Same-Sex Marriage Issue in MA

[Lynne]

Hello everyone...

I've been holding off on posting this for about a week, so in a way, it's old(er) news; we've had so much new activity here :-) (which is inspiring and wonderful!).  But I'm coming back to it now.

I'm interested in your thoughts about the same-sex marriage issue - perhaps, not so much from the political perspective, as much as what it might mean to you, personally.

The following link is to the Boston Globe's special report about this issue:

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/

Did Brokeback Mountain influence your ideas about same-sex marriage in any way?

A few days ago, the MA Supreme Judicial Court used a 1913 law to deny marriage licenses in the state to same-sex couples who reside in states which have laws that specifically prohibit same-sex marriage.

Does the MA court ruling affect anyone in particular?

In advance, I appreciate your thoughtful and candid ideas.

-Lynne

[Impish]

I have had the following conversation serveral times (reduced to its essence here):

Them: "Are you married?"
Me: "No, that would be illegal; I'm not allowed to marry."
Them: "What in the world do you mean?"
Me:  "In our society, gay people are not allowed to marry."

Even though everyone knows this issue is in the news, people are neverthelss shocked by these sentences, saying that they never thought about the issue in just that way. 

I think BBM -- the movie, that is -- addressed gay marriage directly at the end when Alma, Jr. visits Ennis to announce her engagement.  She's 19, the same age Ennis and Jack were when they met.  He tells her "well, you're 19 now, so you can do whatever you like, I guess" (paraphrasing).  When he learns of her engagement, the sadness that comes over him at first, IMHO,  is him thinking "I wish I could have married Jack when I was 19" and "how easy it is for others to marry the one they love."

Then he gets beyond that sadness -- or is at least able to set it aside for the moment -- and realizes how happy he is that his daughter won't  have the same problem. 

I also think that the marriage issue is one of the things that scares the extreme right so much:  BBM finally gets through to the mass audience that being gay is not so much about who you go to bed with as much as it is about who you love.  That simple idea shatters so many myths about gayness, and they don't want people to learn the truth.

[Lynne]

Them: "Are you married?"
Me: "No, that would be illegal; I'm not allowed to marry."
Them: "What in the world do you mean?"
Me:  "In our society, gay people are not allowed to marry."

You have a real gift for getting to the heart of the matter.  Thank you for posting that.

It works so well because it takes an abstract idea and makes it personal.  People being able to relate to Jack and Ennis should rightly scare those on the other side of the debate...It's easy to make theoretical arguments, but when you see gay people as people first, the character of the debate has to shift.

I think your understanding of the final Ennis/Alma, Jr. scene is right on target.  I also had a glimmer that Ennis hopes Curt has a deeper understanding of himself than Ennis did at age 19 so Curt doesn't hurt Alma, Jr. the same way Ennis hurt and disappointed Alma.  I interpret Alma, Jr.'s reassurance ('he loves me') as addressing this.

[Impish]

I also had a glimmer that Ennis hopes Curt has a deeper understanding of himself than Ennis did at age 19 so Curt doesn't hurt Alma, Jr. the same way Ennis hurt and disappointed Alma.

Yeah, I hear you.  Ennis did love Alma (Sr.) in every way that was possible for him.  He was very aware that he and Jack were not the only ones hurt by his inability to live and love honestly.  This inability was in large part due to society, of course:  Ennis was not allowed to marry the person he loved most.  Still, part of it was also within Ennis.... after all, Jack wanted to live and love "honestly" as much as was possible in their day.

I've said elsewhere that marrying Alma was, in a sense,  committing adultery against Jack.  When I say that, however, I mean that marrying Alma was as hurtful to her as it was to Ennis or Jack:  it caused Alma more hurt in the long run than calling off the wedding would have in the short term.

Now, after 40-plus years after Ennis married Alma, gay people are still forbidden to marry, and there are still many who  marry people of the opposite sex  to satisfy society's demands and their own internalized homophobia.  Such gay people are bound for a life of regrets, and  their straight spouses are also in for a world of hurt, just like Alma was. 

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.

[Aussie Chris]

Them: "Are you married?"
Me: "No, that would be illegal; I'm not allowed to marry."

Hey there Bill, long time, no talk.  I'm so glad you posted this.  It's only recently that I've been thinking the same thing - another BBM induced catharsis I presume.  In fact I just about knocked my best friend over by admitting that I would like to get married - the first time I've ever said that.  I don't know if it's the idea of getting married or simply that I want to be allowed to if I was lucky enough to meet someone that I felt that way about.  I haven't completely come to grips with this new realisation, but I know that I see us all as being equally deserving of being in love and able to share that love with friends and family.  Oh, but what a burden this feels like.  No longer can I sit back and accept the label of "minority group" or "alternative lifestyle".  I don't even like "gay community" anymore, there's only one community and we're all a part of it...

