Love’s all that matters

We equal m c squared

Einstein drank his wine in pairs

We equal m c squared

Beyond mathematics there is love in the air

~~ “Relativity” by Grafton Primary

We had a really fun weekend! Ken got a new lawnmower (that’s a big deal ‘round these parts!), we had brunch with Shane and Matt at Brew Werks and then saw the stage production of “Dirty Dancing” (fabulous!), but the highlight was the wedding of our friends Tom and Roger on Saturday.

It’s hard to explain why, but there was just so much joy in the air. The wedding was at a historic building in the area and everything was beautiful. We knew quite a few people there, I got to meet Tom’s godson in person (after doing Tom’s podcast with him), and we got to meet new people, including the guy who conducted the ceremony. The dinner was wonderful, we got to take some fun and goofy pictures, and we got to dance a little bit. Everyone was feeling great and everyone was so happy for Tom and Roger! There was just an air of festivity and celebration and it makes me smile just to think back on it!

As I watched the ceremony (which included lyrics from Prince and “The Princess Bride”), as we all congratulated the happy couple, as friends and family toasted them, as we all broke bread, drank champagne, danced, and talked, one thought stayed prominent in my mind:

Who would ever take away this happiness?

Who, because of whatever religious tropes they are clinging to, or because of whatever personal issues they have, would deny this happiness to these two people who were so obviously in love?

Who would do that?

Apparently, there were one or two people who had some issues with this marriage. I won’t name any names. But we all know people like them, don’t we?  They just can’t accept anything outside their own narrow purview.

From my perspective, all I saw was a dear friend and his beau declaring their love for and commitment to each other.

I will fight for their right to do that forever.

I’ve seen the usual arguments about how marriage is about having children. Stupid argument. Millions of people get married and choose not to have children. [raising hand] That doesn’t make a marriage invalid. Besides, ADOPTION. Duh. Or there is “the Bible says” argument. It really doesn’t, but even if it did, who gives a flying fuck? Despite what some might say, we do not base our laws on the Bible. We base our laws on the Constitution of the Goddamn United States of America. In your face!

I suppose there are other arguments, but yeah, they’re all stupid. You know what isn’t stupid? Love. Love isn’t stupid.

And when people love each other, when two consenting adults want to enter into a committed, legal relationship, they have that right under the Constitution.

It was my great pleasure and honor to see the Constitution in action Saturday night and to see love win. Tom and Roger’s program included this paragraph from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion in the Obergefell v Hodges case, which guaranteed the right of marriage to all citizens, and it is worth quoting it here:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

It damn well does and if you try to take that away, you are going to have a fight on your hands. I guarantee.

What do you call a group of hillbillies?

I don’t know, but it looks like this.

::sigh::

I’m so sick of writing about this, but I just can’t help myself. I’m sure most of you have seen this picture making the rounds on the Interwebz. My immediate reaction was laughter.

After that wore off, I was left with a feeling of what I was surprised to realize was sadness.

I’m sad that Joe Davis is so backward that he decided that his overalls and straw hat would be a dandy outfit for his photo op with a presidential candidate (albeit a rather second-rate one), a photo that would circulate nationally.

I’m sad that he is reinforcing every bad stereotype of a hilljack Kentuckian. As someone from Indiana, I’ve had to work hard to counter an image of stereotypical Hoosiers, and it hasn’t been easy. I don’t embrace the image of a hick Hoosier, and don’t try to perpetuate it. I think it’s sad and kind of weird that Mr. Kim Davis seems so proud of his farmer gear.

Finally, I find it sad that the Davises are apparently so ignorant that they don’t realize that they are being used. Used by their lawyers who are trying to gain national prominence with this case, despite surely understanding that they don’t have a legal leg to stand on. Used by opportunists like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, who showed up to visit Davis in jail, only to have the judge release her. Kind of spoiled the heartfelt prayer across the bars of the jail cell, Judge Bunning. (I know it probably doesn't work that way, but can’t you just see the Huckster gripping Davis’s hands through the bars as they bow their heads in prayer?)

The Huckster got his photo op with Davis onstage, but poor Ted Cruz missed out and had to watch from the audience as Huckabee stole his righteous, persecuted Christian thunder. As if this whole thing weren’t bizarre enough, a Huckabee aide apparently physically blocked Cruz from joining them onstage. Man, why didn’t Cruz fight back? Now that would have been some must-see footage! Brouhaha in the Bluegrass State! Commotion in the country! Hubbub in the hills!

