First, a few housekeeping chores to which I must attend before continuing on to the diary:
- "Homosexuality" and "Homosexual" are, for the purposes of this diary, umbrella terms that cover (include) gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans-gendered folks, and questioning folks. This is done to avoid awkward sentence structure, to make for easier reading, to avoid any obfuscation, and to prevent (or at least try to prevent) any misunderstanding. PS: I know that this group is usually referred to by the acronym "GLBTQ," but that could also lend itself to awkward sentence structure, et al, so I decided not to use it.
- This diary is designed mainly along the lines of an Op-Ed piece, so any references or sources used will be listed in a section called "References," and placed at the bottom of the diary.
- This is a long diary. Please bear with me as I tell the story. I think you'll be glad you did (at least, I hope you will be).
TEASER: Now, this diary is about gay marriage. but there's so much more. Come on below the fold. Take a magical journey. It won't even cost you one thin dime. Honest. ~~ And now, on to the diary.
To begin with, sexuality is a
genetic trait, the same as eye color, hair color, height, etc. To call it a "preference" misrepresents the reality that sexual orientation is simply one part of everybody's
genetic code. OK, I will admit it; this is what I have figured out by doing reams of research over the years. I am pretty sure that many others will vehemently disagree with me. That's cool, because here's the important thing. When we start seriously talking about this issue, we will be able to figure out the logistics to ensure that
all of our citizens are
finally fully protected under the law. This is vitally important because, after all, it is already guaranteed in the 9th and 14th amendments, to name just 2 places where such is promised / guaranteed for all Americans. If we dare to call ourselves a nation of laws, then we damn well better practice what we preach, right?
From Civil Rights Overview: (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/topics/civil_rights.html):
"Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual preference" {emphasis mine}.
Please take note: all other references and resources used in this diary will be grouped in a section called "References" that, as noted above, will be located at the end of the diary.
Let me share an example that will, hopefully, better explain why this is necessary:
Item #1: I am a light-brown-eyed, black-haired, 5'10", heterosexual female. All four traits are things that I am, not things that I chose. I did not choose to be heterosexual. It's just what I am. The only choice I made was how to express it (meaning I chose to marry my spouse, Greg {we eloped}). But I didn't choose to be heterosexual, any more than I chose to have light brown eyes, or to be taller than 90% of the women in my age group.
Item #2: Let's look at my sister, Lisa. She is a hazel-eyed, light brown-haired, 5'8", homosexual female. All four traits are things that she is, not things that she chose. She did not choose to be homosexual. It's just what she is. The only choice she made was how to express it (meaning she chose to commit to her spouse, Sue {and I got to officiate at the ceremony!}). But she didn't choose to be homosexual, any more than she chose to have hazel eyes, or to be the average height for women in her age group.
To further clarify this; the only difference between us is that I was given the right to marry my spouse, and she was denied the right to marry her spouse. We are both Americans, over the age of 18, college-educated, and considered of sound mind and body. I was given equal protection under the law (guaranteed by both the 9th and 14th amendments), but she was not. Why? Because I am a member of the majority and she is not.
This is what makes the issue of gay marriage so important. Because it's not just about marriage, it's about equal protection under the law. It means that this is much larger than just the one issue, albeit a vitally important issue.
The next (rather large) section may be completely repugnant and utterly disgusting to some who read it. Please believe me when I say that I am simply trying to get at least one person to imagine what life would be like if the shoe were on the other foot. If I can get more than one to envision this, I will be intensely ecstatic, and possibly even more hopeful that there is a chance to ensure that all Americans will be treated as full-fledged citizens, in both public and private life. Truly, that is my goal, here at my starting place. Remember, you have been duly warned.
Imagine, if you will, a country (let's call it Cornflower, for the sake of this example) where homosexuals are the majority and heterosexuals are the minority. Homosexuals are the only ones in the Executive branch, in the Judicial branch, and in the Legislative branch (except for one lone heterosexual in the Lower House). Let me take you on a short tour of Cornflower (estimated population: 250 million people, of which about 10%-15% are thought to be heterosexual {it's hard to get accurate numbers when people are afraid to admit what they are, for fear of reprisals}).
