Same-Sex Marriage Issue in MA

[Lynne]

He said, "Wow, your wife certainly keeps a clean house!" obviously testing me.
...
He took it in stride, just "Oh" and changed the subject, and he remained friendly and cheerful.

I hope he'll repeat our conversation to his wife or co-workers... even if as the butt of a joke.  It will at least make people aware that the issue is affecting individual lives.

I have some questions.  Please accept as intended - sincere interest.  As always, the option to answer is entirely your prerogative...no harm/no foul there.  What was it about the gas guy's question that made you think it was an obvious test?  Was he was trying to express a personal interest, albeit clumsily?  Or is there a subtext I'm missing?  I dismissed this idea when you mentioned him potentially talking to his wife later.  I'm just curious.

Next, were you concerned that the gas guy might not remain 'friendly and cheerful'?  Did it take personal courage to answer him the way you did?  Concerning 'even as a butt of jokes'...that's particularly brave because it's hard as hell to be the one joked about.  I've taken the stance from the beginning about BBM - make all the cowboy queer jokes you want as long as you see it.  I firmly believe that anyone capable of self-examination will think about it in great detail later, if they are at all emotionally ready to hear the message.  The point is for it to move into the mainstream so it can be discussed seriously.

Bravo to you for getting it in the open where it belongs....to paraphrase Suzanne Brockmann again, 'everyone deserves being able to love openly, in the sun.'

Over in the orientation poll, after long internal debate I signed myself up as bisexual.  This may be TMI, especially for this topic, but I was making my own statement.  Although I have lived a hetero life almost entirely, I can think of two specific women I found myself attracted to in every way and I have had a few gay experiences.  Nothing much came of any of this for a lot of reasons, but none of them had to do with orientation issues.  I guess my statement is that I think the 100%-anything label is usually an over-simplification and I wanted my poll answer to reflect that.  Of course, after reading posts at Dave Cullen, I realize there is dissension everywhere over these labels.

I also agree that if 'civil unions' offer anything legally different from 'marriage' then it is ultimately an unacceptable solution.  The point some posters were making was that by accepting the baby steps in the right direction, you're in a better position for the next battle.  My psyche rejects that but I can see that practically/politically there may be some merit considering how slowly change evolves.

I was a little bit suprised/impressed about Jimmy Carter's position in Our Endangered Values : America's Moral Crisis.  I'm oversimplifying but it was basically that marriage is the business of the church and civil unions the business of the state and the two should be separate.

Enough for now...thanks to you and Chris for keeping this topic alive.

-Lynne

[Impish]

What was it about the gas guy's question that made you think it was an obvious test?  Was he was trying to express a personal interest, albeit clumsily?  Or is there a subtext I'm missing?

It was that his question came out of the blue.  I was describing to him what had happened that made me think my gas meter was acting up, and my fear of a gas leak because I have never been able to smell gas.  When I paused, his response was about how  my wife kept a clean house....  a total non-sequitor.  Also, this is in the context of my home, and there are lots of clues about.  For example, DVDs left out with the title "The Man I Love," gay lit on the bookshelves, and a dirty mug in the sink that says "I'm not gay but my boyfriend is."  So it's not too hard to figure out what's going on here....

Next, were you concerned that the gas guy might not remain 'friendly and cheerful'?  Did it take personal courage to answer him the way you did?  Concerning 'even as a butt of jokes'...that's particularly brave because it's hard as hell to be the one joked about.

I must be getting better with practice, as this time I felt no anxiety at all.  I just thought to myself "OK, this guy knows I'm gay and wants to see how I'll react."  I was also very aware that I was in one of those situations where I had to decide whether to cover or not, and I'm very determined not to cover anymore.

After my response, he changed the subject back to the possibility of a gas leak. When I talked about the possible jokes, all I meant was that I'm a firm believer in the inverse correlation between the number of out gay people and the degree of homophobia, that is, the fewer gay people a straight person knows, the higher the degree of homophobia.  Even if I'm the butt of a joke, there are a few more people aware of a gay man who refuses to live with shame.

Over in the orientation poll, after long internal debate I signed myself up as bisexual.  This may be TMI, especially for this topic, but I was making my own statement.  Although I have lived a hetero life almost entirely, I can think of two specific women I found myself attracted to in every way and I have had a few gay experiences. 

I don't know what "TMI" means, but I understand  the difficulty people have with labels.  It's a bit easier for me, as I'm on one extreme of the Kinsey scale:  I've never had sex with a woman and have no desire to.  So my being 100% gay makes a label no big deal for me, and it's easy for me to accept that some people are 100% straight.  I also believe that there are all shades in-between, and even  believe there asexuals in the world, those who have no interest in sex whatsoever.  Even my gay brethren have difficulty accepting that one (and I wonder now if the topic was discussed by the Kinseys).