So while I’m laughing at this whole stupid situation and especially at this incredibly stupid picture, I’m still left with a sense of sadness. Maybe the biggest source of my sadness is all the people that are buying into the thought that this woman is on the side of what is right and just.

She is not. She is forcing her religious views on others. She is on the wrong side of history in denying every American their right to marry and to be free of discrimination. And this IS discrimination, in the name of religion. She will one day be viewed in the same light as all those people who resisted integration in schools and interracial marriages.

That really is sad.

The Kounty Klerk redux

Good grief, I’m tired of writing about this broad. But there are big goin's on in Kentucky today, so you’ll get one more. But I’m sick of seeing her mug, so here is a picture of a cat dressed like a penguin.

Kim Davis had her day in court today, facing contempt of court charges. She absolutely refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and if you recall, she ordered her office to not issue licenses to straight couples, too. Because somehow she decided that would mean she wasn’t discriminating against the gay couples. Okaaaay.

When she refused to comply, the judge said something like, “Then jail it is,” and they walked her out of the courtroom and into the custody of federal marshals. Ol’ Kim went to jail! Apparently she’s ordered to stay there until she complies.

(Side note: The four couples who filed the contempt charges, two gay and two straight, specified that they did not want her to go to jail. They just wanted her to comply or face fines. Gosh, that was mighty nice of them, wasn’t it? Some might say it was almost...Christian...of them.)

One of the many things that disgusts me about this is that several of her deputies, who also had to appear in court with her, said that they would issue the marriage licenses, but this nasty woman would not allow that to happen. I guess since she’s the head clerk, she gets to make those rules. So not only is she refusing to do her job, she is not letting her deputies do their jobs. The only deputy who refused to issue licenses was her son. It seems that homosexuality is wrong for ol’ Kim, but nepotism is just dandy!

The other disgusting thing in the wake of the judge’s decision (he was appointed by George W. Bush, by the way, and ol’ Kim is a Democrat, although I don’t claim her) was the overblown rhetoric we got from some of the Republican candidates for president. The Huskster and Cruz (Tonight on ABC! A Quinn Martin production!) were apoplectic, yammering about religious persecution and how this broad was jailed for being a Christian.

::sigh::

No. No, she wasn’t. She is free to practice her religion in any way she pleases. She can go to church seven freakin’ days a week if she chooses. She is free to object to the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage. She can speak publicly about her opposition (Although government employees are generally discouraged from doing so, because they are supposed to serve all constituents, not just the ones they like and don’t find oogy—another Annie Wilkes reference!). What she cannot do is refuse to uphold the law. If she cannot serve in the capacity indicated by her job, she needs to resign or needs to be impeached. She doesn’t get to decide which laws to uphold and which to reject, all the while drawing her government paycheck. She just doesn’t. I really don’t get what is so difficult about that for some people to understand.

Of course, now she is going to be portrayed as some sort of martyr. Yeah, you’re no Joan of Arc, lady. What you are is a narrow-minded bigot who cherry picks the Bible and who thinks that she’s got a direct line to God, who is telling you to ignore the Constitution and ignore our laws. Our country doesn’t work that way. Read a damn book, Kim!

Hey Kim, I sure hope that orange jumpsuit you’re sporting now isn’t blended fabric, and what will you do on shrimp lover’s night at the jail? What WILL you do??

The Kounty Klerk rides again

You all remember Kim the Kounty Klerk from Kentucky, right? I’m sure you’ve seen that she’s in the news again.

To bypass all the filings and stays and legal argy-bargy, the bottom line is that ol’ Kim’s request to the Supreme Court to allow her to continue with not issuing licenses to anyone was rejected. They didn’t even ask any of the defendants to come before the Court and give their side of the story. Just a one-sentence ruling saying that her request for a stay was denied. This means that the federal judge’s order of a stay, which was scheduled to expire this past Monday, would expire as specified, which in turn means that ol’ Kim would have to comply with said judge’s order and start issuing marriage licenses to anyone who applies starting Tuesday morning.

So what did ol’ Kim do? That wacky gal doubled down and once again refused to issue any licenses! To anyone! When asked on whose authority she was acting, she replied, “God’s authority.” The numerous arguments concerning the separation of church and state aside, I immediately thought of this quote:

There is a justice higher than that of man. I will be judged by Him.

