homosexual agenda. Of course I have a homosexual agenda. I happen to be a lesbian in a long-term, monogamous relationship (17 years, longer than any of my heterosexual friends), married to another women in the state of Massachusetts, and the mother of two children. And no, these children were not my partner’s before she “turned” gay. We planned and had these children together on my company’s domestic partner benefits. I’ll tell you straight out what my homosexual agenda is so that we’re clear from the get-go. My homosexual agenda is all about civil rights. It’s about fighting for and obtaining the same civil rights that my heterosexual friends have.
At the end of the day, there’s but one difference between my best friend and myself. She goes home to her husband while I go home to my wife. That’s it. Everything else is pretty much the same. They have kids. We have kids. They worry about drugs in school. We’re constantly talking to our daughter about not being influenced by her friends to try drugs. No difference. There’s no reason why the LGBT community should be denied equal rights. It’s not about religion. It’s about government. And never the twain shall meet. It’s about every citizen in America being afforded the same rights and opportunities. There wasn’t an exception clause built into the Constitution by our forefathers. The Christians and the bigots have been trying to convince people that one exists, but it doesn’t. They’ve also spent significant amounts of both time and money trying to brainwash the public into believing that the cornerstone of our democracy is The Bible. It isn’t. It’s the Constitution, stupid.
I can even give you the specific rights we want (not in order of importance; they are all important):
We want the right to marry, just like our heterosexual counterparts (who, by the way have an outrageous 50% divorce rate). I’m damned sick and tired of having The Bible and God shoved in my face. This is a basic civil right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Period. The Bible means nothing to me. It is not the basis of my religion. Let’s think back. This country was founded because people didn’t want a national religion shoved down their throats. They wanted freedom of religion and freedom from religion, in some cases. Now, it may very well be that for many Christians same-sex marriage is considered a sin. To those people, I say: That’s your issue to deal with. Religion is a private matter and to think that the rest of us should have to comply with others’ beliefs by surrendering our civil rights is absurd. There’s no way to even constitutionally defend that position.
While we’re at it, we want the 1,100 benefits given to heterosexual married couples. Overall, we pay higher taxes than our heterosexual counterparts and are denied all of the legal rights accorded to opposite-sex married couples. Here is just a sampling of the benefits the LGBT community is denied: The automatic right to hospital visitation, social security benefits in the event of the death of a partner, the ability to take unpaid family leave to care for an ill partner, and the ability to extend health care coverage to same-sex partners. By the way, people are up in arms now about the prospect of paying taxes on health care benefits. Suck it up. For the record, I have had domestic partner benefits for my wife since 1996 and I have been paying taxes on those benefits since then. (That would be 13 years now.)
We want the right to serve our country freely and without fear. If we are willing to fight and die for our country, we should be allowed to do so with dignity. We do not want to have to live in the closet, live a lie, and be something that we are not. The LGBT community has been a significant part of the military for a long time in the United States and around the world. I spent quite a bit of time looking back over the records for problems between homosexual and heterosexual service members - both on line and at my local library - and found remarkably few documented cases. What are we worried about here? Are we worried that a gay serviceman might “come on” to a heterosexual serviceman? Women have been handling that issue with male service members for years. In fact, both sexual harassment and rape are running rampant in the U.S. military today and, for the most part, the military either turns a blind eye or drags its feet prosecuting the accused. Let’s not forget that there are dangers for the LGBT community in the military as well. There are a number of documented cases of verbal harassment, physical abuse, and even murder against LGBT service people.
We want our families to stop being trivialized by the Christian right. Yes, it is important for children to learn that there are a number of different types of families in the world. I want my daughter and son to know about heterosexual families, single-parent families and same-sex families. I want my children to know that so that they can learn that it doesn’t really matter what the make-up of the family is. It’s still a family. I want my children to be open minded. I don’t ever want them passing judgment on anyone else. That is unacceptable behavior in my house, and my children know that. Let me make one thing clear: I’m not advocating “recruiting” children into a homosexual lifestyle. I do not want my own children recruited into any lifestyle, heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise. However, I do want my children to be comfortable being who they are, regardless of who that may be. I do believe that making children aware that there are many different types of “families” makes it easier for people to peacefully co-exist.
