|
||
Here's to the Violets: My Thoughts on Gay Rights (Video)
Here's the text of a speech I wrote with my friend Ron Marasco for the Human Rights Campaign's recent gala in New Orleans. The clip of it is below. Enjoy!
I am so happy to be with all of you tonight. To celebrate the work you do--and to have a bourbon or two later.
The great Tennessee Williams wrote---
--of course I'm starting with Tennessee Williams. I'm in New Orleans, at the HRC gala, and I played Blanche DuBois.
Which is why I never go anywhere without a paper lantern in my purse.
Tennessee Williams wrote a line that I felt was appropriate for tonight. And appropriate to this time in our history, your history, and to the rights that everyone in this room is fighting for. It is a line that meant so much to him, it's on his gravestone.
"The violets in the mountains have broken the rocks."
"The violets in the mountains have broken the rocks."
To me, its meaning is simple. The hard, the cold, the oppressive will--at long last--be broken apart by a force that is beautiful, natural, colorful, alive.
That's what tonight is about, what the people in this room are about. We're a bunch of violets breaking through the rocks.
And it is happening.
The rock is cracking away. The rock of hate and falsehood is being broken apart.
All across this country, regular Americans who were born and bred in towns where a gay couple wouldn't dare walk down a street--all over these American Main Streets--something is changing.
Blue-collar guys are looking up from their work, grandmothers are speaking up at the dinner table; and they are saying something to members of their family, and co-workers, who are against gay marriage.
They are saying in one, increasingly-loud American voice, "Honey, rather than worry about who someone else loves--and why, think about who you hate--and why!"
The violets are breaking through the rocks.
America has always been a country of common sense. A country of innate goodness--although a goodness that is sometimes slow to action. As Winston Churchill said, "Americans are always ready to do the right thing. After they have exhausted all the other possibilities."
We have exhausted all the other possibilities. And it is time to call an injustice an injustice.
It is an injustice that we send a gay or lesbian soldier to die in a war--to give their life for a country that won't let them be legally bound to the person they love.
It is an injustice that a soldier gives their life for a Military--an exemplary Military in every way--except one in which they cannot have the picture of their lover cut-out in the shape of a heart and taped to their locker because that would be "telling." Such a ugly word.
It is an injustice that, in this room, many of you pay your tax money to the very public institutions that deny you rights other Americans enjoy; pay your tax money for public schools that will not accept you as legal parents; pay your tax money for the paper on which they print the goddamn marriage licenses you cannot get.
And while you are paying your tax money for all of the above, a preacher can stand in the pulpit of a multi-million-dollar mega-church advocating the damnation of gay Americans and not pay one thin dime in taxes.
You know, I occasionally watch those preachers on the Christian TV stations.
I always think to myself: How can I believe your theology when I can't believe your hair?
I find it intellectually offensive when people shrink the Bible to fit the small-mindedness of their bigotry.
Leviticus 18:22 and Deuteronomy 22:5...the famous list of the "abominations." Bible verses which, by the way, also list as a mortal sin things like "the wearing of a garment made of two different kinds of fabric."
Yes, the Bible verse they use to condemn homosexuality also calls Polyester-blend an abomination.
Well, in this, perhaps the Lord has a point. But if you took away all the Polyester-blends in those mega-churches....most of the women would be naked.
In my Bible I see no evidence of Jesus telling same-sex couples they cannot love each other.
And he could have. He was a carpenter--if he made good furniture every gay man in Nazareth knew Him.
The fact is: it's happening.
All the violets--gay Americans, lesbian Americans, Bi-sexual Americans, transgender Americans, people of color, and the people of this city forgotten by Washington in hurricane Katrina--we are all are starting to break through the mountain of straight, white, male lawmakers in Washington.
Their time is over. And they know it. Which is why they are looking increasingly ridiculous and beleaguered. To me those guys look like one, big casting-call for the lead role in a very bad production of Death of Salesmen.
Because America is starting to say those lawmakers are wrong about "Don't ask don't tell," and wrong to oppose gay marriage. The way they were wrong, wrong, wrong about the war in Iraq.
A war that was created by who? A straight, white man named George W. Bush. A straight, white man named Dick Cheney. And a straight, white man named Condoleezza Rice.
The rocks are breaking. And it's time to call certain people on the hypocrisy of their stance against gay marriage.
Newt Gingrich: against gay marriage, but on his third wife.