You know who said that, right? Yep, that lady in the picture. Annie Wilkes, one of the creepiest villains to ever grace the pages or the screen. What was the occasion? She quotes the character Misery while she is being tried for numerous murders during her career as a nurse, murders of both the elderly and of infants.

Nice to see that ol’ Kim is taking a page from Annie Wilkes. Come of think of it, she looks awfully Wilkes-esque, doesn’t she? That sort of mousy, tight-ass type who thinks Peter Pan collars and Mary Jane shoes are the height of fashion.

Well, it looks like ol’ Kim is going to get her day in court, just like Annie Wilkes. It’s happening on Thursday, and it looks as though she is going to be charged with contempt of court. Personally, I think it would be delightful to see her spend some time in jail, but she’ll probably just get some hefty fines. I think we can expect a GoFundMe campaign any day now to help finance her hatred and bigotry, don’t you? Undoubtedly.

What absolutely must happen here is that she be impeached. She is not upholding her oath as an elected official to perform the duties of her office. If the numbskull is too rock-stupid stubborn to resign, then the Kentucky legislature must remove her from office. If she weren’t such a hateful thing, I’d almost feel sorry for her for being used to further the agenda of these anti-equality tools. But she IS hateful, so I feel zero sympathy for her.

I’ll end with another movie quote, this one from Dean Wormer.

The Kounty Klerk in Kentucky

Do you remember that county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses? Kim Davis is her name. Kim the Kounty Klerk in Kentucky. She was told to do so since it’s, you know...the law of the land now...but still refused. In fact, she decided that she just wasn’t going to issue ANY stupid ol’ marriage licenses. Harrumph! Take that, gay people!

There was a lawsuit, as expected, and a federal judge ordered her to do her damn job. (I’m paraphrasing.) Ms. Davis continued to refuse to issue licenses, despite the probable contempt of court charge. The same judge issued a stay early this week on his order as the woman seeks an appeal of his ruling. A shame, really. I was totally on board with seeing her ass thrown in jail.

I read a great commentary on it from Garrett Epps at The Atlantic, and you should read it, too. It’s probably the best analysis I’ve read concerning this case and issue. This is a great quote from the article:

Government serves everyone, and the preferences of its employees aren’t relevant in that regard. Whether it’s flying a fighter jet or issuing a license, an honorable government worker will do the job or quit. Full stop.

I can’t begin to write as succinctly and eloquently as Mr. Epps, but I have a few thoughts on the matter.

It reminded me quite a bit of a while back when a few pharmacists were refusing to fill birth control pill prescriptions because it went against their faith. I had the same reaction to them that I do to Kim the Klerk: “Then get a different job!”

As far as I know, all health care professionals take an oath. As a Medical Technologist, I took one, and I took it seriously. (Here is the MT/MLT Code of Ethics.) Nowhere in there is an exception for not treating someone or for not working on their cultures based on my religious beliefs. A patient is a patient, and it was not in my job description to make moral judgments on others, including when it came to sexually transmitted infections. My job was to evaluate all specimens for disease-causing organisms. As Mr. Epps wrote, “Full stop.”

Granted, an oath for health care professionals is different from the oath that elected officials such as Kim the Klerk take when they are sworn in. However, it is still an oath. Her job is to issue marriage licenses, period, and the Supreme Court of our country has ruled that marriage equality is the law of the land.

Kim the Klerk is free to practice her religion however she wants. She can handle snakes, she can speak in tongues, she can pray before her meals at restaurants, she can go to all the church potluck suppers she wants to and stuff her face until she's ready to explode, and she can enjoy the fellowship of her church pals in whatever way they choose.

What Kim the Klerk can’t do is discriminate. That is exactly what she is doing by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. To stop issuing them to all couples means that she isn’t doing her job. If her and her pals want to talk shit about The Gays at those church potlucks, they can knock themselves out. By all means, gather together and lament the direction your country has taken, have serious discussions about how this is the End Times™ and how God is going to send his fiery judgment down upon America! Cry in your Ambrosia Salad, Kim! Cry those bitter tears!

But when you go back to work on Monday, spent from your little circle jerk of outraged persecution, you’d better start doing your damn job and issuing those marriage licenses. If you can’t do that, I think it’s time to move on to something that you can do.

Perhaps your church has an opening for a secretary.