If falling in love with -- and/or having sexual desire for -- another woman is a reality for you, what does it matter what you call yourself?   

[Aussie Chris]

Even if I'm the butt of a joke, there are a few more people aware of a gay man who refuses to live with shame.

Fantastic, well said.

I don't know what "TMI" means, but I understand  the difficulty people have with labels.  It's a bit easier for me, as I'm on one extreme of the Kinsey scale:  I've never had sex with a woman and have no desire to.  So my being 100% gay makes a label no big deal for me, and it's easy for me to accept that some people are 100% straight.  I also believe that there are all shades in-between, and even  believe there asexuals in the world, those who have no interest in sex whatsoever.  Even my gay brethren have difficulty accepting that one (and I wonder now if the topic was discussed by the Kinseys).

I missed "TMI" the first time I read it too, but for some reason today it's clearly "Too Much Information".

It's interesting about the 100% gay issue, which is a label I am comfotable with since I have only been with men.  But seemingly contradictory is the fact that spiritually I am more drawn to women an I form very strong relationships with them, to the point where I find myself questioning or at least admiring the female form.  I guess I've always differentiated between love and sex, and I'm comfortable with the idea that love can lead to intimacy, so I've always left that door open.  Does that make me 90% gay?  Who knows?  As I've said before, love is genderless no matter who you sleep with.

[Lynne]

Thank you for answering my questions, Impish, and for your response, too, Chris...I love your avatar - it's you, right?  Nice to be able to see you.

I must be getting better with practice, as this time I felt no anxiety at all.  I just thought to myself "OK, this guy knows I'm gay and wants to see how I'll react."  I was also very aware that I was in one of those situations where I had to decide whether to cover or not, and I'm very determined not to cover anymore.
...
Even if I'm the butt of a joke, there are a few more people aware of a gay man who refuses to live with shame.

Good for you, and well-said!  I still think it's brave and wonderful of you.

I should probably read more up on the Kinseys' work since I've started this journey - all I have now is anecdotal knowledge and a few years bio/chem to rely on.

If falling in love with -- and/or having sexual desire for -- another woman is a reality for you, what does it matter what you call yourself? 

The label doesn't matter to me especially - I don't see it as a big deal to me.  The poll just got me thinking, taking stock, etc...it's more, I guess, that I want all those people in my life - those BBM non-believers - who are being so close-minded on this issue to have a wakeup call.  If my pointing out that I (and in some cases 'they' too!) have had same-sex attractions/activity highlights the concept that there are shades of grey everywhere for a lot of people, then maybe they will be more likely to open their hearts to the message.

I'm prob'bly tilting at windmills.

It's interesting about the 100% gay issue, which is a label I am comfotable with since I have only been with men.  But seemingly contradictory is the fact that spiritually I am more drawn to women an I form very strong relationships with them, to the point where I find myself questioning or at least admiring the female form.  I guess I've always differentiated between love and sex, and I'm comfortable with the idea that love can lead to intimacy, so I've always left that door open.  Does that make me 90% gay?  Who knows?  As I've said before, love is genderless no matter who you sleep with.

Absolutely, Chris.  Interesting about the emotional and spiritual connection with women that you mention.  I have mostly experienced the opposite.  With only a couple of exceptions, I have historically had a hard time making friends with women.  Some of my best relationships are with men - we just communicate better.  I always jokingly say that it's because I'm lacking the gene for shopping for shoes  , but there may be truth there.

I've gotten us off-topic here - some moderator, huh? so back to it:

Nobody wins by denying any minority the right to marry the person s/he loves.  How ironic that the groups against marriage equality claim they're "defending" marriage, when their laws and amendments will create more  bogus marriages, not fewer! 

They just can't see that false marriages hurt straight people too.

What do other people think about this?  Juneaux, I know you're getting ready to post something profound! I just know it! 
-Lynne

[Lynne]

I just ran across this article about a study (conducted by the The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, which opposes gay marriage) of the frequency gay & lesbians are getting married in locations where it is a legal option:

"A new study attempts to gauge the percentage of gays and lesbians who have chosen to marry in places where that option is legal, with estimates ranging from as little as 2 percent to more than 16 percent, depending on the location."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060426/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

Lynne

[BB Stacker]

My opinion only, but I think this is the same as how many blacks would like to be able drink from the same waterfountain as the whites. It's personal choice, but we're not allowed a choice.