IIIII... think I'll make myself a cup of tea, feeling a little agitated at the moment.

[Impish]

I don't know if it's the idea of getting married or simply that I want to be allowed to if I was lucky enough to meet someone that I felt that way about.

Right!  If laws were passed tomorrow that allowed me to marry, I wouldn't be ready to as I'm not in a relationship right now.  For those who are in a committed same-sex relationship, some would choose to marry and some would not....  in other words, we'd have the same options heterosexuals do.

[Lynne]

Bill, Chris...

Thank you guys for posting on this topic.  I have a confession to make [hiding head in shame], but I've been so quiet lately because i have been CHEATING...just sew a scarlet 'A' on me now!

In my search for relevant Movie Resources info, I made my way over to www.davecullen.com/forums and there is just a wealth of thoughtful posts on many subjects of relevance.  As usual with a forum of that size, there's a lot of nonsense to wade through, but there are also many considered folk with practical life experience contributing to the discussions.  The two topics that really grabbed my interest there were related to the gay marriage issue and the general idea of defining homophobia - how to keep the discussion constructive without language that is inherently divisive.  If you're not over there yet, I would recommend the occasional visit.  [Phillip smites me now ;-0]  Dave Cullen, some moderators, and several active posters have ideas that have certainly helped to broaden my own understanding.  There's some discussion of civil unions vs. marriage and whether the movement pushed for too much/too soon with calling it 'marriage'.

I heard elsewhere that the majority of Americans think homosexuals SHOULD have equal rights/protections as heterosexuals which is a 180-degree reversal from 20 years ago.  I don't have specific details, but the source was an audiobook by Jimmy Carter, which I've been listening to on my commute.  His latest non-fiction book is about the U.S. losing it's moral center.  He talks a lot about the hijacking of the Republican party by the religious right who have furthered their cause by focusing on the most divisive social issues to the exclusion of issues that he feels should be forefront in the political debate.  This is juxtaposed with his split from the Southern Baptist Convention and aligned with his evangelical Christian beliefs.  I've always felt an affinity with him.  As a 9 year old, I made my Dad change the channel so I could watch the debates/coverage of the 1976 elections...

And, Bill...my copy of Covering should be on its way from amazon.

-Lynne

[Aussie Chris]

Thank you guys for posting on this topic.  I have a confession to make [hiding head in shame], but I've been so quiet lately because i have been CHEATING...just sew a scarlet 'A' on me now!

Aawww... well ok then.  As long as you don't abandon us entirely?  I'd love to have enough time to traverse the two sites, but egads I already spend so many hours here!!!

As far as civil union versus marriage question, I don't care what it's called as long as it has the same legal and social significance as "marriage".  In my mind, the easiest way that happens is to simply call it marriage and be done with it.  But of course "easiest" doesn't always mean "fastest".

[Impish]

I just now had the conversation I described above when someone from the gas company came to check why my gas meter is acting so funny.

He said, "Wow, your wife certainly keeps a clean house!" obviously testing me.
I said "I'm a gay man and  I'm not allowed to marry."

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.

As for the "civil union" or "marriage" debate, I find that those in the straight community supporting "civil unions" rather than "marriage" don't really want us to have the all the same legal rights and privileges that marriage would provide us.  I worry that some in the gay community don't realize that. 

So I'm with Chris on this:  if I were sure that civil unions were legally identical to marriages,   I wouldn't care what they call it.  But I'm convinced that there's a reason behind wanting to rename our relationships, so that the government would not have to treat them identically.   

[Impish]

And, Bill...my copy of Covering should be on its way from amazon.

-Lynne

Cool!  Let me know what you think...

[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.

[Lynne]

BB Stacker - thank you so much for posting here!  Nice observation about the parallels with race relations.  Since we're both in the SE US, you know I can relate to that.  I've said elsewhere that the 'civil union' vs 'marriage' debate reminds me of the 'separate but equal' stage of the civil rights era.

From the interview Chris cited:

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: The institution of marriage as historically understood and we do not intend to allow that to be in any way undermined.

er...would that be that same history where women were transferred as property?? (still are in places, actually)

Being a typical American, I could not have named Australia's leader yesterday if my life depended on it.  Thanks for enlightening me.  Sounds as if he and George W. would be (are?) good pals.