One Step Beyond

This won’t be a lengthy post. I just want to say how pleased I am that the Supreme Court’s rulings today on marriage equality were as good as they were.

Certainly not the absolute best outcome; that would have been SCOTUS saying that any state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. However, I didn’t really expect that. This was a pretty darn good outcome, though, and I truly believe that the tide has turned in public opinion, and that same-sex marriage will no longer be a political issue with any voters except for a small group. They seem to be dwindling in numbers and influence, don’t they?

I’ve said before that I believe we’ll see marriage equality for all in my lifetime. I think it’s going to happen much sooner than that, possibly even within five years. Any states with same-sex marriage bans (I’m looking at YOU, Indiana! Shame on you!) will face challenges, and as long as we keep conservatives from gaining a seat on the Court, we should be in good shape. This is why it is very important that we elect another Democrat to the Presidency in 2016 (I’m looking at YOU, Hillary Clinton!). The next President will probably appoint a Justice, and we’ve got to keep Thomas (ugh), Alito (double ugh) and Scalia (super triple viper ugh) from gaining anymore ground or influence. This matters, people. This matters a lot.

Again, no big long entry about this. I’ll just say that I was cheering this morning along with my LGBT friends and family. I stand with them and support them 100% on this. It was a good day for them, and for those of us to love and value them as much as any other human being.

This wasn’t a full step towards equality, but it is certainly one step beyond what we had before. Turn it up!

Evolution

I have plenty of other things to write about (our recent trip to Kentucky, the Democratic convention—wow, did our First Lady knock it out of the park, or what?!—the bizarre compulsion Republicans have to crawl inside the wombs of American women, among other things), but what is at the forefront of my mind today is change.

Not political change. Not Ken’s job change, although that is part of what prompted my pondering on this. Personal change. How we grow and develop as human beings.

‘Change’ is sometimes tossed around as a bad thing. As in, “Oh, how you’ve changed.” The implication is that you’ve changed for the worse. That certainly can be true for certain people, but I tend to see personal change as a necessary thing. If we’re the exact same people we were when we graduated from high school, for example, that doesn’t speak well for our sense of self-awareness, our empathy for others, or our ability to learn from our mistakes. Stagnation isn’t good for anyone.

It has been said that I have influenced Ken for my own nefarious purposes (although the source is dubious, at best), changing his values and belief systems. How silly. I don’t have that much power over anyone, and wouldn’t wield it in that way if I did. Ken is his own person, as am I. Of course, we discuss things; we pay attention to the world around us, we see what is working and what isn’t, and we talk about our thoughts on such matters. Not just with each other...we have friends and family that we also toss around ideas with. That is actually one of the more enjoyable things in life for me: having good discussions with others so that I can work out my own ideas on something.

This is how we grow, both intellectually and as human beings. My positions on many things have evolved throughout the years. I started out an idealistic liberal; I became fairly fiscally conservative for a while (although I’ve always been pretty liberal on social issues); I made another big swing back to the left, and I’m guessing that’s not going to change. I started out being for civil unions rather than full marriage equality. Like President Obama, my views on that have evolved, and I now fully support equality for all of our citizens.

I didn’t just decide to switch my opinions because I was, oh, let’s say running for political office. (Not to mention any names. *cough* Mittens *cough*) I took the time to read about things, took the time to fully think them through. I am not a religious conservative, although I was born into a religious conservative family. I made my own way and made my own decisions. I did not make them lightly, either.

So I find it ludicrous that anyone would disparage a person’s changing stance on such serious issues as religion and politics. (Attributing Ken’s changing stance on things to me is even more ludicrous.) Or even non-serious issues like types of music, or taste in movies. Aren’t we kind of supposed to ponder things, experience new things, branch out from our tiny little corner of the world? Isn’t that what makes life the exciting adventure it is? Oh, I suppose I could sit here and not challenge my previously held notions, take the easy and safe path of conformity, but what fun would that be? To take that path seems rather lazy to me.

One of my mottos in college was “Question Authority.” It was cool and rebellious for the time, and I can’t say that I’ve retained any sort of major disrespect for authority. However, I continue to question, and I hope I always will. Life wouldn’t be as interesting without pushing the envelope on occasion!

Son of Letter to a Friend

Hi [Friend],

I read your blog entry from earlier today, and I feel that I need to say a few things. You wrote that if we allow same sex marriage, we should also allow marriage between multiple spouses because of their religious beliefs.