Now in Cornflower, laws were enacted in patchwork-fashion, over many years, criminalizing some or all acts associated with heterosexuality. In some states, vaginal penetration was illegal (though rarely enforced), in others, even showing simple, non-explicit affection in public was criminalized and punished. All of the states were basically winging it because they had no clear direction from the federal government, and some were much harsher than others in their persecution of heterosexuals. Also, most major religions swore that heterosexuality was simply a choice, and that if "hetero" people would just put in a little bit of effort, then they could be cured, (meaning they would be homosexual), and then everyone could finally live happily ever after. Some religious leaders (and their religions) even proclaimed to heterosexuals that they were indeed damned, and sure to burn in hell, since God loves only homosexuals, and He will severely punish and totally condemn anyone who is heterosexual. They assured everyone that all heterosexuals are forever doomed, since they are all defying His divine laws (even though Cornflower's Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees separation of church and state). They even pointed to their particular Sacred Text (pick one, there's plenty of them around) passages that proved their point (supposedly). These religious leaders organized and become very powerful (and are known, collectively, as "The Religious Coalition," implying that they include all religious leaders, even though they don't), even to the point of being able to dictate to the President how heterosexuals must be treated in Cornflower. Now we are in the present time --
The Religious Coalition starts setting public policy, forcing public institutions that receive federal money to refuse treatment or admittance or membership or whatever to heterosexuals -- or they will lose their federal aid. They are able to scare professional politicians into doing their bidding by threatening to unseat them in the next election. They organize their congregants to proselytize and try to "save" heterosexuals, even when the targeted heterosexuals say they don't want such attention. They even take to the airways (both radio and television) to exhort listeners/viewers to get out there and help them eradicate the heterosexual threat that is going to completely destroy Cornflower. Believe it or not, millions of people wholeheartedly agree with them. They start their own campaigns of terror, setting off unprecedented levels of anti-heterosexual hate crimes all over the country. Things snowball, getting more and more out of hand, until heterosexuals are being beaten, murdered, locked up in mental wards and deprogramming centers, or literally driven to suicide by the hatred and zealotry and all of the poisonous invective shoved down their throats. Between the religious leaders and their tame politicians, Cornflower is no longer recognizable to many of her citizens, both homosexual and heterosexual alike. To many, it is fast becoming a repressive theocracy, a terrifying travesty of the democratic republic that the founding mothers and fathers envisioned when they formed Cornflower almost 300 years ago.
Then imagine, if you will, a small, grassroots organization called Straight State. They take enormous risks, brave well-armed, angry mobs intent on their destruction, and they dare to start demanding equal protection under the law, something to which they believe they are already entitled by virtue of being Cornflowerians. Straight State also starts organizing (and growing) in every state in Cornflower; protesting, having parades, organizing community meetings and social mixers, inviting homosexuals to finally learn the truth about them. Straight State members start wearing pride buttons. The pride button has a blue flower on it, to signify that the wearer is either a heterosexual or hetero-friendly Cornflowerian. They also start sporting other heterosexual pride items (rings, shirts, hats, license plate frames, etc); writing letters; distributing brochures and flyers that inform the homosexual majority of the myths and truths of heterosexuality, and what so much of the hatred is really all about. They note that not all of Straight State members are heterosexual; that there are, in fact, many homosexuals who agree with the premise that heterosexuality is not a choice; that it is a genetic trait, and therefore protected by the same amendments that protect a person's race, color, age, etc. They cite compelling medical evidence that heterosexuality is simply one component among millions that make up the complex gene structure that determines what each of us will be. They cite legal precedent that they are, in fact, entitled to the same rights as the homosexual majority, including (but not limited to):
- the right to live openly, without fear of reprisal, bodily harm, harassment, or death,
- the right to be educated in the same schools that homosexuals attend,
- the right to date whomever they choose, as long as that person agrees,
- the right to go to the senior prom (again, as long as the prospective date agrees),
- the right to work openly in emergency services (police, fire fighting, EMT, etc),
- the right to served in the armed forces, even as an officer or intelligence agent,
- the right to have security clearances when such are necessary for their jobs,
- the right to have children (or not, if they prefer),
- the right to adopt children,
- the right to work in any job for which they are qualified,
- the right to worship (or not worship) in whatever way they choose,
- the right to publicly show affection, the same way as homosexuals are allowed to do,
- the right to live in any area where they can afford housing and wish to live,
- the right to marry, and
- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as proclaimed in Cornflower's Declaration of Independence).
Sounds good so far, right? But wait, there's more! Many of Cornflower's religious leaders are aghast at the thought of heterosexual marriage. Why, one might ask? I decided to find out for myself just what they were thinking. So I called Rev. Walter Pugwinkle and asked for an appointment. He agreed to meet me at a local coffeehouse for an interview.