That recent convert to an anti gay-marriage stance, Rudy Giuliani: third wife. Rush Limbaugh: vehemently against gay marriage and....yep, third wife. A third wedding that was performed by none other than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas: second wife.
4 men, eleven marriages, and you must be lectured on love by them? This Mount Rushmore of Divorce!
Ladies and gentlemen, as all of you in this room know so well, political activism tells us now what history will tell us later.
The people who support "don't ask don't tell;" and who oppose "gay marriage" are wrong. And their children and grandchildren will know they were wrong.
This is the age of Obama. And the people who oppose these causes need to realize that. But there is someone else who needs to realize that this is the Age of Obama.
Obama.
It is time, Mr. President. Do not fall behind others on these issues. My God, Dick Cheney announced that he is in favor of gay marriage.
And on that very day, the National Weather Service reported hell froze over.
So Mr. President, please catch up. Or you are in danger of being considered "just to the right" of a man who is "just to the left" of Vlad-the-Impaler.
Newsweek magazine just said about gay marriage--and I quote: "This train's left the station. Time to get on board."
It is happening.
Something is changing.
Oh--there is still a lot of work to be done. But it will happen.
And when it does--when "Don't ask don't tell" is scrapped, when gay men and women can marry the people they love--when that day comes, people across this great land will be looking for a place to party.
And I say: Come on down to New Orleans! I'll be so happy I might swing naked in a window on Bourbon Street!
Me and Rachel Maddow!
Yes, across America we will celebrate because, at long last, that day will have arrived. But to the people in this room--that day will not only have arrived for you, it will have arrived because of you.
Thank you HRC. Here's to the violets.
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
I love Patricia Clarkson. She is one of the best actresses around. And so smart!
Thank you for the beautiful commentary. It will be nice when our gay brothers and sisters will not have to serve in silence, like it's shameful to be who they are. It will be nice when marriage equality includes us. It will be nice when being gay is no longer associated with negative associations like phaggot, homo, queerbait etc. It will be nice when we can wake up one morning and only see violets on the mountain.
How beautiful !
This is a great speech....The violets are breaking through the mountains!
Thanks Patricia! I've always been a fan of yours and enjoy your interviews--you've even turned me on to Southern literature!
I agree that gay people who love each other need some kind of civil partnership but as a Christian I think marrige is defined as between man and woman. I consider myself also a progressive Christian and not blinkered as some are.
Christians I know dont attack the opinions of gay people, I cant say that follows for gay people attacking the beliefs of Christians.
But love is love in my book
In that case judges shouldn't be able to conduct "marriages", only civil unions. Leave it to only churches that can "marry" people...and the the individual churches can decide if they won't marry gays. Some churches will still choose to do so, others won't..but ALL should be equal under federal law.
exactly. churches should be allowed to discriminate however they'd like. all people - straight and gay - should receive their civil union certificate from the city and then later participate in a marriage ceremony in a church.
this person calls themselves a "progressive" but my guess is their church does not support gay marriage. fortunately, many do including mine (Congregationalist).
Christians you know DO attack the opinions of gay people... even worse, they affect our lives! When over half the U.S. States have passed PRO-DISCRIMINATION laws in the past decade, you bet they do.
Listen, if you think sacred marriage is between a man and a woman, fine. But there ARE churches who bless same-sex marriages: United, Unitarian, some Episcopal and even some synagogues... so religious Christian same-sex marriage EXISTS. It is a FACT. As is same-sex civil marriage, and other blessed same-sex unions.
So I don't mind your "progressive Christian" viewpoint particularly, but it *should* not have any bearing on my equal Federal civil rights and benefits as a tax-paying law-abiding legally married adult citizen.
All excellent points.
"Reasonable Christians" don't realize how insulting they are by saying that a civil union should be fine for you, but "my church" defines marriage as one man, one woman, and, as we all know, MY church defines marriage for the country. Duh! People who have been married by judges are just as much married as you are! And they will NOT welcome your desire to say they are not married, only "civilly unioned". And as the above poster said, plenty of churches, even CHRISTIAN churches, will bless same-sex marriages.
How does a gay marriage offend you as a Christian? I just do not get it. Marriage is ultimately a legal arrangement. You do not have to be a Christian or bear children to get married.
Rather than convincing yourself that some "definition" is being violated, why don't you like your life and let others live theirs.
