skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Today in America we are celebrating our national Independence Day, but I believe it is also the perfect time to reflect on our personal independence, and perhaps to even declare our sexual orientations if we have not already done so.
Last week on Twitter, I suggested that members of the LGBT communities in the U.S. who are still closeted consider coming out today. I make the suggestion only if they feel safe and secure to do so. I’m a bisexual woman who came out in fits and starts over the course of many years.
I told my family and close friends as soon as I understood my orientation. That was almost 30 years ago when coming out was still fairly rare. To say that it was stressful is to understate the experience: I have never done anything that filled me with more horror and dread.
And guess what? It was worse than I imagined. My mother disowned me and actually damned me to hell. We never fully reconciled, and she died still believing that I was an abomination in the eyes of God and man.
My father, to his ever-lasting credit, worked to understand and accept who I am without judgment. It wasn’t always easy, but we remain very close and love each other without reservation.
I told very few people in my work life, and wasn’t fully “out” until I left my employment all together several years ago because of worsening lupus. Honestly, I just didn’t have the guts to be out at work back then, and I still regret that I wasn’t able to do so.
I present my personal history so that readers will understand that I don’t make the suggestion to come out lightly. What I do know is that unless I allow myself to live authentically, to be free to live as I desire, I will never truly be happy and prosper.
And that concept is exactly what the Fourth of July is all about.
The preamble to the U.S. Declaration of Independence says it all: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...”
The Founding Fathers called equality “self-evident” when the document was drafted in 1776, but we still haven’t achieved that lofty goal. They were white males, many slave owners, who penned arguably the greatest Constitution ever written. Since then, African-Americans were freed. They were given the right to vote, and women eventually followed in being granted the opportunity for their voices to heard in the selection of those who govern them.
Nonetheless, bigotry and hatred remains. People of color, different religions, women, or those of us with different sexual orientations are all too often still victimized. In addition, the country is grappling with whether to allow same-sex couples to marry.
I believe that being able to marry if you are in a same-sex relationship is an “unalienable right,” as defined by the Constitution.
Just what does that term mean? Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, clarifies the term: “You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.”
Thus, if you are an American, regardless of your ethnicity, faith or lack of faith, gender, age, or sexual orientation, you have the legal right to your life; to be free; and to live your life in the way that gives you the most happiness.
Even if you are not a member of the LGBT community, there may be some other aspect of your life that you might want to declare today. I am a pagan, a follower of Wicca. Perhaps you are a pagan, too, or an atheist and you have been holding that within you as a secret.
Whatever is the truth of your life, every American has the right to live it to the fullest, safely and without shame. That is what today is all about.
— The Curator
I routinely visit the doctor for ongoing treatment of Lupus, but I got way more than I bargained for last week when I got into it with a group of patients in the waiting room.
The issue that brought about the mini-skirmish was homosexuality in general, and gay marriage in particular.
Guess I’d better explain. When I arrived, my doctor was running late (don’t they always?), so I found a seat in the small and very crowded waiting room. A TV was blaring a Jerry Springer-like program in the corner. I’d brought a book to read, so I sat as far from the set as possible, which sadly put me facing the group of eager TV viewers.
These folks included more than 20 mixed race people, a little older than a normal cross-section of the public because the doctor we were waiting for is a rheumatologist. The key “player” in what turned out to be my personal drama was a man in his 30’s who had driven his elderly mother to her appointment and was waiting with her. He was quite handsome: tall, fit – cut even – with a stylish shaven head, but a less-than-stylish toothpick sticking out of the corner of his mouth. He was wearing expensive summer shorts and a blue polo shirt. He was also very loud.
At some point on the TV program, a homosexual man and his partner were picked out of the audience. They said they were planning to wed when/if it ever became legal in their home state. Immediately, the handsome man I was sitting across from began making unpleasant remarks about the gay couple on the TV. He loudly expressed how disgusting, etc. the whole thing was, prompting the bulk of the remainder of those in the waiting room to chime in their complete agreement. The handsome man, egged on by the obviously appreciative crowd and vise-versa, began to laugh derisively at the men on the TV. The handsome man and several others in the waiting room continued to express and utter a lot of vicious gay-bashing insults, and similar remarks that I will not dignify by repeating here.
As the whole thing unfolded, I literally felt sick to my stomach. I am bisexual, but even if I was straight, I would have been deeply offended by the terrible hate-talk.
After a few minutes, I found that I had almost involuntarily put my book down and was facing all of them. Quite abruptly, as if I was looking down on myself from some place high and hovering just below the ceiling, I interrupted this room of average Americans. At that point, almost all of them were laughing merrily – very happily bashing homosexuals, the handsome man at the center of it all, his eyes absolutely twinkling with cruel delight.
With as level a voice as I could manage, I softly asked them if they, “did not like gay people?”
