The Solace That Gay Marriage Brings
There is an unfortunate stereotype of the gay community (with a nod to Will and Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy): a bunch of well-heeled folks who shop and brunch. Not exactly the look of suffering. Frankly, most Californians would aspire to that kind of suffering. I believe this is one of the reasons we lost in California. We simply didn't look like a group of people who needed rights.
I have been Out for nearly twenty years. I love my community (including those who shop and brunch) and I've worked in the gay community long enough to know the facts. It is not always pretty being gay. Let's talk about truths to gay life in America.
1. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the United States gay men are still the most infected group when it comes to AIDS.
2. According to FBI reports, gay men and lesbians are the third most-often targets for hate crimes, behind only racial and religious minorities.
3. According to the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, it is estimated that gay people make up approximately five percent of the American population, but can make up to 20-40 percent of homeless youth in this country.
This is the underbelly of the gay community. This is why we want rights, marriage or otherwise. We are a community that knows pain. How will getting gay marriage rights help any of these problems? Marriage encourages principles of family and support and love and caring. I am not a therapist, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that not having these principles in gay daily life can spur the aforementioned problems.
I have worked in the AIDS field long enough to know that one of the reasons gay men get infected is because we don't feel our lives are worth saving. In other words, we feel like crap for being gay. How will marriage rights help that? It will say in the eyes of society that I am equal. My state sees me as equal. A way to help women leave abusive battering relationships, a way to help them take care of themselves is to empower them to believe that they're smart, capable women. They are equal, if not better, than the men who belittled and abused them. Feeling equal leads to a better life, period.
How will gay marriage help those who target us for hate crimes? Many years ago, I was a victim of a gay bashing. I was fortunate to get away. The image of those men who tried to jump me is burned into my mind. They were young men, some of whom wore Scapulars, religious Catholic vestments. (I was given one at my first Holy Communion) I wonder if those men would have hurt me if they knew that I was also raised Catholic and believed in the same God that they did.
I was targeted because bashers saw me as dispensable, an object to throw away. They did not see me as a person with a soul or as someone's husband or father. When any institution, religious or governmental, tells its flock or its subjects that gay people don't deserve the same rights, in essence, they are saying they don't deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect afforded to heterosexuals. And this can lead to violent acts committed against us.
How will marriage help gay homeless youth? If I couldn't grow up in a family who loved and valued me, well, for goodness sake, allow me the hope to create one of my own. When I was young, I was romantic. Maybe I didn't come from the perfect family, but, later in life, I could end up with one. By denying marriage rights, we are dashing the hopes and dreams of young homosexuals, who like young heterosexuals, have dreams of meeting Prince or Princess Charming and living happily ever after.
I am not saying that gaining marriage rights will suddenly heal all the ills of the gay community, but it's a step in the right direction. After all, the civil rights of African Americans led the way for Barack Obama.
When it was announced that the California Supreme Court would uphold Prop 8, there were wails and moans. Those deep sounds of mourning did not come from a community who saw their registries at Crate and Barrel go up in smoke, it came from a place of intense anguish. We have died of AIDS, we have been attacked and humiliated, we have been thrown onto the streets to fend for ourselves. Now, you're telling us we can't even get married?
We are not simply a faaaaabulous community wanting an excuse to throw an engagement party. We are a damaged minority seeking solace. That solace can come in the symbol of a gold ring.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You chose an alternative lifestyle, so why do you want to be like the "norm" ? I think this whole gay marriage thing is just another example of people wanting something just because they can't have it. I don't believe this has anything to do with loving someone.
There are plenty of straight people living together without being married and they doesn't stop them from loving each other and enjoying their lives together.. I know, . I know... "they can get married if they want to, and we can't"
If you decide to live a different way than most everyone else, you have a right to do that. But why should the rest of us have to be forced to acknowledge and approve of that choice?
I don't care what anyone else does in their private life, but please don't tell me that I HAVE to approve and that I HAVE to accept the denigration of real marriage.
Being gay is not a choice. Would YOU choose to be looked down upon, discriminated against and otherwise judged by most of society? Would YOU choose to put yourself into the line of fire of gay bashers, religious zealots and countless other forms of discrimination just so you could be physical with someone of the same sex? No, you wouldn't. And neither would we.
The only choice in the matter is whether or not to be honest about who we are. With the other option being repression, lying about who we are, living a life of loneliness and isolation from the rest of society (because when you lie to yourself and everyone else about something this big, no matter how many friends you have, you're isolated), the choice to be out does not equal CHOOSING TO BE GAY.
So yes, you should be forced to acknowledge our lifestyles, insofar as you must acknowledge anyone's lifestyles. By just letting us be and minding your business. You don't have to pay attention to my relationship or marriage any more than you have to be paying attention to any straight couple's marriage. But you don't deny people basic human rights just because you don't understand their love. And you don't allow discrimination just because you think it's icky.
THANK YOU.
OK, first of all, the constitution gives us the right to live the way we want...that's what "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is all about. That doesn't require your "approval" or "accept", so please don't get your panties in a tight wad. In that, YOU don't have a choice.
