Sexuality vs. Love

Author's Note:  This blog is reprinted from my previous blogsite published at Powodzenia.wordpress.com on June 3, 2010.  With the debate raging about marriage relative to procreation and sex, I was encouraged to rethink our language in this topic.   

As we continue having debates regarding rights, freedoms, and full citizenship for people in same-gender relationships, we may want to conserve our energy and make our discussions more efficient and accurately reflective of every type of relationship.

As I watched Current TV, the channel developed by former vice-president Al Gore, and Illinois senator, Al Franken (D), I heard a woman say that these debates, especially those going toward the U.S. Supreme Court, are made more challenging because the word sex is involved. The word to which she was referring was, ”Homosexuality.”

If it’s really an issue, why not use a different word? The Latin word, “homo,” means, “same.” “Hetero,” mean “different.” The Latin root, “amor,” means, “love.”

Homoamorous means two people of the same gender love one another.

Heteroamorous means two people of different genders love one another.

So, why not change the word. It’s not as though we’re using ancient or sacred words to describe our relationships. “Homosexuality” was coined on May 6, 1869 by Karoly Maria Benkert, a 19th Century Hungarian physician, who first broke with traditional thinking when he suggested that people are born homosexual and that it is unchangeable. With that belief as his guide, he fought the Prussian legal code against homosexuality that he described as having ”repressive laws and harsh punishments (Conrad and Angel, 2004).”

One would suspect that Dr. Benkert would appreciate this change in lexicon so that we change our focus in this debate from sex to love. John and Frank are not two people in sex. They are two people in love. Deborah and Sheila are not two women who spend their lives sexing each other, they are two women loving each other. This is especially true because homosexuality has been demedicalized in so many ways.

If we’re going to have to have this debate in the first place, let’s speak accurately about the people involved. We are homoamorous people. We are two people of one gender who are in love. Those in opposite gender relationships are heteroamorous.

How complicated can that be? If I were to approach someone and ask them if they’d like a slice of bread, their first question is likely, “What kind is it?” As a people, we love clarity. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are simply not clear enough terms for the breadth of our relationship. Homoamorosity and heteroamorosity are clear winners when it comes to describing the relationships with which I am most familiar.

Sexuality is an important, if not a terribly time consuming part of most marriage relationships. It helps motivate our interest in a particular person whose gender is consistent with what we prefer; however, that, too, is not always the case.

Is it unthinkable that two people can have a relationship that is purely emotional in form, without sex, who continue to love one another nonetheless? Ask many people who are of a certain age.

Homoamorosity and heteroamorosity are not only options for the terms homosexuality and heterosexuality, they might even be the preferred forms given their more emotionally inclusive qualities.

My mother used to say, when trying to get the direct truth out of me, “Jim, call a spade a spade.” Although I never played bridge, from which this term comes, I knew what she meant. Name something as it is. I now get that message all the more clearly.

Thanks, Mom.
__________________________

References:

2010, Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

Conrad, P., & Angell, A. (2004). Homosexuality and remedicalization. Society, 41(5), 32-39. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

After Some Thought on Proposition 8

It must seem unfathomable that a writer who would be directly impacted by Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling on Proposition 8 in California would wait an entire month to put his thoughts down about the event.  Perhaps as it is with the gravity of the ruling itself, the weight of my thoughts required a thoughtful approach to this concern.

On August 4, 2010, Judge Walker ruled in the California's Third District Court of Appeals that there was no reason to allow Proposition 8, the California law that prohibits consenting, unrelated people over the age of majority, gay folk in particular, to stand.  The ruling effectively permits all eligible people to marry regardless of their genders.  Although the door appeared to be flung wide open, Judge Walker wisely approved a stay of his decision awaiting a decision by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown whether they would appeal the decision in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.  When the word was released that neither State official was willing to make that appeal, the defendent-intervenors such as the Pacific Justice Institute approached the Ninth Circuit to request permission to appeal on their own, which is currently awaiting a hearing, most likely transpiring in November 2010.

In November, most likely after the election, a decision will be made whether the defendent-intervenors can appeal.  If they cannot, then it is clear they will attempt to take the case to the United States Supreme Court.  If the Justices determine that the case will not be heard before them, then Judge Walker's final decision will stand. 

Between the cases in Massachusetts regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Proposition 8 case in California, the country is facing what it believes to be a cultural shift of monumental proportions.  It cannot be understated that when we define marriage as a legal contract between two people regardless of gender, it is a significant change in perception.  The irony, of course, is that we are behind the rest of the world in this process.  As Americans, we are once again under the misapprehension that until we make a decision like this, it hasn't really happened.  Our arrogance is unmatched around the globe.  The Netherlands has had marriage equality since 2000.  We are not breaking new ground.