BTW, that was a really nice analysis of the 'statistics', Chris.  I knew I could count on y'all for that and my brain was tired last night - sorry to just post w/o any commentary.

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.

...which is why I will keep spreading the word.
-Lynne

[juneaux]

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.

I am Black and although I wasn't active during the heart of the civil rights movement (I'm 39), this is quote explains the primary reason why volunteer for such organizations as Lesbian Gay Right Lobby of TX (http://www.equalitytexas.org/).  Lynne's original post asked if this film changed how people felt about same sex marriage.  It didn't for me~ I have always supported it. I only wish this film had been released a year earlier. This time last year LGRL was canvassing neighborhoods asking voters if they would vote against an amendment that defined marriage in the TX constitution as being between one man and one woman.  (TX already has a law that says same sex marriages were illegal.  The amendment was essentially homophobic overkill.) Talk about interesting conversations~ when I asked the reasons for supporting the amendment some quoted the scripture other gave no tangible reason.  When I stated the similar if not identical arguments were used against people of color (like ME) 40 plus years ago many of them backpedaled and some stated "it was different".  That is when it hit me that  most people don't view gay rights as civil rights.   I truly believe this movie would have helped to defeat this unnecessary and idiotic proposition through its subtle yet powerful message.  Although the amendment did pass    I was extremely proud that 70% of my county voted against it. 

[Aussie Chris]

Further to the issues of laws and amendments...

One thing that I find curious is the fact that homosexuality is deemed to be legal and not just decriminalised.  The distinction I am making here is that it is completely legal to be a homosexual, as opposed to it being not illegal because the "offence" is so minor or un-police-able that it doesn't warrant a law in the first place.  Another parallel I'll draw [loosely] is the distinction between "not guilty" and "acquitted".  If you are acquitted of a crime, your pre-existing conviction is overturned but this is not the same thing as innocent, which only occurs if you're found to be not guilty.

So it's ok to be a gay person.  Now, let's think about what the legal definition of gay is [note that in this context I'm using gay to mean both gay and lesbian, but I'm leaving out bisexual and trans-gendered for the moment].  Presumably, gay means a person who has a sexual relationship with someone of the same biological sex.  Can we also assume that the person is consenting and of sound mind so we can eliminate issues of "state of mind"?  I’m trying to be as precise as I can now.

Ok, legally speaking I'm leading to the point that being gay is not a psychological condition or state of mind, but characteristic in exactly the same way that build, height, or hair colour is?  We are told that from a medical stand point, gay and straight are measurably different.  Is this still true?  In other words, being a gay person is [legally] not a choice, but living as a gay person is.

So my question is this.  If it's legally ok to be gay, and it is a biological characteristic rather than a state of mind, how is it legally possible to discriminate against gay-marriage?  Wouldn't this be the same as saying that marriage is only for people with four limbs or over 3.5 feet tall?  Clearly there must be some legal protective measures to prevent discrimination in terms of a trait or characteristic.

I'm not sure if I have explained this thought process well or not, but I'd love to hear what you think.  Does anyone understand the legal aspects of this?

[Impish]

So my question is this.  If it's legally ok to be gay, and it is a biological characteristic rather than a state of mind, how is it legally possible to discriminate against gay-marriage?  Wouldn't this be the same as saying that marriage is only for people with four limbs or over 3.5 feet tall?  Clearly there must be some legal protective measures to prevent discrimination in terms of a trait or characteristic.

Great questions!  I think, in essence, that's what attempts at amending the Constitution are all about.  As treating gay people differently vis-a-vis marriage is, by definition "discrimination," the anti-gay groups realize that they have to make it constitutional to discriminate.  A vote to amend the U.S. Constitution will happen this summer.

Is there anything like that going on in Australia?

[Aussie Chris]

Is there anything like that going on in Australia?

No, I think we manage to discriminate just fine without the need to make it "constitutional".  The P.M. just says it's for men and women only and the majority agrees.  I was talking with some straight friends over dinner tonight about that very thing.  We concluded that social issues and "majority rules" are mutually exclusive factors, at least in terms of what should be as opposed to how it is in western society.  The P.M.'s remark is a concise example of that.  So the next question I asked my friends is: if majority rules always overrides issues related to minority groups, then how does a society ever mature (assuming that it actually does)?  We really didn't get an answer to this one because the conversation degenerated into the political processes around the world and how that none of them really "work".  Socialism and Communism don't, and if we want to call our version democracy, well that doesn't either because it can too easily be influenced by commercial/evangelical agendas (I think we know who leads the way with this).  The only alternative that made any practical sense was a dictatorship, as long as the leader is "wise" or at least unbiased.  Actually there was another suggestion, and that was getting different minority groups to join forces so they were a stronger political force (like worker's unions I guess).  Not sure how that would work in this case, I'll have to ponder it some more.