An African-American woman who appeared to be in her 50’s answered without hesitation, “No,” prompting the majority of the group to all nod in agreement. The handsome man laughed again, and the others joined him.
She went on to proclaim that she was Christian, and that nowhere in the Bible did it say that homosexuality was anything but a sin, or that “those awful, awful people could marry.”
Another woman, who was white and said she was Italian-American and Catholic, said she agreed completely, proclaiming that, “those sick people will all go to hell, and this country will be better off without them in it.”
I told them that I couldn’t understand that view at all, that I tried to judge each person as an individual, and not to stereotype them. I said that I had thought that Christianity promoted that very approach. I also noted that the Bible also fails to condemn slavery, while actually providing instructions to slave owners. As a result, I suggested to the African-American woman that perhaps her citing it as support for an anti-homosexuality argument wasn’t the best choice under the circumstances.
For some reason, I kept talking. I noted calmly that many of those who were speaking out against homosexuals in the room were of different races. I told them that to me, “gay-bashing is just another form of bigotry – a different flavor of prejudice.”
The handsome man, who happened to be African-American, had suddenly become very, very, angry. He sharply and loudly criticized me for “daring” to speak out “in favor of those fags,” and for horribly comparing it to racial bigotry. He said I was "full of shit,” and that he had a right to his opinion.
I told him I agreed completely that he had the right to believe anything and everything that he chose. Swallowing my now palpable fear, I unwisely added, “but you’re in a public place, laughing at and insulting a group of people simply because of their sexuality. I really see it as bigotry. Your conversation and behavior are very offensive to me, and I would appreciate it if you would stop.”
An immediate and deep-as-a-ravine silence followed in which the only sound I could hear was my own heart thudding wildly in my chest like it was trying to jump completely out of my body, along with the constant drone of the TV.
“We’ll stop – but not because of you, because we’re finished talking,” he said, twisting his handsome features into an honest-to-God sneer. Then he leaned way forward in his chair and actually jabbed a finger out directly at me, reaching very close to where I was sitting. “Change the subject, or this is going to get very ugly for you – right here, right now.”
Look, I'm almost twice his age and disabled. I’m a 54-year-old white woman who can only walk with the use of two canes.
Somehow, I managed to look directly and deeply into his now hate-filled and threatening eyes. I knew in that instant that if I said a single other thing to him – anything – he really might strike me. And, if he did, I also knew he’d never suffer a pang of conscience, even though any blow from him would injure me quite badly.
“No problem. I have my book,” I replied, my mouth suddenly very dry. As I looked away from him, not one person in the waiting room made eye contact with me. Turning to my book still on my lap, I found that my hands were shaking uncontrollably.
No one spoke the rest of the time we were pressed together. When it was finally my turn to see the doctor and we were alone in an examination room, she asked if I was OK. The receptionists, all women, had heard everything and had told her because they were upset. Despite how they had felt, not one of them had tried to stop the gay-bashing.
Even so, the doctor thanked me for speaking out. She said that, "a lone voice against hate and intolerance does make a difference." She said it puts a different energy into the minds of everyone present. She said she thought it was fear that had stopped some to speak up who probably had agreed with me; some that felt gay marriage was OK; or others who believed that homosexuality was nothing to be made fun of, and that gays should not be abused.
I found out later that the oh-so-thoroughly-furious-handsome man was...wait for it...a police officer! Just what we need, not only another homophobic-bigoted man – but one with a badge and a gun.
— The Curator
In a victory for same-sex marriage backers, a federal judge in California cleared the way for a January trial surrounding the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage that garnered international attention.
On Wednesday, the judge ordered a trial on whether the measure denies fundamental rights to gays and lesbians, and is therefore unconstitutional and should be struck down. Specifically, the suit alleges that the measure violates the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker refused to dismiss the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 by gay rights advocates, ruling instead that a trial was required to resolve legal and factual disputes.
While the ruling was expected based on prior remarks by the judge, the breadth of his decision was a boost for gay rights advocates, who argue that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally discriminates against gays; is rooted in anti-homosexual bias; and violates the right to marry the partner of one's choice.
Walker left all those issues on the table, rejecting arguments by Proposition 8's sponsors that higher courts had already resolved them. Among the questions to be answered, he said from the bench, is "whether Proposition 8 was passed with discriminatory intent."
Lawyers for Protect Marriage, the religious conservative coalition that campaigned for the November constitutional amendment, say the measure had a clear purpose – to restore the traditional male-female definition of marriage. They say opponents' claims of a hidden anti-gay agenda are both unfounded and legally irrelevant.
"Voters who passed Prop. 8 are essentially on trial in this case, accused of being irrational and bigoted," Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the sponsors, said after the hearing.
Protect Marriage is challenging Walker's order that the sponsors must disclose internal campaign strategy documents, which opponents hope will reveal plans to appeal to voter prejudice against gays.