1. Although I understand your broader point concerning religious freedom and that those religions that condone and promote polygamy should be accommodated, as well as anyone who advocates multiple spouses, this is yet another "slippery slope" argument against marriage equality, akin to the "what is to stop someone from marrying their dog?" argument.

You are comparing the committed relationship between two consenting adults to all forms of relationships; these are not equivalent. You are once again bringing religion into the argument, stating that all religions have equal say, no matter the harm done to its members. I am of the opinion that religious freedom stops when others are harmed, and that is why I think that no parent should be let off the hook for allowing harm to come to their children based on their own beliefs concerning medical treatment. The children are not old enough to make an informed decision, and when they are sick, they have no say in the matter if their parents choose to withhold medical care from them for religious reasons.

2. There are a few arguments against polygamy and polyandry.

First, there is a financial and societal aspect against it. If the government were to allow full benefits to all spouses and children, the cost would be astronomical. Religious freedom is one thing; the full acceptance and financial support of such decisions is another. I am also not a fan of people having dozens of children, because this places an undue burden upon our society, but I understand that we will never legislate any sort of restrictions on that.

Some would argue that marriage equality for same sex couples also erodes society and places an undue burden upon our government. There have been no studies that have shown that committed couples, regardless of gender, are an erosion upon our societal mores.

Second, although I mentioned both polygamy and polyandry, the fact is that the vast majority of polygamous relationships are those that consist of a man having multiple wives, rather than the other way around. In most of these arrangements, the wives are expected to be submissive and subjugated to their husbands. Marriages are often arranged without consent of the woman, and often at a young age, when they are not capable of informed consent. Again, religious freedom stops when rights are violated, and this is a women's rights and a HUMAN rights issue.

If people want to conduct such relationships within their religion, I do not think that it is appropriate to restrict them...UNLESS they are harming others. Women and children are harmed in polygamous relationships. The marriage of a same sex couple harms no one. Again, if people want to have multiple partners, that is their choice...but that does not mean that the government needs to recognize and finance such relationships. A committed relationship and marriage between two people is a social and governmental contract, and same sex couples should have that right.

3. Finally, you wrote in your entry that someone "sent" you an article with the title "Explaining Gay Marriage to an Idiot." Although someone may have indeed sent you that link, it was the title of something I posted on Facebook. If someone sent this to you, I want to make it very clear that it was not me. I would never do that to you. I did not sent that to you in any way, shape, or form, either via email or Facebook message. I posted it on my own Wall, not on yours. I did not tag you in my post. I do not think you're an idiot, and I have made it clear from the very beginning that I was not dismissing your religious beliefs or ridiculing you for them. However, I do think that the "man marrying dog" argument is idiotic. I totally respect your right to say whatever you want on your blog, I never suggested that you did not have such a right, and I never denigrated your religious beliefs. But if we have public blogs, it is to be expected that others might disagree with the opinions we put up there.

I am a strong and vocal advocate of marriage equality for same sex couples in a committed relationship. I often post articles about it, and I have made no secret of my support. If you think that every article I post is directed towards you, you might want to reevaluate whether you want to continue to see my posts. My posts are about topics, not people, and unless I tag you on something, I am not targeting you with any of my posts.

Beth

Letter to a friend

I recently read a blog entry that disturbed me, and after a brief flameout on Facebook in which I urged anyone who opposed marriage equality to defriend me, this was my more reasoned response. I thought about this all afternoon, and I think it states my feelings fairly well (and without anger). A friend reminded me that we need to keep discussing these things with those who disagree, and he was right. That is how hearts and minds are changed, not by dismissal and angry rhetoric.

Dear [Friend],

I'm sorry it took me a while to get back to you. It's a beautiful day here, so I spent most of the afternoon outside and offline.

I had a very visceral reaction to reading your blog entry about same sex marriage last night. Maybe I was just tired, because it was getting close to my bedtime, but it made me think of the people I love who happen to be gay, and how they so desperately want the same rights afforded to every American citizen.

I am not going to insult your religious beliefs or try to dissuade you from feeling the way you do, but in friendship, I hope you will think about a few things.