In the interest of justice and equality, states should only be allowed to issue civil partnerships to couples, gay or straight, and then if you would prefer to get married in your church, then go for it. This is how other countries operate, why aren't we doing this? Wny are states even in the marriage business? Also, why is it that America, being the free nation that it is, still lags many of our allies when it comes to equal rights for gays? The longer we are forced to live anything but an open and free life, the longer we will be persecuted and looked upon as second class citizens. Our government is a mess when they can't even get something simple like this right.
Mr. Christian,
You are entitled to your beliefs, but your opposition is strictly based on your Christianity supposedly. You think that just by saying you're a Christian, you're somehow entitled to speak for everybody. But you're not. You are a minority, my friend.
Take a look at yourself in the mirror and reconsider your defense against this and other civil rights matters. We are a country of civil rights, after all. You people, however, do not believe that. You think you are above the law because you are "Christians." We are having a period of unrest here, with right wingers working their wonders, while a social revolution foments. You guys are gonna lose in the end.
Sorry, but I couldn't get past your first sentence... The Christian Defense just doesn't work anymore. The reflection of any God does not belong in the sphere of civil rights or the making of laws. That's what, after all, makes for a civilized society. Just look at the ancients. How they lived. What they thought. How they perceived the idea of society. That's what's called a democracy. Laws based on "Christian" values belong in churches only. And not in anybody else's face.
Think I'm done.
Great speech!
Before you all start calling me a hater for saying what I'm going to say next, let me start out by saying that I think that gays and lesbians should be able to get married, join the military, and do a whole host of other things that I'm in no hurry to do. I'm a total civil libertarian in that regard.
But what I'd like to say to the gay community, a community that has cost itself some allies in light of the racism it showed toward African Americans during the whole Prop. 8 debacle, is that I'd rather see President Obama tackle issues like the economy and health care before he gets to Don't Ask, Don't Tell or same-sex marriage. I say that because I believe that if the economy is back on track, and people can afford to go to their doctor and buy the medication he or she prescribes, it benefits everyone.
Now I'm saying your issue isn't important. I'm just saying that if you want critical mass, you might want to let the president take care of the REALLY, REALLY, BIG stuff so that he has the political capital he's gonna need to take care of the BIG stuff.
And he's going to need it because while individual states might be progressive on this kind of stuff, Congress isn't by and large. Where do you think the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell came from?
Nothing is bigger than my civil rights. Your response is like, "Hey Rosa Parks -- the country is at war --- do you REALLY have to sit at the front of the bus NOW?"
Yes she did. Yes I do.
Beautifully put.
yes very good point. and i've heard the above posters tired argument for the past 20 years telling gays "now is not the time". but we're through sitting at the back of the bus, whether you like it or not.. and in terms of the racism claims- i'm not sure that its "racist" for black, white, pacific islander, hispanic and nat american gays and lesbians to be disappointed in the strong support that straight hispanics and blacks gave for Prop 8. "strong disappointment" would be a better choice of words.
Great comment Raiderfan....I got your point. I think that Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be resolved by Obama but his plate is full and they just don't get it. They wasn't expecting much from Bush but their standards are totally different for this President. All this bitterness and pointing fingers at races, religion and this president doesn't resolve the problems. They haven't found their voice or created grassroots which they really need to be heard. I think that our president is going to keep his word but he's going to move when he wants to they just need to learn how to be patience. Attacking isn't helping their causes, I think it hurt it. .
You sure use the word "they" a lot.
President Obama's administration, in this case, recognizes that DOMA does not infringe on anyone's rights, that the government's role is not to promote anti-social behavior, and that society should work toward the most ideal environment for children--a home with a mother and a father.
They recognize that not a single religion or moral philosophical system since the beginning of human history ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex. Bans on interracial marriages were a moral abberation, and judges who overthrew these bans had every religious and secular value system on their side. Race should never be a factor in our ethical or legal systems since there are no differences in the races.
However, there are differences in the sexes--physiological, functional, and pyschological--and a child raised by a father and a mother, two close role models of the opposite sexes, indisputably grants such a child supreme benefits. Society's role should be the promotion of the ideal family environment.
Nothing is stopping same sex couples from having long-term, committed relationships. Besides, one of the rallying cries of the 60's and 70's was that "marriage is just a piece of paper." If someone decides to celebrate their sexual preference, then they should also realize that there are responsibilities and consequences in their decisions. And that true tolerance means being able to disagree civilly. Nowadays, people mistakenly equate tolerance with blind acceptance--a repugnant ideal that allows heinous acts to go unidentified.