Barack Obama is a big, fat sell-out
Forgive my simplicity, but Barack Obama has been nothing but a big, fat sell-out as far as the LGBT community is concerned. For a man whose heritage is one steeped in the battle for equal rights, he is remarkably ignorant about and callous of the rights of others. He is of the opinion that he can say or do what he wants, and the LGBT community will stand behind him. He should wake up. There are already cracks in the pavement. Barack Obama called his LGBT supporters together and gave them hope. Remember, we had already been shafted by Bill Clinton once, but Obama insisted it was going to be different. He campaigned on the promise of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (hitherto called DA/DT) and the Defense of Marriage Act (hitherto called DOMA). In return, we ponied up the money and support he needed. Since his inauguration, he has done nothing to convince the LGBT community that he meant any of it. Here is what he has done.
In June, the Obama administration chose to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). If Barack Obama believed what he said during his campaign, he didn’t have to defend this indefensible law at all. He simply could have let the challenge wind its way through the courts. Even if Obama felt the need to defend DOMA, he did not need to do it by denigrating same-sex marriage with all the bigoted and inaccurate rhetoric we’ve been hearing for years. At the end of the day, the Obama administration put same-sex marriage in the same realm as pedophilia and incest. Then, he tried to blunt his transgression by tossing a few token domestic partner benefits to federal employees and by declaring June LGBT Pride Month. Big deal. If that is his idea of ‘fierce advocacy’ he can keep it.
In a scathing letter to the President, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights 
Campaign rightfully stated, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.” Unfortunately, my twelve-year-old daughter heard about this on CNN before I had a chance to tell her. Frankly, she just doesn’t get it. She doesn’t understand what the big deal is. This is the type of family she has grown up in, and it’s not much different than those of her friends. Social Studies is her favorite subject, so she pays attention to current events. She watches the news channels and the History Channel. She simply doesn’t understand why Barack Obama is doing this.
That’s not the only GLBT sell-out for the Obama administration
Let’s consider Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DA/DT). Since this bigoted, unconstitutional law took effect in 1993, approximately 12,500 dedicated men and women have been discharged from the military (according to The Service Member’s Legal Defense Network) simply because of whom they are. More than 5,000 of those discharged were Arab language specialists, posing a direct threat to our national security. The latest 
public victim of DA/DT is Lieutenant Dan Choi, a National Guardsman with the 1st Battalion of the 69th Infantry in Manhattan. Lieutenant Choi is a West Point graduate, and Iraq war veteran and an Arabic language specialist. Because he “came out,” a military board investigating Choi recommended his discharge even though they acknowledged his value to the military.
Recently, Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) took a two-pronged approach to repealing DA/DT, based on the fact that President Obama was so vocal in his desire to repeal such a discriminatory law. First, he authored a letter to Obama asking him to take the lead in repealing DA/DT. This letter (in its entirety here) was signed by 77 of Hastings’ Congressional colleagues. Congressman Hastings never received a reply to his letter from Barack Obama. Hastings then attached an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3326). This amendment would prohibit the use of funds to investigate or discharge dedicated service men and women on the grounds of revealing their sexual orientation. Hastings abruptly withdrew that amendment the next day, citing pressure from his congressional colleagues and the White House. According to our president, now is not a good time; “next year” will be better. Hastings addresses this absurd position on his web site and also in an interview with Rachel Maddow.
President Obama is but a mere shadow of candidate Obama, and that is most disappointing. In spite of the fact that many of his supporters refuse to view him in the same light as President George W. Bush, there are many striking similarities, such as his defense of indefinite detention, his support of warrantless wiretapping, and his continuation of the wars. What he has done to his GLBT supporters is what my grandmother would call “talking out of both sides of his mouth.” Frankly, we’ve had enough of that.
Comment by Chief Hypocrite on 4 August 2009:
Deb, what did you think of my recommendation that the states get around to offering both a Religious Marriage and a Civil Marriage. Same fee, same rights, just a different name with different officials. Many straights who are not religious would get a Civil Marriage and gays who belong to a church that recognizes them could get a Religious Marriage.