1. This is probably the most unkind thing I will say in response to your entry. Your "slippery slope" argument, in which marriage equality could lead to people marrying their dogs (in your example) or their toasters (in other people's examples I have read) is a talking point widely circulated by those who are opposed to equality, and it is simply absurd. For one thing, you (and others) are comparing human beings to animals and inanimate objects. That is cruel and wrong. No one is proposing that anyone be allowed to do any such thing, and no court in the land would uphold such an absurd request...just as they would never uphold the marriage of an adult to a child.

2. As I mentioned in my comment, although many see marriage as a religious concept, that is in addition to the civic aspect; a marriage in a church without a state license is not valid. A marriage in any setting, with a license from the state, IS valid. No one is proposing that churches will be forced to marry same sex couples; in each of the states that have allowed same sex marriage, there are specifications that exempt churches from such an occurrence.

3. You mentioned in your entry that just a few short years ago, you and [your husband] would not have been able to legally marry as a mixed race couple. North Carolina didn't lift their ban on mixed race marriages until 1971. You and [your husband] wouldn't have just been unwelcome in certain states; you would have been in danger of your very lives, and would probably have found a burning cross on your lawn. That may sound harsh, but it is the truth. And why were there laws against mixed race marriages? Because certain lawmakers believed that is what the Bible dictates. This is why we don't make our federal and state laws based on biblical laws. If we did, there would be laws against eating shellfish, wearing clothes of mixed fibers, and planting different crops in the same field. I know I don't need to provide these verses to you.

I recall discussions with a family member who felt that mixed race marriages were wrong. Their initial concern was how it would affect any children resulting from such a union. I know quite a few children from mixed race marriages who are extremely happy, incredibly smart, and very well-adjusted. I know of one who has made it into what is probably the most powerful office in the world. This family member based their opinions on the Bible. I asked if they felt it was wrong for a Caucasian to marry an Asian. They were okay with that. I said, "Really? Because those are two different races. Apparently, the Bible says that is wrong."

It bothers me greatly that you would deny the happiness to your fellow citizens that you would have been denied not so very long ago, for the same reasons that it would have been denied to you.

4. Finally, it's hard to sit there and hear someone you love and respect more than just about anyone on the planet say, "I'm tired of my country telling me that I'm not good enough to have the same rights as other citizens." This person is kind, loving, decent, a productive member of society, and a responsible citizen. You spoke of your work with those afflicted with AIDS, so you know that members of the GLBT community are people, not just a demographic. They bleed, they struggle, they live their lives, just like any of the rest of us...and they LOVE just like the rest of us.

I respect your right to oppose marriage equality based on your religious views. But I hope that you will continue to consider that our laws are not based on the Bible or on any other religious text. That is contrary to our Constitution. You can have a moral objection based on what the Bible says, but when it comes to our laws, your biblically based moral objection, frankly, doesn't matter. I want every person in this country to have the same right to marry that you and [your husband] had, even though there are still some that would object to your union—based on their own interpretation of the Bible.

My initial angry response was wrong, and I'm sorry for that. I consider you a thinking woman who is willing to explore her feelings on such matters. I hope you will continue to do so (even I didn't get to this point overnight!) and I hope we can keep the dialogue open.

All my best, 
Beth

A big step forward

Whew, I can barely keep up with the news spin cycle lately! As we watched all the fallout, both in my state and nationally, of Senator Lugar’s primary defeat, word came that President Obama was sitting down for an interview with ABC, and several sources said that he would speak out in favor of marriage equality.

And hot diggity dog, he DID! Obviously, that eclipsed all other stories today, whether you agree with him or not.

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I stand with my LGBT friends and family in support of marriage equality, and I share in their happiness that our President took a stand (okay, yes...finally). I’m not going to speculate about whether this is a political liability or asset for this fall’s election (it’s both), because I’ve read plenty of articles about that today, and perhaps many of you have, too. I’m also not going to speculate as to whether this was planned or whether Vice-President Biden, Arne Duncan, and others in his administration forced his hand. It ultimately doesn’t matter. What matters is that the President of the United States has said that he supports marriage equality. To use the Vice-President’s term, this is a big fucking deal. (Well, sometimes I say that, too.)

