The Prop 8 Monologues, Vol. 2 of 2: The Law is Gay

Click here for The Prop 8 Monologues, Volume 1 - What Would Ronald McDonald Do? Or don't bother. Whatever. See if I care.

I jest, of course. Your opinion completes me.

Onwards.

So even this long after the fact, I'm still rather fixated on the Election Day results of California's Proposition 8 referendum. It's intriguing that after five-and-a-half-months of legalized gay marriage, a series of regional ballots could immediately revert the state constitution to its anachronistic pre-May 15th, 2008 status. You know, back to the time before the California Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to matrimony.

In voters' defense, perhaps they may have simply been casting their ballots wistfully, yearning for a simpler time in U.S. history. You have to admit, America was a pretty glorious and carefree hangout prior to mid-May 2008.

Some examples? In February 2008, Super Bowl XLII became the second most watched television event in U.S. history, trailing only the series finale of M*A*S*H (a still-impressive silver medal try, considering Hawkeye's hilariously quotable "Keep that chicken quiet!" catchphrase). In March, a group of octogenarians calling themselves 'The Eagles' inspired the nation by touring (!) an album they recorded named Long Road Out of Eden. Adorable. And let's not forget April, in which Messrs. Harold and Kumar warmed our hearts by successfully plotting an escape from a certain soon-to-be-dismantled military prison.

Marvelous times indeed. So you see? California voters weren't necessarily anti-gay. Perhaps the irresistible sirens' call was simply luring them back to the halcyon days of yestermonth.

Also in voters' defense? Nowhere on the ballot was there a subheading that read "Upholding same-sex marriage rights will not legally mandate you to become homosexual, divorce your current opposite-sex 'better half,' and marry a newly-appointed partner of the government's choosing." For the skittish and undecided, this likely would have been a welcome crumb of context.

And this brings me to the main misconception about Prop 8. The one that states Californians feel homosexuality and marriage go together like margaritas and mayonnaise. Or sandals and sports socks. Or Madonna and a film career. That's been the commonly held belief since Election Day, n'est-ce pas? The truth however, is that despite Prop 8, gay marriage has been embraced in California since that first studio exec flew business class out of the Earth's primordial goo four billion years ago. The only twist? Well, let me drop some science on you.

Say, in the hypothetical realm (read: my fantasy realm), I were to wed uber-enchanting cable newscaster Rachel Maddow. In, I dunno, let's go with Santa Barbara. July-ish. Using this example, the only flag on the play would come from Ms. Maddow herself, given that she, as is my understanding, ain't looking for an 'M' in her 'MSNBC.' Amusingly though, Old Man California would be more than happy to slap us up with a marriage license. The real deal too, not the "just joshin' ya!" variety he was doling out to gay residents in the months leading up to Election Day. Yep, she'd be Rachel Maddow-Shehori (*), and that would be case closed, amigos.

(*) In my fantasy scenario, she's tastefully tacked my surname onto hers a la 'Eva Longoria Parker.'

You see, that's the well-kept secret about California. It's actually gaga for gay marriage! Gay gay gay, all the livelong day. As displayed above, there's simply one caveat: the marriage in question needs to be dysfunctionally gay. Permit me to bust out some bullet points. Here are California's verboten gay marriage options:

• Gay dude marries gay dude

• Lesbian marries lesbian

The problem many Golden State voters have with allowing such options? Too functional. These nuptial-minded homosexuals would have a shot at long-term monogamous happiness, a joyous sex life, and a true sense of unity. That in turn would piss off a whole whack of ballot casters, who'd be averse to having some random gay couple outwit, outlast and outplay them in the game of marriage.

Yet despite this statewide cockblock, California's government and voters have perpetually stood by their dysfunctional - and 100% legal - gay marriage options. They are:

• Lesbian marries straight dude

• Gay dude marries straight woman

• Gay dude marries lesbian

Using these figures, it would appear California already supports three out of five types of gay-based marriages! That's 60% - an impressive majority to be sure, gentle reader.

The question of course becomes, "Why would a lesbian gal marry a straight fellow, or vice-versa? Spite? Grain alcohol? A desire to move into an apartment run by a strict, Mr. Furley-esque landlord?" Hard to say for sure. But such nutty knot-tying has been going on for a "sweet-ass long time, brother" to quote Kris Kristofferson (*).

(*) Not really a quote. I could picture him using that expression, though.

Naturally, the assumption is that conservative Californians would rally against these sitcomy pairings, citing potential erosion of the 'traditional definition' of marriage. And yet this isn't the case. For reasons yet to be explained, a lion's share of the state's voters find such wacky scenarios far more reasonable than, say, two lesbian women in love hoping to legally exchange vows.

When all's said and done, one feels obliged to conclude that such a viewpoint is, well, kinda gay. Not 'homosexual gay,' but gay the way third graders say 'gay.'

Comments

[The Ghost]

Listen, See and Download the November 15th, 2008 Prop 8 Protest speeches at San Francisco City Hall, the site of Harvey Milk's Murder @ http://trifecta.tv/prop8/

[rextrek]

When LGBT people have children, those children ARE WANTED..th­ey are NOT accident by one night of drinking with a stranger you barely know.....L­GBT make great attentive and Loving parents!