That way there is a continuing recognition of a very long tradition in our country, one that many Americans honor as a sacrament, and a simultaneous recognition of what you call your civil rights. Whether marriage is guaranteed by the Constitution or not is a separate debatable point only the Supreme Court could decide, and I do not think they will take it on.
I think the two slightly different “marriages”is a practical way to split the baby and get on to more productive discussions. I will defer speaking to the DA/DT that Clinton implemented.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 4 August 2009:
Hey, Jim. While I respect your opinion it does not go far enough for me. If the LGBT community settles for such a distinction, it is forever agreeing to be a second-class entity. Gay people will be nothing more than second class citizens in a country where they, in fact, pay more taxes than the average heterosexual. That’s just wrong.
Our democracy isn’t worth anything unless the Constitution applies across the board to all citizens equally. What you are proposing is the notion of “separate but equal.” This wasn’t good enough for my black brothers and sisters, and it’s not good enough for us.
As for getting on to more “productive” discussions, I do not believe that there are any more productive topics for this country to be concerned with than civil and human rights. This year is the 40th anniversary of The Stonewall Riots, the beginning of the gay civil rights movement. This is no time to be settling for anything less than full equality.
Comment by proletarian on 4 August 2009:
Deb, I admire your stalwart zeal. Not often do we see someone continually beat such a passionate drum, and for so long. For your tenacity, fervor and lack of acquiescence, I empathize with your quest. Good luck on accomplishing your goals.
Comment by Chief Hypocrite on 4 August 2009:
Deb, you outted me, I’m the Chief, not Jim, you are confusing two white, heterosexual, old, men!
I would enthusiastically support the effort to convince each of the 50 states, as well as any legal federal effort to encourage them all, to adopt the Religious Marriage and the Civil Marriage choice I propose. It is such a simple solution. You and this highly tolerant WHOM could then declare victory without compromise. What is wrong with that?
The Separate but Equal mantra is a tired, useless (because the Supreme Court will never, ever rule clearly on the issue) and inaccurate charge to my proposal evoking nothing but emotion producing nothing practical nor fair.
There really, truly would be nothing Separate about the proposal, except 1) for the box checked to ask for one versus the other. We all have to check boxes now by law and regulation to claim or decline to claim our faux race etc 2) and a difference MAY BE who is authorized to “perform” the service, Minister vs Judge. And NOT, if as I recommend, all states adopting “My Marriage Proposal” by the states, allow what Colorado allows, and that is for the couple alone to be able to certify the wedding, with or with the ritual of a ceremony or even another witness, except maybe witnessing their signatures.
That would mean the only, only Separate item, is the box you check and the resultant word- Religious or Civil, printed on the hopefully proudly framed Certificate couples later get in the mail. Same fee, same mailing time, same legal rights, just same same.
To emphasize, there is absolutely NOTHING unequal about it. Both marriages are a legal contract with rights (obligations?) from all perspectives and none of the 1100 rights you mention would be left behind, separated, or applied differently to anyone in anyway.
This would allow marrying couples, the only ones who should decide, whether to proclaim their personally defined religious status.
And that is why this is not a sex nor gender rift really, it is a religious vs non religious rift, and any effort to continue to do battle along historic lines will be as productive as Palestinian/Israeli peace negotiations.
Freedom to religions beliefs of any kind are protected by our system, initially written as freedom to be protected from a nationally mandated religion and religious choices have a long history and tradition in the US.
Those who freely choose to have fundamentalist and personal religious beliefs based on teachings of any of the three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam in terms of their manifestation on this earth, believe homosexuality is a sin. Marriage is viewed as a sacrament to some of them, so let them have their Religious Marriage. You too could have one if you are a member of a legally organized religious organization which is willing to marry you. For goodness sake it is only a check in a box!
Let them have their beliefs, and their personal negative judgments of your lifestyle, that is their right. Pursue and support practical ways to keep them from causing the legal system to discriminate against you as it has and continues to do (Shame on Massachusetts!).