Of course, this doesn’t change our policy as a nation. This is a big step forward, however, and I’m proud of my President for standing up and saying that he believes this should happen in our country. Some have derided his remarks about “evolving” on the topic, but I understand completely, because I evolved, too. Several years ago, my position was to support civil unions, but not actual marriage between gay couples. It wasn’t until I really started exploring the topic, talking with family and friends, reading more about it, and truly stopped to think about WHY I didn’t support marriage equity that I changed my views. The truth was that I had no legitimate objections to it, none that withstood close examination. To be brutally honest with myself, I have to say that I really hadn’t thought it through. It might have been a sort of wishy-washy compromise in order to not offend the more conservative members of my family, but whatever it was, my opposition was simply not justifiable.

The more I read and thought about it, the stronger my convictions became that this is nothing less than a civil rights issue. Most objections to marriage equality are because of religious convictions; even beyond the fact that we do not base our laws on religious beliefs, this completely ignores the fact that marriage is a civic institution. I’ve written about this rather extensively before, but it bears repeating: I don’t care if you get married in the freakin’ Sistine Chapel by the Pope himself, you aren’t legally married unless you get that marriage license from your state. That’s why our marriage is completely valid, despite the fact that we got married at Tippecanoe Place by the vice-chair of the county Democratic Party. (And for those who claim that marriage is for procreation, we don’t have kids, either. Marriage still valid. Deal.) Marriage equality does not mean that religious institutions will have to marry or recognize same-sex couples, and in fact, the states that have passed marriage equality laws make sure that such language is very clear. But that doesn’t matter, anyway. The STATE is the government entity that recognizes legal marriage. Period.

It is a civil rights issue because a portion of our populace is being denied the rights and freedoms that other citizens are able to enjoy. This is wrong, and I am confident that it will eventually be made right. President Obama going on the record and saying today that he supports the rights of gay couples to marry is a step in the right direction, and I was happy to hear him say it. Let’s keep moving forward!

Judgment and condemnation

It was fascinating to watch Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning, as host David Gregory asked some really tough questions of her. One of the parts that really struck me was when he asked her about her views concerning same sex marriage and homosexuality. From the New York Daily News:

She stammered a bit on "Meet the Press" after David Gregory asked her if her view of gay marriage was the same thing she expressed in 2004 when she said being gay was "part of Satan."
"I'm not running to be anyone's judge. I do stand very--”
Gregory cut her off to say "you have judged them."
Then a bit flustered, she replied, "I, I, I don't judge them. I don't judge them. I am running for presidency of the United States."
Bachmann then went on to say that she believed marriage is between a man and a woman. When pressed further by Gregory, she continued the same slogan to say, "I am not anyone's judge … and I'm not standing in as anyone's judge."

Here, watch the video.

This gave me flashbacks to my previous marriage. Long story short, he became a born again Christian a couple of years after we got married; that would have been okay with me if he hadn’t decided that his mission was to convert everyone around him--including me--into believing exactly as his newfound Baptist brethren did. He would sometimes make pronouncements about how this or that person was going to hell. Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, people who listen to rock music (it’s satanic, doncha know)...you name it, if they didn’t toe the Baptist line, they were going to hell. Simple as that. I would try to reason with him and say, “That’s awfully judgmental.” Ohhh, that would piss him off!

Him: I’m not being judgmental! Only God can judge!
Me: But you just said that those people are going to hell. YOU said said that. That sounds like you’re judging them to me.
Him: I am not judging them! That’s God’s job!
Me: Then why are YOU condemning them to hell?

And ‘round and ‘round we’d go. There would be talk of whether the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God, I’d say that it was written by men, blahbitty blah blay blue. (I’m not ridiculing the debate...I’ve just had it enough times to find it tiresome.) Needless to say, I couldn’t bear the thought of being around such pretzel logic the rest of my life, and I moved on. (There was more to it, but that was really the root of the problem.)

So believe me, when I hear Bachmann protest that she is not judging homosexuals, despite having called them satanic and stating that a gay couple with children does not constitute a family, she is doing exactly that. If telling someone that they’re going to hell isn’t judging someone, I sure as hell (haha) don’t know what is. I’ve been around such teachings all my life, and I was raised amongst them. I know that all Christians don’t think that way, and there are many tolerant denominations out there. However, Bachmann’s particular brand of fundamentalist theology is not one of them. When she says that the homosexual lifestyle is “part of Satan,” she isn’t dicking around. She really thinks that homosexuality is satanic and cause for banishment to the Fiery Pits of Hell™. She coyly states that her sole qualifications for appointing someone to her Cabinet or to the Supreme Court would be whether they support the Constitution, whether they are competent, and whether or not they share her views. If you think that means that an atheist or a homosexual (as David Gregory asked) or anyone other than a fundamentalist Christian stand a snowball’s chance in hell of ever making it onto her Cabinet or onto the Court, then I’m going to judge you and say you’re silly! But I won’t say you’re going to hell. Such a pronouncement is well above my pay grade.