Why is it that countries as diverse as The Netherlands, South Africa, Iceland, and Argentina, have found their way to recognize full marriage rights for all their citizens and the United States is still behaving as though we are trying to take something away from a specific segment of the population by providing rights to all citizens?  Could it be our Puritan background?  Not likely since the Puritans were so revolutionary as to believe they had such an innate freedom of religion that they moved across the Atlantic Ocean to build a society in which their personal freedoms were recognized.  This was during the 16th and 17th centuries.  Now, of course, we have other groups asking for the same freedoms and recognition of their belief systems, and our "as it's always been done" powerbase is attempting to deny those freedoms.

The tide is changing.  During the 1960s, when President Lyndon B. Johnson prepared to sign the Civil Rights Act, people began separating themselves from the discriminatory stance they had held for so long because they didn't want to be part of the losing team, members of which included the Ku Klux Klan.  Today, centrist Republicans are beginning to choose equality instead of discrimination.  Slowly, people are recognizing they will be the losers in a battle of wisdom and awakening.  That's not a good place to find oneself, especially if one is facing an upcoming election.

At a personal level, I know that in 100 years, equality in marriage will be as accepted by the majority as equal right for the races is today.  Our great-great-grandchildren will wonder what the fuss was all about.  Grandpa Tom and his husband, Papa Cal, are like a lot of other people's grandparents.  The economy will flourish with extravagent weddings between homoamorous people.  They will no longer be called gay weddings, they'll just be weddings.  Forms will say, "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2."  In 100 years, we will have settled into our comfort zone about equality, and there will be less room for discrimination against any other people.  Perhaps it is my American idealism that leads me to believe in these joyful dreams.  If history is any indicator, we will find someone else against whom to focus our disgust and animosity; however, I hope not. 
______________________

References:

Advocate.com (2010) [Marriage rings and map of Argentina] Retrieved from http://www.advocate.com/uploadedImages/ARGENTINA_MARRIAGEX390.jpg.

Hoan, Tony (2009) [Defend Equality, Love Unites]. My portfolio.usc.edu. Graphic art. Retrieved from http://myportfolio.usc.edu/tonyhoan/6a00d8341c730253ef010535ee7bfe970b-640wi.jpg.

LaVictoire, Bridgette P. (2010, September 9) "California governor and attorney general not required to appeal Walker ruling."  Lezgetreal.com. Retrieved from http://lezgetreal.com/2010/09/californias-governor-and-attorney-general-not-requires-to-appeal-walker-ruling/.

Mintz, Howard (2010) "Federal judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage."  San Jose Mercury News, MercuryNews.com.  Retrieved on September 5, 2010 from  http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15677407?nclick_check=1.

Rinaldi, Richard (2005) [William and Roy]. http://www.renaldi.com/. Gay and Lesbian Elderly. Photograph, Black & White.  Retrieved from  http://www.renaldi.com/portfolio/williamandroy.jpg on September 5, 2010.

Rulings on Two DOMA Cases

Judge Joseph Tauro, a federal judge in the Commonwealth of Massachussets, recently ruled on two cases regarding Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In both instances, it was determined that this section of DOMA was unconstitutional by virtue of violations of not one, but two amendments to the Constitution.  In ruling that DOMA was contrary to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, equal protection under the law, and the Tenth Amendment, the right of states to make their own laws about marriage, and to have those laws recognized by the federal government, Judge Tauro opened another door toward recognizing inclusive marriage rights for both hetero- and homoamorous couples in the United States.  An excellent article on the details of these cases was written by Lisa Keen in Bay Windows, a large, New England periodical that caters to the LGBT community, entitled, "Doma decision released."

Although the response to the Fifth Amendment was vitally important because it recognizes the inequality among citizens of the U.S., the ruling on the Tenth Amendment held the greatest movement forward.  By stating that state laws that were not otherwise contraindicated by federal law must be recognized by the federal government, homoamorous couples could be recognized by the federal government as married.  Recognizing all marriages as valid at the federal level will provide greater weight to the discussion supporting inclusive marriage.

The U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court are still ahead in the battle for marriage equality.  There is nothing wrong with due process.  One of the best ways to communicate change is to define one's terms.  Marriage is... Marriage is not...  These blanks must be filled in at the legislative, judiciary, and social levels to be effective. 

As California awaits the ruling on Proposition 8 in San Francisco, this timely message comes as yet another ray of hope for those who so deeply desire to marry the person they love.  It seems that slowly, the term "gay marriage" is being replaced by "marriage equality" and "inclusive marriage."  This is an important delineation because at the legal level, there should only be one "marriage." 

The cases before the courts right now relate only to civil marriages.  In 2010, every marriage in this country that is found in a state's Bureau of Vital Statistics is a civil marriage.  Although it may be performed by a minister and sanctified by a church, the marriage license itself is for a civil marriage, not a religious one.  Our nation is beginning to understand this concept.  Lawmakers, judges, and voters can no more legislate faith than religious leaders can determine law.  Communist countries legislate religious practice.  Theocracies allow religious tenets to directly affect law.  Although there is a morality to our laws, the United States is a republic that practices democracy.  U.S. citizens have the best seat in the house to see that difference at a national level right now, and it looks good.