If You're Not Part of the Solution, You're Part of the Problem

Yesterday Maine's citizens prevented their gay neighbors from getting married by blocking the enactment of a law that their representatives had passed which would have provided marriage equality. Also yesterday, Virginia elected a virulently anti-gay governor, and New Jersey chose not to re-elect Democrat Jon Corzine which, had it done so, New Jersey was all but assured marriage equality.

The predictable scenes unfolded: members of black churches high fiving one another like they had just scored a touchdown, cruel Christians grinning from ear to ear at the joy of having shattered their fellow man's dreams. But there was something more disturbing: gay Republicans on Facebook simultaneously reacting with sadness to the Maine results but reacting with utter glee to the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial results.

It's easy to lash out at such people as self-loathing homosexuals, but that's both oversimplistic and often wrong. To the extent I hurt anyone's feelings by mocking your god or your conservative credentials (yes, I'm mostly talking to you, Kyle), I apologize. Well, sort of. Because the flip side of the coin is this: if you're attacking my rights with your support of a particular candidate, you are, in no uncertain terms, attacking me personally. The personal is political.

But wait, doesn't that make you a 'single issue voter,' Paul? Not at all. But I struggle to think of anything more important than upholding the basic equality if your fellow man. Why do some of you gays vote Republican? Smaller government? Lower taxes? A more strong-arm (though not necessarily "stronger") national defense? A belief that the stimulus was a tax on our grandkids? (P.S. You're not Paul Krugman. Win a Nobel Prize in Economics then start complaining about government spending in a recession.) Really, what's your reason? And just to anticipate the objection: Yes, I know lately Democrats aren't much better, especially with Obama's slow movement on gay rights. But at least he's done something, and he appointed Justice Sotomayor who is assuredly more of an ally than anyone McCain would have appointed. I, like many attorneys, think this will ultimately be decided by the courts, so we need the best judiciary money can buy!

But again: Why vote for an anti-gay Republican? The issue gets even more perplexing if you claim to be a religious person. Can you really stand before God on Judgment Day and explain to the Almighty that you thought having a few more bucks in your wallet was more important than someone's right to equality, to being allowed to have kids, to being able to visit a sick partner in the hospital? Perhaps you're staunchly anti-abortion. If that's the case, I can begin to see your point, but even still, how does one elevate a potential life above the lives of those people who are living, breathing, and suffering here and now? (More thoughts on abortion and the multitude of ways of looking at it are here.)

I know, I know. Just because you vote for the Republican candidate doesn't mean you agree with everything he stands for. And abstaining is no cop out either: those who don't vote are the ones who allow the victor to win. Which is why it really does come down to that 60s catch phrase: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you voted for a Republican, accept the fact that you just voted against the fundamental civil rights of your fellow man. If you put money in the collection plate at the Catholic Church, accept the fact that you just voted against the fundamental civil rights of your fellow man. There's no way around that. None. No mental leaps, twists and turns escapes that conclusion. You voted against your fellow man.

What's the big deal about marriage?

I did a speech on gay marriage in college. During my research I uncovered countless heart breaking stories. Due to the time limitations, I only shared two. One involved a lesbian couple who had two children. The children were the biological children of one of the mothers. When the biological mother died, the state took the kids from their other mother and gave them back to their biological father, even though there was evidence that he had been abusive. As they were ripped away from the only family they knew, they cried and screamed for their "mommy." Without marriage rights, the theft of those poor children was perfectly legal. The second story involved a gay couple from Hawaii who had been together over 25 years. One night one of the men had a heart attack. The ambulance whisked him away, his partner not far behind. When the man's partner got to the hospital, he was told he would not be allowed into the room. He wasn't "family," said the hospital. For three (yes, three) days, he and his lawyers fought with the hospital. On the third day, the hospital informed him that he could finally see his partner of 25 years. His beloved partner was--they informed him--in the morgue.

This crap happens. Every. Single. Day.

A conservative friend told me that we don't need marriage to fix this. He worked at a Christian hospital and even they respected the advance directives of gay couples. Well golly gee willikers, how Christian of them! If you're rich enough (or wise enough) to draft advance directives and have them handy when you rush to the hospital in an emergency, you just might be allowed to see your dying partner in the hospital. Are you listening, faggots? For a price, you might get what Britney Spears can get after drunkenly marrying her high school sweetheart in a ultra-brief Vegas wedding. Who needs equality when the alternatives are so, um, appealing?