Second, this is sad, but true...how come it's OK for you to be stupid and for sane, consenting adults not to marry?
Btw, we "gays" are also inadvertently fighting for the rights of all those unmarried people because they too don't have the same crucial rights that married people do. Marriage is a contract between two people, and a business (see how much money the state makes on it), not some God ordained right for some. And please don't dump your Judeo-Christian values on me (right to freedom, remember?).
And yes, it makes a difference, a huge one, as it did in the African American civil rights movement, whether its skin color or sexuality, that no one should take away the rights of the minorities, not even for people like you.
I am so ashamed that many in this country are so driven by fear & lies & hatred, that they would deny equality to fellow Americans.
That was a great piece of writing.
I believe you have added something to the discussion that was missing and that is badly needed.
I must correc t an error in my post. Philo was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul in 20 BC to AD 50
From Philo of Alexandria, counsel to Apostles Joseph and Paul:
The land of the Sodomites, a part of Canaan afterwards called Palestinian Syria, was brimful of innumerable iniquities, particularly such as arise from gluttony and lewdness, and multiplied and enlarged every other possible pleasure with so formidable a menace that it had at last been condemned by the Judge of All…Incapable of bearing such satiety, plunging like cattle, they threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to…forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also men mounted males without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive; and so when they tried to beget children they were discovered to be incapable of any but a sterile seed. Yet the discovery availed them not, so much stronger was the force of the lust which mastered them. Then, as little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease. For not only did they emasculate their bodies by luxury and voluptuousness but they worked a further degeneration in their souls and, as far as in them lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind.”
Okay, sure, what's your point?? You want to invent a time machine and go back to biblical times? If so, hey, fine, thats your right, but I'd prefer to stay in the present, 21st century, and see the progress of evolution, not devolution
And the moralizing ramblings of a friend to a Roman tax collector and uh... I'm sorry, which one is Joseph? Neither of them are among the original 12 Apostles I'm familiar with--you know, the ones that actually knew Jesus personally. Anyway, this 2000-years-dead guy's opinion effects my rights under the American system of jurisprudence how?
I picked up on that too...fundamentalist types know virtually nothing about history or the context around christianity. How about the congressman on Colbert who could only list 3 of the ten commandments. I'm guessing he doesn't know even the order of the commandments differ from translation to translation. and don't even bring up other ancient sacred texts that differ in any way...if they weren't so hateful, they'd be almost cute.
I must correct an error in my post. Philo was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul from 20 BC to AD 50. My apologies.
We have seperation of church and state in the USA. Next point?
I see people getting their personal belifs mixed up with the "rights" issue. If the rights are the same, then since the relationship is defined differently than marraige, it should be called something else. The use of the term marraige itself is a right, and that term has already been taken.
The question is why do you feel the moral superiority that you are unwilling to share your rights with anyone else?
Again, I do not believe the use of a term is a constitutional right. I say, equal rights, different name, because let's face it, it is different than traditional marriage.
My vote: You can get married all you want, but if the relationship is not between a man and a woman, then it is a civil union, not a marraige. We had the term first, and use of a term is not a constitutional right. I do believe the civil unions should have the exact same rights, I just do not want the term marraige re-defined.
How about this? The government should only recognize domestic partnerships/civil unions regardless of the gender(s) of the involved parties, and people who want to call themselves married can. Problem solved.
"We had the term first...that term has already been taken"
Oh, you can't be serious. You are? Well, I guess that device sitting next to my keyboard isn't a "mouse," since that term was already taken. Or is it that "mouse" was "redefined," making the rodent something different than it was? Or could it just be, maybe, that the definition of "mouse" was simply expanded to encompass something new, leaving the old definition completely intact and unchanged (and the rodent itself unaffected and unconcerned)?
"The use of the term marraige (sic) itself is a right...use of a term is not a constitutional right"
Make up your mind. In any case, both the Calif. and U.S. Supreme Courts have defined "marriage" as a "civil right;" one the state of California has now allowed voters to revoke.
so this is some kind of trademark issue with you??
No, marriage is sacred to me as it is defined, and I don't appreciate people trying to re-define it. Be gay married all you want, and call it that too. I just do not want my marriage to be legally re-defined as something it has never been. Why can't you just accept being a little different and therefore being called something different - AND still have equal rights under the law. I think people have accepted the GLBT community already, but it won't settle for that...instead they want everyone to sanction their personal choices, and while touting their differences, demand we act as if they are not different. Acknowledging you are different is not giving up rights.
With that reasoning, are we gay since the term gay was already taken (he asks with his eyes rolling)?
HuffPost's Pick
First of all, why does the definition of marriage need to be re-defined? Marriage is the union of two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together and perhaps, if they choose to, build a family together. Just because your pre-conceived notion is that marriage should be between a man and a woman, doesn't mean marriage needs to be re-defined in any sense other than in the eyes of the law.
