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.

Dr. Laura's Broader Message

Dr. Laura Schlessinger has a large following of listeners for her radio program.  Her devoted fans believe she offers advice that is full of tough love and expressions of vivid opinion.  To others, she is also an excellent example of the entitlement and arrogance some Americans have, no matter what their personal histories may include.  I have a special interest in Dr. Laura because our paths crossed indirectly many years ago. 

Dr. Laura's on-air use of the n-word recently brought to light once again her blind disregard for someone else's feelings as she spoke with an African-American woman who was seeking guidance from this 1974 Columbia University PhD in physiology, not psychology or psychiatry.  Considering her doctoral thesis was about insulin, I might trust her more with my blood sugar levels than with my life crises.  Her history on the radio has been reflected on the political right as dynamic and outspoken.  From the left, she is often described as cruel, racist, and backward. 

Her current right-wing values are apparently set in stone to counteract the effects from, as she has described, an unloving, dysfunctional, mixed Jewish-Roman Catholic childhood in Brooklyn, New York.  It seems that she has idealized what she perceives as a perfect life, and anything that doesn't reflect that dreamworld is horrible and wrong, including mixed marriages ("If you can't handle it, you shouldn't have married outside your race.") to gays and lesbians (homosexuality is a "biological error."), to uncomfortable personal histories ("A hypocrit is someone who says, 'Do as I say, not as I do.'  A teacher is someone who says, "Do as I say, not as I did.'").

With her history of being a participant in an extramarital affair, nude photographs, vitriolic rants, and examples of personal human frailties and dichotomies, one would assume that she would be sensitive to others' challenging life experiences.  Rather, it seems she has taken her difficult personal history, criticized herself into a pulp about it, and decided to punish everyone else for their similar shortcomings in the process.  She does all this with a marriage and family counseling certificate from California that expires in February 2011.  She has avoided lawsuits by calling her radio show a, "moral health program," and not a psychological help program. 

That isn't to say Dr. Laura hasn't done wonderful things.  She has participated in charity work, been active in important public discussions, and offered support to those who think like she does.  Does her message, though, offset all those good works?

 In 2001, Dr. Laura received a call from a parent whose child was in my class.  She was upset over a choice I had made that removed lyrics from a piece of music that referred to God. 

We were doing a holiday concert in December, and one of the songs I had selected was, "Let There Be Peace," words and music by Sy Miller and Jill Jackson.  In the arrangement I used, there were words that read, "... with God as our father, brothers all are we."  There were also alternate lyrics offered that were not christian-based.  As a teacher in a public school, I chose to use the more secular version of the song.  The parent called Dr. Laura to express her upset and find out what she should do.  The discussion garnered calls from various people demanding that I return to the original lyrics. 

I was called into my administrator's office, explained my reasoning, and told him that I would not change it back.  He was completely supportive of my arguments of inclusion and non-sectarian lyrics.  We used the alternate lyrics in the concert.  For one brief and shining moment, I was a topic on Dr. Laura.  All I could think at the time, "Is this really all these people have to worry about?"  It was, after all, only three months after the attack on the Twin Towers in New York City on  9/11. 

There is a division between church and state.  All men [people] are created equal.  People have free will.  People have the freedom of choice in speech, religion, and politics in the United States of America.  I wonder if someone will tell Dr. Laura soon.  It seems she hasn't heard these pieces of news. 

When she was interviewed on Larry King Live on CNN.com, she expressed her apology for using the n-word 11 times to a Black woman on air.  She then went on to say people should have a sense of humor and not be so hypersensitive to others' comments.  She simply doesn't understand that she lives in a country full of "others."  Perhaps, now that she is leaving her radio show to pursue regaining her First Amendment rights, she'll have time to figure it out; but, I doubt it.

______________________________________
   
References:

(2010) "Laura Schlessinger." Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Schlessinger

Miller, S.; Johnson, J. (2010) "Let There Be Peace." Choral work. Carl Fischer Publishing. SAB Version. Retrieved from  http://g.sheetmusicplus.com/Look-Inside/covers/4386196.jpg

Dr. Laura Schlessinger (2010) Getty Images.  Retrieved from http://en.terra.com/addon/img/c79d9a-dr-laura-schlessinger-wordp.jpg

Got Ignorance? Apparently, I do!

As much as I'd sometimes like to sit comfortably in my ivory tower, glowering down on mere mortals in vulturous disdain, as I liberally evaluate others' ignorance and mental putridity, I can't.  It turns out that I am the one who so wholly lacks self-awareness that when I read the transcript of the Proposition 8 closing remarks to the court trial, I realized just how foolish I've been for the last half-century.

As a child of the 1960s (not the very cool metropolitan hippie, but a traditional boy from the mountains), I was reared with the unspoken, or perhaps, at times, spoken, discrimination toward gay folk.  As a gay child in that era, I knew they meant me.  My coping mechanisms were fairly sophisticated for someone so young.  I learned to adapt to the disrespect, ignore it, and live my life within the boundaries provided.  The truth is, I've never given a damn what people think of my homoamorosity.  Sure, when I was in fifth grade and my classmates called me queer, homo or sissy, it stung.  My tools were to develop a great sense of humor and a caustic tongue with which to come back at my aggressors.  As I said, I adapted.

That early training took me a long way in my life.  I reared my five children as an openly gay man.  I've worked in the office of the State Health Director as an openly gay man.  I've taught school as an openly gay man.  I had my religious wedding ceremony to my husband in 2006 as an openly gay man.  With all of these success, in the recesses of my heart, I had tacitly accepted at some level the fact that I was not afforded the same rights as my heteroamorous friends to marry the man that I love. 