[Lynne]

For those of us interested in the gay marriage debate in the U.S. and activist opportunities surrounding the issue, please check out this website:

http://www.freedomtomarry.org

I had the privilege of hearing an interview on a morning radio show with Evan Wolfson a few days ago while driving through Birmingham, Alabama.  I may have missed the first part, but I believe there is currently an advertising campaign promoting equality in marriage being planned in Alabama; local stations seem to be debating whether or not to air the ads.

I found Evan Wolfson's comments to be both thoughtful and articulate.  He did an excellent job explaining why marriage is preferable to civil unions or other legal contracts.  Moreover, he was gracious and polite when faced with the typical bigoted questions - both from the morning DJs and the even more ridiculous callers.

Tell you what, I am pretty sure some of these people's IQ's don't break double digits...two cases in point:

1)  Evidently, legalizing gay marriage would somehow lead to marriages between 5 people or between people and their pets 

2)  Gay men have the same rights as straight men because both are legally able to marry any woman they want.

WTF?

[Aussie Chris]

Tell you what, I am pretty sure some of these people's IQ's don't break double digits...two cases in point:
1)  Evidently, legalizing gay marriage would somehow lead to marriages between 5 people or between people and their pets 
2)  Gay men have the same rights as straight men because both are legally able to marry any woman they want.

ROTFL!  Hey there Lynne, long time no hear eh?  I've always found these questions to be hysterically funny, but then again I sympathise when there's enough publicity of people "marrying" their cats or their cars.  But I'd really like someone to explain to me how or why this would result.  Anyone?  It doesn't have to be your theory, I just need someone to explain this to me.  But number 2 takes the cake as being the most juvenile and sexist thing I've ever heard on the subject.  One of these days I'd like to meet someone who actually believes this...  It would be fun!

[Daniel]

This reminds me of the time a young woman wanted to make a special sacred communion with herself, was ordained as a minister, and then married herself to herself in a special ceremony. Apparently her application for marital status got up pretty high in the food chain before someone realized what had happened, because then she found herself charged by the State of California for breach of the California Family Code (I forget specifically which section) with the promotion of incestuous relationships, or something like that. She was charged once as the person performing the ceremony and twice more for being the married parties.

[delalluvia]

This reminds me of the time a young woman wanted to make a special sacred communion with herself, was ordained as a minister, and then married herself to herself in a special ceremony. Apparently her application for marital status got up pretty high in the food chain before someone realized what had happened, because then she found herself charged by the State of California for breach of the California Family Code (I forget specifically which section) with the promotion of incestuous relationships, or something like that. She was charged once as the person performing the ceremony and twice more for being the married parties.

I think I read this story as well.  One of her friends commented to the news guy "It'll never work out." 

[Scott6373]

By way of an update on the issue.  Pro same sex marriage supporters report that they only need three more votes in order to quash the initiative that would put a same sex marriage ban on the 2008 ballot.  The next senate vote will occur in June.

Oddly enough, this morning, for the first time, I saw a television ad by Mass Equality.  It showed a young man talking about how happy he was that his parents (two women) were able to marry.  It pointedly portrayed the young man as a sports loving, totally hetero-centric, and "normal" guy.  I have mixed feelings about that, but that's another thread I guess.

[loneleeb3]

Now, after 40-plus years after Ennis married Alma, gay people are still forbidden to marry, and there are still many who  marry people of the opposite sex  to satisfy society's demands and their own internalized homophobia.  Such gay people are bound for a life of regrets, and  their straight spouses are also in for a world of hurt, just like Alma was.

I am just coming to this thread. It is a subject I have been afraid to address.
But when i saw this it hit me so hard! This has been my life for the past 25 yrs.
Always afraid to be who I really was i beat it down as well as beating myself up for feeling the way I did.
I did what a good southern Christian boy was supposed to do. I dated girls, went to the prom and got married.
All that time wanting, needing somthing else. When that time came and i had an experience I wasz overwhelmed with guilt and fear. Because of that,like Ennis, I pushed away my chance at happiness to do the "Right thing".
Now at 40 I can't keep living the double life I have created for myself. The feelings, desires and needs won't stay in that little box in the closet any longer.
I don't know where the road will lead, but it would be nice to be able to legally be with the one I love (If there is aomeone) in the future. The devestation wrought out of a life in hiding isn't worth it.