"and a child raised by a father and a mother, two close role models of the opposite sexes, indisputably grants such a child supreme benefits"
I would REALLY like to see some sources cited for this statement because as a psychologist and APA member, I have never come across any study that makes this claim. I have read many studies that say pretty much the opposite though, that there is no statistically significant difference between the quality of care and home-life of hetero and homosexual parents.
Even if families are "better off" with one mother, one father (which I am not granting you, by the way, just using the premise for the sake of argument), there are ALREADY IN EXISTENCE many, many, many families that don't even remotely resemble that description, including families with two mothers or fathers. Why should those families be penalized for not having what you consider the "ideal" arrangement? You want to make life MORE difficult for the children involved? Tell those families that "marriage is just a piece of paper" when they can't get family health insurance coverage, when a family member is in the hospital and they are not allowed to even be updated on his/her health, much less able to make decisions on his/her behalf. Why should the "consequence" of wanting to marry someone you're attracted to, rather than someone you are not, be to forever be treated as an inferior human being not worthy of basic civil rights. Nobody's asking for "blind acceptance". We want everybody's eyes wide open. When yours are, you'll see that those gay people over there are exactly the same as you, except for their sexual attraction.
No one wants to penalize children for any narcissistic choices their parents made. Therefore, living wills can grant who visits someone in a hospital or makes legal decisions for their care. Homosexual couples have exactly the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples which have children and are not married. Why should homosexual couples be granted special rights that heterosexual couples do not have?
I believe in equal protection under the law. Every citizen should be treated in a fair manner. And every child should have an opportunity to be raised in the ideal environment which consists of a mother and a father. Shouldn't we strive for the best ideal instead of accepting second best?
Unfortunately for you there are zero studies to support your argument. Children raised by 2 men or 2 women (or 1 man or 1 woman for that matter), are as well adjusted as those raised by 1 man and 1 woman.. You yourself, Jeremiah, may have difficulty with the idea of being with another man or marrying another man. So don't do it, our gay marriages do not negatively harm you in any way... Your facts are also inaccurate in your belief that there is no history throughtout time of same sex marriage. One example: pre-christianity, some Native American cultures allowed boys who displayed female qualities to learn the roles of women and yes, take a male husband, and vice versa with some girls growing up as a boy and taking a wife. They were highly revered individuals and called "two-spirited".
Or, how about the discovery of gays in a clan in Iraq, that has little contact with the outside world? It's part of the human genome. Doesn't matter where you are.
Please look at impartial statistics and studies offered on the Internet, such as a the U.S. Census Bureau, the CDC, and the APA's websites. Also, though in America some tribes would allow a same sex relationship, their partnerships were not treated in the same manner as opposite sex married couples. They were not viewed as married.
I would like to hear your take on the phenomenon of straight couples producing gay offspring. How do you explain that?
The Age of Obama? I don't think so. Please visit http://www.whitehouse.gov. His positions on gay civil rights are now identical to those of the Republican mainstream.
Don't kid yourself.
Well played, Patricia. And, yes, I'm a mother-lover.
LOVE Patricia Clarkson. she is a brilliant actress and a WONDERFUL woman. Here's to the violets Ms. Clarkson, long may they live!!! Thank you for your wonderful and expressive thoughts.
Wow, what a fabulous speech, Ms. Clarkson. I always liked you before. Now I LOVE you!!!
Readers here should visit whitehouse.gov again. Obama no longer supports repealing DOMA. He now says he is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that's all. The same as Bush during his first term. By his second term (God forbid), he will support that constitutional amendment.
There is so much confusion regarding marriage as a religious ritual and marriage as a partnership in law. I am transgendered, gay-- and a Christian.
I am very conscious of the requirement for people of faith to be ethical. Which needs first of all to be by example. Not by forcing others into conformity with my particular interpretations of the faith.
Many denominations do not recognize as valid any marriage performed outside of their church. Do those opposed to gay marriage want to make all of the unions they do not recognize illegal?
The Bible was not given fully formed; it developed over time and out of the process of settling controversies. I read Hebrew and Greek. The exact meanings of the words of both OT and NT now translated as "homosexual" are not really understood. So to claim biblical authority on this issue is not unambiguous.
What is unambiguous, and found in both OT and NT, is the commandment to treat others as you would be treated. A reminder that we are all neighbors: that whether traditionally religious or militantly atheist, we care for each other as fellow citizens. Do unto others... the greatest of inclusionary language.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
