beetiger | They're scared. I'm scared.

Current Mood: discouraged

They're scared. I'm scared.

I guess there's something positive about the fact that the President and the Pope, two major world leaders, feel like they have to talk about gay marriage. It means things are happening, and the conservative world is nervous. But it kind of kicks me out of the lazy mindset I have now and again, the mindset that says that we're nearly there on queer acceptance, and that church and state really are separated just like it says in the books.

I asked

sythyry whether we could move to Canada soon. He reminded me that we're already married.

I actually have my ministerial credentials in NY now, through the Pagan Temple to which I belong. One of the dreams I have for my lifetime is to be able to officiate at a legal gay marriage here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I hate polls -- but I'm still really scared that Gallup reported that the number of people who fully support gay rights in this country dropped from 60% in May to 48% last week.

I just don't understand why gay marriage is such a sticking point for some people ... it shows that, no matter how open and accepting they CLAIM to be, deep down they still don't accept gay relationships as legitimate.

What puzzles me most if that the majority of people in the US are not fundys, so they don't even have the justification of having insane zealots telling them what to think. Then again, if the poll saying that almost 50% of the US populace accepts creationism none of this surprises me, it very much feels like time to move.

A while back, I got into a discussion with a coworker about GLBT issues in the workplace. He and I did not work on the same team, but we had to interact on a fairly regular basis. I was shocked to find out that he was uncomfortable working with a coworker who had come out fairly recently, and was being open about his life (not obnoxiously - I know the guy - he just had a picture of his partner and him together, and referred to his partner in the same context that a het coworker would refer to a spouse or S.O.). I had thought that my coworker knew I was bi, considering I have the biangles and rainbow splotch on my car, and his wife could not have missed those when she acted as my realtor a few years back, sewed to my hip for weeks of house-hunting.

Fast-forward: The coworker was laid off last fall. He called me a few weeks ago, and surprisingly, it turns out that he did know, but since I'm more reticent about specific details of my life (I'm not sure what would throw people more, the polyamory or the BDSM), he could deal with the knowledge of my non-het life.

I've noticed this sort of thing before, though not as personally as this situation. I have a theory.

I think a lot of mainstream het people can deal with GLBT issues as abstractions, as ideas that hover below the radar level, but when the issues pop up on the radar level, and stay there for a while, those people become uncomfortable.

As far as why - I don't have a theory for that.

"I don't mind gay people, as long as they act straight in public."

I don't understand the attitude either. I suppose ... I suppose it's kind of like how people with racist parents are often very nervous around anyone of other races.

They feel creeped out. Then they feel guilty about feeling creeped out. Then they feel confused because they don't know how to assuage the guilt. They just want the problem -- i.e., the person -- to go away.

...

I've got a button sitting on my desk with a picture of Drezzer Wolf (http://www.suburbanjungle.com/) and the caption 'I call myself gay 'cause that's what I am!' I love the button ... but I've never worn it out in public.

I never know what'll happen.

I'm waiting for the first court case...one where a couple gets married in Canada (Canadian marriages, as far as I know, are accepted here in the US), comes back, and is told they aren't married. The ramifications legally are mindboggling...and will affect all overseas marriages. The US is gonna have a problem saying it will accept only *certain kinds* of out-of-country marriages, me thinks.

I would love to see this happen, although you might want to read this article, in particular the part that says:

In 1996, President Clinton signed the congressionally-enacted Defense of Marriage Act, Daschle noted, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allowed states to ignore same-sex unions licensed elsewhere.

This is complete crap. I want Dick Cheney for president. At least he's a dick who supports gay marriages, unlike the dick in the Oval Office right now.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out in federal court, should it ever get there. (This in consideration of the the fact that several european countries allow it as well. Of course, I'm not sure how they deal with countries that allow multiple marriages either...) Wonder how that affects International Law/Tready provisions? Not being a lawyer of any stripe, that part I'm in the dark about.

I would love to see the US bullied into complying on this issue. I doubt it will happen, but I'd like to see it.

What is gratifying is that although the numbers still say that those in favor of gay marriages are still under half, the fact that it's above 45% is AMAZING. It will take more time, but it's inevitible. I believe that it is, anyway.