Declare victory and put energies behind new injustices. Like the growing and still legalized discrimination against White, Heterosexual, Old, Men.
History will laugh at us due to our identity politics which are currently being played out in a winner take all joust, while most of us in the stands want both riders to survive and have a beer over past jousting events, being glad the last one if over.
Comment by ms piggy on 4 August 2009:
Deb-you are so right. On first pass the argument looks “semi-logical”- just call them different thingsN right? But then we are having a government distinguish personal preference- that in the end it has no business doing. It is a civil law that should be guaranteed by the government in support of our US constitution. Sure there may be some religions that won’t “recognize” the marriage - so what? Don’t join that religion or work for change in the doctrine. Another interesting example: there are Muslims in the US that have been married under “Sharia Law” and unfortunately they struggle in the US withdivorce proceedings etc. Hard to imagine that the courts won’t work to solve this. Fortunate for them they are overwhelmingly hetero couples. Also, what is the old “Common Law Marriage” that allows a hetero couple the rights of marriage? That in and of itself says there is historical evidence of defining a marriage of two people that “did not follow the rules”. My husband was also remarking how many of his army buddies serve in Iraq with nations that don’t have DADT- he hasn’t heard of any homosexual rapes or any problems. Most of his Army buddies think “who cares”. I couldn’t be more depressed about this administration. For once the GOP might have beenright (my fingers are burning as I type this): all lofty rhetoric. Hope grows ever dimmer…
Comment by Chief Hypocrite on 4 August 2009:
My Dear ms-piggy: You say “But then we are having a government distinguish personal preference- that in the end it has no business doing.” There is a pony in there and I think it is the principle that government should stay out of our private lives as much as possible. Not only in the end, but in the beginning if you get my drift.
But what is it about “My Marriage Proposal” that makes the “government distinguish?” In Jeff Gibbs terminology, to be clear, and sincerely, nothing personal, since both of us are already happily married. Besides, as an aside, your moniker, ms-piggy makes me giggle but does nothing to raise any other interest with this WHOM.
BTW, we I think agree the government has no business in this. That is why here the couple would decide, distinguishing if you will, that they choose to be be associated with the Religious Marriage box (the ONLY difference!).
Was that not clear? And thanks, you have stimulated an improvement to the choice of boxes, but no change in number of resultant words on the Certificate. Maybe, thanks to you, a third choice to check could be “Decline to Choose” in which case they will be given a Civil Marriage. I would have chosen a Civil Marriage were I given the choice.
The government already asks you in many venues, to check boxes about gender, faux race and so on. Think census, think federally associated loans (most loans unfortunately for some time now, many decades I mean), think employment applications and compliance efforts with anti discriminatory laws etc.
So truly, honestly, I swear in my Mother’s honored memory (her birthday was yesterday) and, in my most non judgmental state of mind, me thinks maybe some, a few maybe, a lot maybe, might possibly have a wee bit of a biased view on “My Marriage Proposal” .
Could that be because it is a fair, simple and practical solution that some proclaim as insufficient and DOA because it is not a continuing battle to the death against certain hated oppositional interests?
I am sincerely trying to see the fallacy in My Marriage Proposal. Can you be specific so I can understand your opposition?
You also say “It is a civil law that should be guaranteed by the government in support of our US constitution”. I am sorry, but what email did you get that ended up in my spam folder? Please, if I am a dolt (don’t go there!) and missing the obvious, please, please, politely show me the obvious.
Comment by pwrblnc on 14 October 2009:
I’m at a crossroads here. Should I keep my domestic partner on the benefits rendered to us at work? The cost to me in taxes runs about $1200 a year. Money we desperately need now that my partner is unemployed. I also pay $800 a year for his premium costs. Open enrollment starts today and I need to make a decision here. My partner has no income. Should I just have him go to the free clinic if he gets ill or to the University Hospital for an emergency? If the health care package includes a public option and covers those with little or no income, I know exactly what I will do. I will cancel my domestic partner benefits and let the government pick up the tab. To save money, the government had best take a good long look at taxing domestic partner benefits or there may be thousands who will cancel their domestic partner benefits to avoid paying these additional taxes.