Back in the day, they at least had their own waterfountain.

[Aussie Chris]

My opinion only, but I think this is the same as how many blacks would like to be able drink from the same waterfountain as the whites. It's personal choice, but we're not allowed a choice.

Back in the day, they at least had their own waterfountain.

Well said.  Straight to the heart of the issue.

I'll add a little more though.  I work with measurements and statistics quite a bit.  The numbers mentioned here are vague with no basis to compare them.  A fundamental of statistics is that they mean nothing in an of themselves.  Here it is being suggested that very few GLBT people want to get married, but without qualification and controls applied to the data, the numbers are meaningless.  For example, when it talks about the the Netherlands, it says between 2.6 and 6.3 percent of the country's gays and lesbians got married.  That sounds very scientific but what does it mean?  I suspect that what's happening here is they take a range number, say 9-11%, of the population as being GLBT (a common "guess").  If you then multiply the number of GLBT marriages to that range you get another number, like 2-6%.  But is this in any way a reflection of the GLBT couples that get married, or would get married if they had the opportunity?  Well no, it isn't.

You can't just throw a series of numbers in the air and imply they have meaning.  Where is the "control group" of the percentage of hetersexuals that get married?  Even in countries that have gay marriage, what part does society play in their desire to become married?  Just because gay marriage is allowed doesn't mean that society is equally accepting, so how does this influence opportunity?  Of course there are many factors that should be considered before statistics can be used in this way.  I'm sorry people, the term for this sort of thing is "mental masturbation".  A cheap thrill (for the individual) but it means nothing and cannot be used to conclude anything.  Remember that 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

The worst thing about this is is that it completely misses the point: it doesn't matter if there is 1 or 100 million GLBT couples that would get married if they could, discrimination is discrimination no matter how many people are involved.  I know that it is only recently that I have even considered it, but this has beem driven by my desire for the same legal/financial priveliges rather than a complelling need to "walk down the aisle".

[Aussie Chris]

I'm sorry if I seem like a smartass, (I am) and I am not out to offend anyone, I'm really a very gentle and caring person.
Sometimes I have too many beans and too much whiskey and have to have a come to jesus meeting with myself, so please don't hold any comments I make against me, or if you do, hold them close to the bruise you put on my ass.

No worries BB Stacker, I like beans and whiskey.  Welcome to the discussion.

[Aussie Chris]

Coincidentally, Australia is confronting this issue at the moment, albeit quietly.  The federal government lead by the ever conservative and arrogant John Howard (or J-Ho as I like to call him), has stated repeatedly and defiantly that marriage is the institution for men and woman, and that the majority of Australians agree with this.  I won't get into the layers of offense this conjours in me, but that aside, the other night there was a report that some states are trying to introduce civil-union legislation (like the United Kingdom), lead by a few progressive (and straight) politicians that see this issue for what it is: one of equality.  Nevertheless the federal government is threatening to create legislation to prevent it, saying that this is just marriage by another name - well duh!

Reporter: Scott Bevan

MAXINE McKEW: Well, the milestones of our lives are measured around the key events - births, deaths and marriages. But for tens of thousands of Australian same-sex couples, marriage is still legally off-limits. As recently as two years ago, the Federal Government defined marriage as being something only a man and woman can enter into. But that is now being challenged. Moves at the State and Territory level would officially acknowledge gay and lesbian relationships. Tasmania established a registration scheme for same-sex couples and more recently, the ACT has been wanting to go one step further, introducing a Civil Unions Bill. But that's been left standing at the political altar for the moment, with the Federal Government saying the Territory's scheme is marriage by another name. Scott Bevan reports on the divide over saying "I do"...

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1622929.htm

--Chris - I edited b/c your topic link took me to a nice interview on dioxin levels in seafood :-)  I think this is the one you meant? -L

[Impish]

The worst thing about this is is that it completely misses the point: it doesn't matter if there is 1 or 100 million GLBT couples that would get married if they could, discrimination is discrimination no matter how many people are involved.

Exactly!  I'll add a point:  after gay marriage becomes legal, the number of couples that marry will grow over the ensuing years.  Anti-gay organizations want to propagate the myth that gay people are incapable of monogamy: it's part of the gays-are-sex-fiends stereotype.  This thinking is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin deconstructing it.  I won't go into that here, except to say that the assumption that sex is bad is  one example.

That's what makes gay marriage -- and Brokeback Mountain -- so scary to these bigots.  If society recognizes that being gay is as much about love as it is about sex, the foundation of their heterocentrism comes crumbling down.