[johnbdonovan]

There are sitcoms where a couple of guys are attentive and loving with a baby or toddler and everybody thinks it's hilarious because of the incongruity of it all. It doesn't really work, except for laughs. Attentive and loving isn't good enough. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Men and women are different. It's not just my sexual equipment that's different from my wife's but my child-rearing skills and the way I love my children is different -- not better but complementary to hers. The stability of society rests on this foundation and we play with it at EVERYONE'S peril.

[Vexzen]

As a CaliGirl and a lesbian, I was swept up in Obama bliss during the election. I thought that everyone who voted for Obama would obviously vote against the Prop 8. I am so fortunate to live surrounded by friends and family who don't judge me on who I love. Still, I thought a country that would vote Obama, would certainly vote for love. I am hurt and saddened and sorry for all the people who've chosen to deny something that doesn't hurt anyone, something that is such a beautiful and stabilizing force.

[johnbdonovan]

It hurts a lot of people, because marriage is meant to give stability to society by giving the maximum number of its new members the advantage of both a mother and a father. All the variations on this theme that have risen in legitimacy during the past two decades have weakened that commitment by society -- the acceptance of cohabitation, adultery, easy divorce, and homosexual liaisons being the most important. Giving legitimacy and scarce economic benefits to homosexuals would give formal legitimacy to sex outside of normal marriage. Children and social stability will be the losers.

[reversed]

"It hurts a lot of people, because marriage is meant to give stability to society by giving the maximum number of its new members the advantage of both a mother and a father."

And where are the scientific reports justifying these advantages? What are the actual advantages themselves?

"the acceptance of... easy divorce"

If you didn't have easy divorce, you would either have fewer marriages or two people married that didn't like each other. Are those things supposed to save the children and encourage social stability?

"Giving legitimacy and scarce economic benefits to homosexuals would give formal legitimacy to sex outside of normal marriage."

Great word game. You're essentially saying that you hate homosexual sex but are somehow equating the issue with "sex outside of marriage". The economic benefits argument is also bunk; if it were really about the children and they were scarce, then childless heterosexual couples wouldn't get them.

"Children and social stability will be the losers."

You went through all of that but failed to point out a single specific instance where children and social stability (between adults?) would be negatively affected.

[JakeHanson]

Funny....M­assachutes has the lowest divorce rate in the US and allows same-sex marriage.

Why is this so? Why hasn't the state of MA fallen a part? Why haven't we heard complaints about children growing up with two loving adult figures?

And your comment about "normnal marriage" is laughable, seeing how straight couples have dragged this "sacred" bond through the mud for CENTURIES.

Your argument is laced with bigotry and ignorance.

[mercury613]

Seems on every thread that has to do with same-sex marriage, you keep parroting the same talking points -- all of which sound like they were taken from a Psych 101 community college course in the 1950s. Your arguments fall flat from lack of any evidence whatsoever.

[mommapolitico]

Just so you know, Kids, there are a lotta straight folks, like me, who are Californians for gay marriage. And I don't mean the 60% options. I've always been a proponent, because I want my GLBT friends and family to have the same rights I do, in all areas. I think our side started its education campaign too late to be effective in the last election - great campaign, just too little, too late. I truly don't think we'll need to wait for long, as the polls post-election showed that a great majority wished they'd voted the other way given what they found out after the election.
Great post, by the way. You have a great voice as a writer, funny and direct! Not sure how I wound up here, but glad I did!

[jonnablu]

@mommapolitico

I appreciate your support of marriage equality for the GLBT community, That said, you can look at polls and make all the predictions you want on my civil rights. The bottom line is that Prop 8 had no business being on the ballet in the first place. I will fight it with every thread of my being until I'm truly free in my own country!! I'm not sure who these people are that 'wished they'd voted the other way' , but I do know that I want equal protection under the law and I want my civil rights back now! If Prop 8 stands it will be the first time in history that the constitution strips away a subject class of it's rights and writes discrimination into law! In other words hetero's will continue to receive the rights and privileges afforded by marriage and I will remain a second class citizen, period! How very very sad and tragic that day will be if the California supreme court upholds this tyranny!! Please put the pressure on them to do the right thing, and if they don't do whatever you can to remove each justice who voted in favor of discrimination!!

[reversed]

Would you mind pointing me to some of these polls?

[The Ghost]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_8#Opinion_polls

[JohnBisceglia]

I'll never tell, but guess how many gay men I know whom have married lesbians (lots) - BOTH parties doing so to gain immigration rights for a friend's same-sex partner - rights that COME WITH MARRIAGE.

[bbbtmenw]

I am tired of the 60% of marriage options for gay people.

For years and years, gays have married straights. Pretending to fit in for necessity. When men or woman have a career in business or politics, especially, they need to have a spouse for show, a family that looks like Mr. and Mrs. John Cue Public (or what fantasy model people have in their minds).

But, why should they be forced into these sham marriages?

It does seem okay to do this by the fake conservative right. Do they want a whole bunch of fake marriages that make people unhappy, that leave many woman looking for a new husband at retirement because hubby ran off with his "best friend", or kids being caught in the battle that may occur, the wrath?

I guess you are right. They worry we might get marriage and beat them at their own game. Maybe gay marriages will be more successful than straight marriages that at least 50% end in divorce.