Second of all, how does marriage expanding to encompass gays have any effect on you? It doesn't change your marriage at all. Are so you afraid to be associated with an institution that is inclusive of gay people that you would feel weird being married JUST BECAUSE gay folks are married too?
Saying "we had the term first" is childish at best. It's something you hear from a kindergarten student when s/he doesn't want to share their toy. "I had it first." Well guess what. Adults learn how to share. And as long as it doesn't hurt you or take away from what you have, which it doesn't, then I don't see the problem.
For once I would love to hear how gay marriage would actually change the institution of marriage for straight people without religion being brought into it. A man being married to another man isn't going to change anything between you and your wife/husband. I just don't get it.
So about 95% of us are not gay and most of us are not looking to "classify" anyone as gay.
For all the trouble that this classification causes, I have no idea why anyone wants that classification.
Can you understand that?
And honestly, I will never understand why someone can catch AIDS..don't we all know what we shouldn't be doing?
You need to educate yourself on the ways in which HIV can be transmitted, because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
seriously...not sure whether to talk about hospitals, epidemiology or just refer to Magic Johnson...20 years later and still no awareness..no wonder the epidemic is rising again
It's not a matter of wanting to be classified as gay. We are who we are, regardless what you call us. The label is irrelevant, what we feel and how we express what we feel emotionally and physically means far more to us than any label you put on it
why don't you say that to the majority of straight people in Africa who have HIV
All true enough, and valid. But I'm not sure these facts will change the minds in need of changing. To some, it might sound whiny; others may say, "That's all terrible and too bad, but what has it to do with marriage, and how will that compensate?" The central point is, we're American citizens - living, in all significant ways, typically American lives - who deserve, and are guaranteed by the Constitution, full equality under the law; desiring, entitled to, and demanding just that. Nothing "special;" nothing more; nothing less. This, alone, should be enough for anyone to understand, whether we've suffered the other injustices you describe or not.
Great blog! We're not all in the cashmere mafia as they say. I'm 28 year old girl who's trying to build a life with the love of my life. We struggle just like any other young couple. We're trying to scrape together money to be able to afford to purchase a home while still paying rent and bills and all that. We're probably going to need help from our families as we start our life together, just as my older sister and her husband did. And there are far more well to do heterosexuals than homosexuals. There is a big thick glass ceiling, and as a woman I feel it two-fold. I'm sure if a study were done to show the success rate of out gay professionals vs their straight counter parts the disparities would be shocking.
1. Gay men are the most effected from AIDS. OK, what could be the cause? I KNOW! Let's blame everyone else.
2. The phrase "hate crimes" is ludicrous on its face. How many times has a crime been considered a hate crime just because the victim was of a different race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation than the perpetrator.
3. Number of homeless can be 20-40%? Pure speculation.
And just why, exactly, would you post this tripe? It always makes me wonder why supposedly straight folks spend so much time on gay themed blogs....
Also, the cause of AIDS is a virus, one that even you can be infected with my precious snowflake!
In fact, have you been tested lately?
Dear Hoosier96,
1. The "cause" of AIDS is a retrovirus known as HIV.
2. A "hate crime" is not determined by the status of either the victim or the criminal.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1913
3. Here is the latest work on gay youth homelessness:
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/HomelessYouth.pdf
Good article. It's always been extremely frustrating for me that whatever pathologies exist within the gay community are used by anti-gay haters as proof we are unworthy of legal equality, when those pathologies are the consequence of homophobia itself. A vicious cycle. Legal equality can go a long way toward rectifying that. Government is the omnipresent teacher, as they say, and its unequal treatment of gay citizens sends a constant and powerful message that we are fundamentally flawed and inferior, if not a positive societal threat.
Beautiful and heartbreaking, but it's what the opposition needs to hear. The real life consequences of their bigotry against real people. Harvey MIlk was right. Knowing the people is the cure.
I just wanted to commend Mr Alumit on an enlightening article. I agree sometimes heterosexuals (like me) tend to forget that the GLBT community has just as many if not more issues as does any other community. I think you make a terrific argument here in your article for the support of gay marriage, and I hope it gives all and any kind of people more of a perspective on this issue.
I think the bigger issue here is that Heterosexuals actually BELIEVE that Gays & Lesbians DESERVE to be treated in the manner that they, by and large, treat us. While talking about gays being immoral, heterosexuals are treating their very own gay and lesbain creations in a most immoral manner using Gods and Bibles to justify it.
How does one deal with THAT?
I think the bigger issue here is that Heterosexuals actually BELIEVE that Gays & Lesbians DESERVE to be treated in the manner that they, by and large, treat us. While talking about gays being immoral, heterosexuals are treating their very own gay and lesbain creations in a most immoral manner using Gods and Bibles to justify it.
How does one deal with THAT?
Can we start throwing them to the lions again?
getting rid of god and the bible would be the first step towards progress. weak people will continue to hide behind thier religion to justify thier ignoance and prejudice....just too handy to give up, no matter how hideous and destructive it is.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