Bachmann doesn’t seem to have any such qualms, and I would hope that most thinking Americans will not cotton to any politician who talks about this or that group being satanic. You may be in the top three at the moment, lady, but as more of this stuff comes out, I think people are going to start getting a little scared of you. Rightly so.

Love, friendship, and civil rights

Last evening, I had a fun dinner with a handful of gay friends celebrating one of their birthdays. We talked, we laughed, we ate, we had...well, we had ourselves a gay old time, in the Flintstones vernacular.

I actually hesitate to classify them as my "gay friends." That's kind of like talking about your "black friends," or your "Satan-worshiping friends," or your "Republican friends." (Heehee...couldn't resist throwing that one in there!) Why categorize? They're all just friends. However, they often refer to themselves as "the homos," and for the purposes of this entry, I will categorize a little bit.

I first started making gay friends when I lived in Indianapolis; Indy has a fairly large population of gays, I guess because quite a few come from the Midwest to live there. It's much more open and gay-friendly than rural towns, but not as expensive as Chicago. There were a couple of guys I worked with at the hospital, and I found them a lot of fun and very funny, and I can't begin to tell you what a relief it was to not get hit on, or not have them staring at my ass. Don't get me wrong...I generally found that flattering, but sometimes it was just a relief to be myself and realize that they had no hidden agenda. They just liked me for ME, and had no designs on how to get me in the sack. I really felt at ease with them, and I suppose they sensed that, as well as my complete acceptance of them, so they were equally at ease with me. I love my online buddies, too, and hope I get to meet them one day!

Last night, it was a few of us at dinner. One I've known for a long time, others are fairly new friends. I had a great time, and as I reflected later, thinking about all of us just talking and laughing, I wondered at how anyone could deny any of them the right to marriage. It seems that too many think of them as "other," or even as "lesser," and it appalls me to know that some even think they are an "abomination," according to what their religious text tells them to think.

Let's see if I can make this very, very clear: I don't give a flying fuck what your god thinks about my gay friends. I love them and value them for who they are, and that is people who work, play, and love just like anyone else does. They pay their taxes, they volunteer, they are no different than anyone else, and they also have the same rights as every other person in this country. That includes the right to marry the one they love.

Mexico, possibly one of the most Catholic countries in the world, recently passed a law allowing gay marriage. Some in the United States continue to try to make this a cultural and religious war, rather than comprehending that it is a legal matter, a constitutional matter, a human rights and civil rights matter. I've written about these subjects before. We do not base our laws on any religion, and marriage is a civic institution, not a religious one. A marriage does not have to take place in a church or be officiated by a pastor in order to be a legal marriage; it is the state who says that a marriage is legal. For those who would say that it should then be left up to the states, you're not getting it. It's a civil rights issue. Our country has a constitutional obligation to ensure that this can happen for all people in our country. Desegregation was not left up to the states. The federal government said that equal rights were the domain of every person in this country, and same-sex marriage issued in one state should be legal in the entire country.

Instead of taking the lead in this human rights issue, the United States is choosing—CHOOSING—to sit in the back of the bus, letting country after country (Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Mexico) pass same-sex marriage laws while we sit idly by. It's embarrassing. South Africa (and such)! Remember apartheid? They finally got rid of that, and they passed same-sex marriage laws before we did!

President Obama has said that he favors marriage being between a man and a woman. You all know I love and support our President, but I do not agree with him on this. He is a constitutional lawyer, and he should know better.

I look forward to the day when same-sex marriage is allowed in our entire country, and I believe it will happen in my lifetime. I wonder if the rabid anti-gay church people will spontaneously combust, or just quietly implode? I shall watch closely and with great interest.

I'll just add this. If I ever see anyone, whether a stranger, a supposed friend, or even a family member, disrespecting any of my gay friends or giving them the evil eye, or in any way, shape, or form saying or doing anything hateful or mean, I will not be responsible for my actions. I will not tolerate such intolerance, and it is not your place to judge them. I will get seriously medieval on your ass.

I believe that constitutes fair warning.