But why "marriage"? Why not civil unions?

Some argue that civil unions are the way to go, and polls certainly suggest that. Perhaps for now, it is. But ultimately, the fight must be for marriage for two reasons: (1) for clear equal rights and (2) to allow gays to be seen as human. That which we call a rose by any other name does not always smell as sweet.

First, for clear equal rights. New Jersey had civil unions. Marriage under a different name. All the same rights and responsibilities, or so its residents thought. Then a lesbian UPS employee tried to get benefits for her partner. UPS denied her. Why? It wasn't a "real" marriage. Their contract only covered real marriages. Sorry, dyke. The employee had to get an attorney and sue for what was rightfully hers. Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if a straight couple in Jersey had to hire an attorney to prove their marriage was real? Guido would send the mob after you! You see, law is a tricky thing. You change one word and judges get confused. There have been entire Supreme Court cases over the placement of a comma. Words matter. Indeed, in states that have civil unions, state commissions have researched the issue and found civil unions to be lacking the full force of marriage. It's not the same thing.

Second, because we are human. Before you think that's touchy-feely humanist bullcrap, follow me for a second. When African-Americans marched in the 60s, some of them wore giant signs. They read: I Am A Man. Think about that. Think of how profound that four-word sentence is in the context of their battle. Their fight for equality was more than just a fight for legal rights; it was their fight to be seen as men--nothing more, nothing less. Full humans.

When the American military wanted to make it easier for its servicemen to kill Japanese soldiers, what did they do? They produced posters showing the Japanese as animals--as something sub-human. If it's not a person, it's easier to kill him, isn't it? Likewise, Hitler convinced his followers that everyone else was inferior to his Aryan race. It's a tactic as old as time itself: strip someone of their humanity and justify your actions with ease.

There is a reason some thugs feel no remorse for beating and killing gays and lesbians. There is a reason the delinquency rates and runaway rates of gay teenagers are far higher than for straight kids. There is a reason suicide rates are higher among gay people (particularly gay youth). There is a reason people feel justified in firing gays just because they were gay. Because to many people, we aren't seen as real humans... humans who deserve rights... or humans who deserve "real" marriages.

Passing equal rights legislation or enforcing it via the courts isn't a magic bullet. Changing the law won't change millennia of religious-based hatred. And allowing gays to marry won't suddenly make all gay kids into healthy, well-adjusted youths. But it will help. A lot. And it's time we start seeing the connections between the hatred we encounter and the institutionalized discrimination that permits such ways of thinking to flourish.

There's (At Least) Two Sides to Everything

A nice, liberal friend of mine told me yesterday that he didn't think now was a good time to extend marriage benefits to gays because it would be too big of a drain on society, even if it were the right thing to do. My first reaction was to bash my head into a brick wall in frustration. But then I remembered Target Lady.

In college, I worked the Guest Service desk at Target. One day, a very angry woman rolled up to my desk with a problem. You see, when you sign up for a Target credit card, Target gives you 10% off your purchases in the store that day and also gives you 10% off your first purchase on target.com. My customer didn't like that. Visibly furious, she spat at me, "I don't have a computer. So this program dis-crim-i-nates against me!" sounding out each syllable in the word "discriminates" for full effect. I stood there in shock, unsure what to say. I was trying to connect the logic in my mind: this one woman did not have a computer (and apparently didn't know anyone else who had one either or know where her local library was located); therefore, a program that gives customers a 10% online coupon discriminated... against her.

To Target Lady and to my friend, I guess I understand that it's a matter of perception: One man's "right" is another man's "privilege." To my friend, gays were apparently wanting something new, extra, and exotic: equal rights. Equal rights might cost the government some money once preferential tax treatment was extended to same-sex couples. And I get that: the status quo is comfortable; change is unsettling.

But the flip side of the coin makes an awful lot of sense too. And that's simply this: withholding equal rights from gays and lesbians has been, is, and always will be wrong. Changing the law isn't providing anything "extra," it's correcting a deficiency that's always been there. So when we make our case to others, we must always remember that, to some, we homos are just the angry woman at Target without a computer. It's our job to make others see it in--dare I say--the "right" light.

So I circle back, dear Republican friends. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. What issue persuades you so forcefully to vote against the health, happiness, and equal rights of your fellow man such that you would cheer the election of an anti-gay governor? It's a serious question. What do you find more important? Because I want to understand your position. And right now, I just don't. (And I like guns, low taxes, and small government too.)