Don't get me wrong, I've written blogs about acquiring the right to marry.  I written letters to the President of the United States and Governor Schwarzenothing about this very topic.  Yet, today, as I was reading this amazing 164-page document, that can be found at the EqualRightsFoundation.org website, I suddenly woke up from a nearly-51 year slumber.  My eyes shuttered open to my own words:

"You are asking for permission to do something that most everyone else takes for granted, from people who never had the right to keep it from you in the first place!" 

The truth is I was appalled at my lack of insight into my own true feelings about this.  I am hurt, and angry, and utterly disturbed by this new light in which I am both basking and baking.

As I read the words on the screen from the defendant-intervenors' (Pro-Prop 8) attorney, Mr. Cooper, I felt as though I had traveled through time to the courtroom of Loving v. The State of Virginia when interracial marriage was being debated, or to the bar where Brown v. The Board of Education was decided.  As we look back on those times, most of us realize how hateful those cruel laws had been.  In the eras that they originated, however, they made perfect sense to the authors, as Mr. Cooper's words made to him.  He began by quoting E. J. Graff, a same-sex advocate, from Brandeis University:

 "'If same-sex marriage becomes legal, that venerable institution will ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers.'

"That really goes to the heart of the concern of many people, that redefining it will -- will effectively divorce the institution of marriage from its historic core procreative purposes.

"The second point, Your Honor, in addition that redefining it would inevitably change it, is that it is not possible to predict with certainty and confidence what that change will beget. It seems simply undeniable that a change that is as profound as this one, I would submit undeniably would be, would have some consequences. (www.equalrightsfoundation.org, 2010, p. 137)"

For a moment, I thought these were the closing arguments of Chicken Little in Little v. The Sky.  "Marriage is falling! Marriage is falling!"  It makes no sense.  My marriage to my husband is strong enough to withstand almost anything that comes along.  If someday, God forbid, it ends, it will be because we have chosen for it to end or one of us dies.  It will never come to a close because anyone else got married.  Others' marriages didn't prevent us from getting married in the first place.  It is ludicrous to think that two men or two women getting married will change anything but the legal definition of a powerful word to be more inclusive. 

Marriage, in its purest form, is what two people agree it is.  Society has general guidelines, but an actual, day-to-day marriage is chosen by two individuals. 

When I married my now-former wife, we didn't marry specifically to have children, although we had several.  We actually had a daughter before our nuptials.  We chose to wait to make sure we were marrying each other for reasons that had to do with the two of us rather than those related to our child.  It was a good decision.  All together, we were married for 14 years.

It was for similar reasons that my husband, David, and I married.  No one dictates what our marriage is but David and me.  We do not dictate how others should manage their marriages, although my children may suggest that I've wanted to do otherwise from time to time.  The most important factor is that no one prevented us from marrying one another in ceremony.  Although it was not sanctioned by the State of California, our spirits were united in love and dedication in full support of our community.  Our marriage has amplified the best in both of us and in our connection with our village.  We have a domestic partnership and a twelve year history together, but I have to wonder how our lives would be different if we could actually marry in the same way my mother and father did?  I know that there would be a new sense of first class citizenship in our state.  I know that we would not have to explain what our relationship history has been.

"Well, we registered as domestic partnership in 2005 and had our ceremony in 2006, but we didn't get married when it was available because we wanted to wait until everyone could marry."

Mom and Dad just said, "This is my husband/wife."  That's it.  Everyone understood.  Everyone accepted it as it was.  No questions, no explanations.  How lovely would that be?

As I sit at my desk, likely closer to death than to birth, I look at the calendar and read, "2010."  We have meandered our way through millions of years of history on this clod of soil and water and we are only now wondering if every adult, without exception, should have the right to marry?  How is that even possible?

So, to my children and grandchildren, and to those who have looked to me for guidance over the years, I ask forgiveness for my lack of clarity on this particular issue.  If I had been a better example, you would have seen me sell my belongings to march in Washington.  I would have taken a leadership role in this fight.  I would have followed in my valiant father, Floyd Glica's footsteps in addressing this issue.  It's not too late.

To whom do I owe my happiness?  To whom do I ultimately answer for my actions?   The answer I taught my children was, "To your God and to your mirror... preferably in that order."   We answer to the community for actions only in that we are responsible for behaving in ways that are, at best, loving, and at least, not hurtful.  When we take our last breath, however, we are only responsible in those two most important places.  We must live and die with our choices. 

In the tradition of the Twelve Step Program, I must now make amends to my society by taking appropriate, remedial actions for my failures of the past.  I have learned from my path and now my path has changed. 

I am making a new choice. I am adding my voice and action to this important movement of change. First, as I've said in a previous essay, I will no longer refer to myself as homosexual.  I am homoamorous.  This is about who I love, not with whom I have sex.  My sex life is none of anyone else's business.  Second, my focus will be to ensure an inclusive definition of marriage. I am no longer fighting for my right to legally marry.  I am now on a course to remind those in power that I already have that right (see my photo below).  Lawmakers are now obligated to fix the laws to reflect our inalienable right to marry in the pursuit of our happiness. 

This is my voice.  This is my pride.  This is our time.

____________________

References

(2010). Transcript of Closing Arguments. Perry, et al., v. Schwarzenegger, et al. Retrieved from http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Perry-Vol-13-6-16-10. pdf, p. 137

Candito, Nicolas (2006) [Glica-Hernandez Wedding]. Photograph used by permission of photographer.

Sexuality vs. Love

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 is simply not clear enough for the breadth of our relationship. Homoamorosity and heteroamorosity are clear winners when it comes to describing the gay relationships with which I am most familiar.

Sexuality is an important, if not 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.