This already happens, polygamous marriages that are legal in some countries are not accepted in the US. Sadly there is an old precedent for this foolish nonsense. Gods we need an actual liberal for a president to help sort this sort of bigoted crap out. Unfortunately, all of the Democrats who have a chance are (at best) spineless pseudo-liberals like Clinton.

Good morning, dear. :) I see that you're being affected by the same alarm clock that a lot of others are being woken up by. I figure that we've been asleep for way too long.

I don't know that I'm asleep. It's just I'm not the type who can live every day fighting, and I tend to surround myself with more of a subcultural, if diverse, mix than I remember some days.

*grins* We're all deviants.. but we're so damned good at it! ;)

Move to Canada anyways! We could always use more radicals, it'll keep Alberta on its toes.

When me and

luminafaux get around to doing the whole marriage thing, we'll come to you =>

Oh, I'd love that!

Bush is probably speaking his tiny little mind, altho Karl Rove may have pulled his string; the Prince of Darkness there may see this as a way to rally the support of the Christian Right at a time when Bush's presidency is in deep trouble. It's telling that although he couldn't quite say it, Bush clearly feels homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the One True Religion.
Obviously, like everyone else on this thread, I disagree, and someone should remind W about that whole separation of church and state business -- he has a bad case of absent-mindedness on that topic. But apart from that, is stopping gay marriage really foremost on the mind of our President at this point, and if so, _why_? Is gay marriage more of a threat than Al Qaida? I feel compelled to quote Get Your War On's comments about "freedom fries" from earlier this year:
"It just proves that nobody is taking this shit seriously. We're about to go to war AGAIN! Would somebody please act like a fucking grown-up for once?! Get back to work managing our WARS!"

*softhug*

Thirty years ago, my marriage to

misseli would have been illegal -- and, in many parts of the country, gotten me lynched.

Nowadays, it's not even mildly remarkable.

The same change will take place in American society. It'll be slow but steady.

You'll get your wish.

Sigh... can somebody air the gender out of gay marriage and just say that anyone in a commited relationship can have it officially recogized? I really don't want to have to spend more energy to re-fight this battle once other genders, intersex, nongenders, and gender variants are recognized.

*waits a long time*

That should be enough to make Dubya's brain pop out though.

Actually, if I had my druthers, marriage would be purely an affair of church, and the government would recognize _only_ "civil unions", of which marriage was only one type, regardless of the gender of all involved. That way we'd strengthen the divide between church and state, and maybe even open the door to recognition of triads and quartets (if that's the right word).
Which is pretty much what you were suggesting anyway... :)

I actually just got done saying in another LJ pretty much this exact thing. Though, I would push it one step further. If we're going to make marriage a religious institution, then the government ought to either endorse all religious marriages, or none of them. That means repealing the laws against bigamy and polygamy in general, as well as DoMA.

I think, amusingly, that taking this tack might well get the Mormons on "our" side, or at least off the side of the Catholics. They've been the second-largest financial contributor to the anti-same-sex-marriage campaigns out there, but if we were able to turn the argument into one of endorsing all religious marriages and not just the mainstream Christian ones, they might well hesitate in their feverish opposition, 'cause then they could go back to their original practice of taking as many wives as they could afford to feed.

Of course, in a nod to an earlier comment in this thread, we're going to go through this again when the intersexual, ambisexual, ambigendered, and other gender-fluid groups make themselves public. Of course, they're going to screw with far more than just the marriage laws. Which public restroom does someone who does not consider zirself to be either male or female use when those are the only options? Flip a coin? Jessie and I have already spent many evenings discussing this very topic.

Then, we're going to go through it all over again when the transhumanists come out of the woodwork.

I think the thing to do is consider now what term we want to stick on that movement. Historically, saying "rights for X" never gets interpreted as "equal rights" but instead as "special treatment". Thus, rights for blacks became Civil Rights, rights for women became Equal Rights, and rights for homosexuals became Human Rights.

I wonder if this last is going to shoot us in the foot when the transhumanists and posthumans do indeed start cropping up and making demands, 'cause if we just got done giving rights to humans, what's next? Don't sit on the chairs?