A federal appeals court's decision to review that order would delay this trial, now scheduled to start Jan. 11. It will be the nation's first trial on the validity of a law against same-sex marriage.
Proposition 8, passed by 52.3% of voters, amended the California Constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, overturning a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry. The state's high court upheld the measure in May while allowing 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the election to remain legally wed.
The court's ruling Wednesday was based on state law and did not address any U.S. constitutional issues. Plaintiffs in the federal case – two same-sex couples, a gay-rights group and the city of San Francisco – claim Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and gender and interferes with the right to marry one's chosen partner.
The initiative's sponsors argued that the U.S. Supreme Court validated bans on same-sex unions in 1972 by rejecting a challenge to a Minnesota law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The court did not spell out its reasoning but issued a brief order that said opponents had not raised any substantial federal questions.
But Walker said prevailing legal doctrine has changed since 1972. He cited Supreme Court rulings since then that condemned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender and overturned state laws against homosexual conduct.
Another central issue is whether Proposition 8 should be judged like laws that discriminate against historically persecuted groups. Courts generally overturn such laws unless government can show a compelling need for them.
Walker ruled after nearly two hours of argument in San Francisco, rejecting arguments by Proposition 8 proponents that precedent and tradition clearly showed last November's ballot measure was permissible under the U.S. Constitution.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Charles Cooper, representing the Proposition 8 campaign, argued that marriage historically has been reserved for unions between a man and a woman because only opposite-sex couples can procreate "naturally."
Walker, however, noted that not all married couples can procreate.
"Just last month," Walker said, "I performed a wedding in which the groom was 95 and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove they would engage in procreation."
Cooper, lead attorney for Protect Marriage, noted that the Supreme Court has never categorized gays and lesbians as a persecuted group, entitled to the same legal protection as racial and religious minorities. That means Propostion 8 must be upheld if voters had any rational basis for approving it, he said.
In addition to the ability of men and women couples to “naturally” conceive, Cooper cited two other grounds for such a finding – the traditional definition of marriage, and the voters' decision to wait and see how same-sex marriages work out in other states before allowing them in California.
But Walker said federal courts haven't resolved the standard for judging laws that treat heterosexuals and homosexuals differently. The answer, he said, could be determined by testimony on such topics as how much political power gays and lesbians hold and to what degree they are discriminated against.
Even if it's rational for the state to promote marriage among opposite-sex couples, the judge asked Cooper, how would that goal be impeded by allowing same-sex couples to wed?
"The answer is, I don't know," the attorney replied. But he said it doesn't matter, because it's up to Proposition 8's opponents to show that the law is irrational.
Proposition 8 backers also argued that precedent required Walker to uphold the measure as constitutional. They cited a 1972 case involving a Minnesota law that limited marriage to unions between a man and a woman.
The Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected an equal protection challenge of that law, and the U.S. Supreme Court, without issuing a full-blown opinion, declined to hear an appeal.
"We can't put much stock in that case, can we?" Walker told the lawyers. He described the case as "old," "very limited" and "not a considered decision of the Supreme Court."
In his ruling, Walker also noted that Proposition 8 stripped gays and lesbians of the right to marry, which they had been given six months earlier in a historic 4-3 ruling by the California Supreme Court.
"Potentially, Proposition 8 may be invalid given the history in California, while similar actions in another state...may not be constitutionally infirm," Walker said.
The judge previously ordered the Proposition 8 campaign to disclose its internal strategy memorandums and communications, an order the campaign is appealing to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on 1st Amendment grounds.
Theodore Olson, representing same-sex couples in the case, told Walker that if the appeal delays the trial, he may ask for a preliminary injunction to suspend Proposition 8.
"If the case should hang up on a discovery (the information disclosures) issue," Walker acknowledged, "that does change the equation."
A ruling on a preliminary injunction could be appealed, and higher courts could resolve Proposition 8's constitutionality without a trial. Walker said he thought it would be "unfortunate to short-circuit the process" that way.
Walker also ordered written arguments on a request by the Proposition 8 campaign to remove Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown as a defendant and make him a plaintiff in the case. Brown, who was sued in his position as the state's chief law enforcement officer, has said in court papers that he agrees with plaintiffs that the ballot measure was unconstitutional.
Brown, a former California governor, and the plaintiffs oppose the potential realignment.
(I emphatically believe that Preposition 8 in California should be struck down on constitutional grounds. It is also the only ethical, moral choice to be made. Each human being has the inherent right to love and link their life with another person of their choice. To deny that, hurts each and every member of this society and has the effect, intended or unintended, of promoting homophobia nationwide. Proposition 8 passed because members of the right waged a terror and hate campaign against gays. In an age when a country with a very near-history of slavery can evolve enough to elect a president of color, then we can certainly embrace the rainbow and ensure people who are not heterosexual have basic human rights.)