PERSONAL RIGHTS NOW! Next you'll ask me what a person is, I'm sure....

Kristy

You should use the restroom containing people who you are not sexually interested in and who are not sexually interested in you.

Gay or Bi people have to use private single-person restrooms, less they be overcome by lust.

People who aren't attracted to anyone can use either restroom, as long as they're ugly.

Damn. I think I'd better take to going out and peeing in the woods. :)

As long as government and private institutions recognize the concept of family (for example, letting only "family" in to see a sick person in the hospital), we need an official way to include people with whom one is in a relationship as family. We can't all get certified as ministers in order to gain access to the ones we love, though the thought is intriguing.

I was also thinking about this case as well, in which a lesbian couple in Texas were married since one of them is trans. It made me think about the tradeoff between accepting the government's identity in order to get their approval. Of course, I know a few people who just happen to fit the male/female category close enough that they were able to marry so it does work out sometimes. I wonder if they would want to re-marry if the government expanded their definition of who can marry.

I am COMPLETELY in favor of changing the laws about marriage (which is a religious institution) to recognize civil unions instead.

But then, I also don't think that churches should have any legal benefits beyond those of other non-profit organizations, I don't think religious officials should be able to perform legal marriages unless they're also justices or notaries, I don't think Bibles should be exempt from sales tax, and I don't think that religious celebrations should be federal holidays, nor should they be observed in schools.

I'm funny that way. :)

Well NYC (and other places) have same sex unions you can register at city hall. Not the same, but it does give couples some sort of legal protection. Which is all marriage SHOULD be. A legal contract. What your religion wants to do, it SHOULD be allowed to do.

I'm Quaker -- they do same sex weddings. The government does not recognize them. So the government, in some way, is legitimizing the beliefs of some religions over other religions, which is stupid, too. Just do the civil unions for two people of legal age who want a relationship like that, and let the churches and temples and circles and so on do what they want, without judgement, since it would be a different ceremony.

In Germany, you need to have a civil wedding. Even if you have a Church one, you need a civil one. That's how it should be. The religious one isnt enough. (At least that is how it was years ago.)

For those who want similar benefits, next of kin sort of stuff, did you know that adults can adopt each other? I've read of it before, I think thats pretty wild.

You're Quaker? Rock on! So am I! Our meeting marched in the Toronto Gay Pride Parade :)

Well, working on it -- but 'almost Quaker' sounds funny!

Apparently the NY Meeting has been at every Gay Pride Parade since inception, and at the night of the Stonewall riots they opened their doors for the people on the streets in trouble, giving them a safe space/sanctuary. In fact some people who marched that day said that they brought this up at the reviewing stand this year.

I'm too shy to write the letter -- I want to give it more time. It took me long enough (five YEARS) to get the nerve to go there at all. I'm funny that way. Born Catholic and stuff. Easily intimidated. ;)

I'm Quaker -- they do same sex weddings.

The Unitarian-Universalists, with whom I'm also associated, do same-sex union ceremonies, and have for decades, and are one of the few religious organizations possibly getting involved on the pro-gay-marriage side.

The opponents to same-sex marriage being afraid can be both a good thing and a bad thing.

Good thing would be...people who are afraid can make hasty/rash errors that end up getting them into deeper trouble. I am hoping Bush's decision to finally come off the fence and declare that he firmly and unshakably believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman will be one of the solid mistakes that ends with him losing his re-election bid.

On the other paw, the bad thing would be that in an attempt to stop gay marriage from happening, they'll just dig up more hate. And you know how some very prejudiced people react to hate. Beatings/killings.

Yeah...gotta love how they 'love thy neighbor'...'love him with a tire iron until he don't move no more, Bubba! He's one o' dem dere queers.' If they pass an amendment and it stays through any challenges that are made on it, then this will no longer be a land of the free. Canada will take over that title (seems like it's gotten ahead of the US already a bit as it is).

I thought you'd like this Ozy and Millie strip.

rain_luong really has a way of saying things perfectly!!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

They're scared. I'm scared.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Repeating myself redundantly.

Re: Repeating myself redundantly.

Re: Repeating myself redundantly.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Erm...

no subject