The following is a transcription of my interview with Rev. Walter Pugwinkle, founder and head of Cornflower's "Homosexuals for Traditional Values," a nationwide group that boasts over 5 million members.
I started the interview with this: "Rev. Pugwinkle, thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I would like to find out more about your group and its stance on some of the 'hot-button' issues facing Cornflowerians today. First, what is your group's position on the recent push to legalize heterosexual marriage?"
Rev. Pugwinkle: "If we allow these heterosexuals to marry, then they will want to allow all sorts of other aberrations, like bestiality, polygamy, polyandry, triads, and even more ungodly acts. The heterosexuals will try to push their Godless agenda and the entire fabric of Cornflowerian life will be destroyed. No truly sane person would want that, now would they? We must stop this before it goes any farther. Homosexual marriage is the only true, acceptable marriage and that is the way we must keep it."
So I asked him, "How do you make the leap, from one heterosexual man and one heterosexual woman wanting to be able to legally marry, to bestiality and the rest? Heterosexuals are no more likely to want to marry other species than are homosexuals. And I am pretty sure that none of them want to be able to have more than one spouse. I mean, really sir, they just want the right to legally get married, just like the rest of Cornflowerians."
He replied, "Oh, that's just what they want you to think, it's part of their propaganda. But trust me, they are Godless, doomed, and I would even have to say treasonous, by even attempting to co-opt homosexual mores. Mores, I might add, that have worked for almost 300 years. Our founders never meant for heterosexuals to have equal rights under the law. If they did, they would have stated that clearly in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They didn't, so we know how they wanted this country to be. It's simply a matter of knowing how to read these documents, to be able to see the intent of our founders."
Then I said, "But don't you think that the Ninth Amendment was put into the Constitution's Bill of Rights just for situations like this? I mean, really, the Ninth Amendment actually states that it covers rights not specifically mentioned in the preceding eight amendments. Our founders knew that the country would grow and evolve. And they wanted to provide a means to grant rights that either weren't an issue or didn't exist back then. They wanted the Constitution to be a living document."
Rev. Pugwinkle sadly shook his head and said, "My dear little girl, how can you be so misguided? Our founders never wanted heterosexuals to marry, they didn't give them that right, and doing so now would be like telling our founders that they were wrong."
By then, I was getting quite irritated (including at being called a little girl, for Pete's sake, I am 45 years old!). So I said, "But our founders never specifically gave homosexuals the right to marry either, so does that mean that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry? Furthermore, isn't that why they made the provision to add amendments when needed? Isn't that what Article V of the Constitution is for; to amend the Constitution? I mean come on, to date, the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, if you include the Bill of Rights in that number. Are you telling me that all of those amendments are wrong, that in every instance we were saying our founders were stupid not to have included those new rights in the Constitution in the first place?"
At that point, Rev. Pugwinkle abruptly ended the conversation by getting up and leaving the coffeehouse. I have no idea what he would have said had he stayed, but I'm betting it wouldn't have been very complimentary.
As I finished my coffee, I wondered about the future of Cornflower. Would Rev. Pugwinkle's group prevail? Would my heterosexual friends ever have the right to get married? I wonder what our founders would say, if we were able to ask them about heterosexual marriage. I think they'd say, well, I hope they'd say, "look, just re-read the Ninth Amendment and come back when you understand it. Oh, and while you're at it, look over the Fourteenth Amendment too. That should help you resolve this issue in short order." And then they'd wink at me and give me the 'three snaps in a circle' as they say, "you go, girl!"
And now, back to reality.
Are you angry yet? Are you pissed off that heterosexuals in Cornflower are getting such a raw deal? Are you opening up your word processing program, already composing that letter to the Cornflower legislators in your mind? Are you surfing the web, looking for a pride button? Do you want to go to Cornflower and just slap her President upside the head and say, "Wake Up! This is the Twenty-first Century! All of your citizens should have equal rights and protections under the law. Didn't you promise to uphold the Cornflower Constitution when you took your Oath of Office? Well? Didn't you? Get with the program, OK? Do the right thing already, dammit!"
You see, my friends, an injustice in Cornflower is an injustice everywhere -- even in America.
REFERENCES:
Civil Rights Overview: Overview
Article V of the US Constitution: Article V
Ninth Amendment: 9th Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment: 14th Amendment
US Constitution & Bill of Rights: Constitution & B of R
US Declaration of Independence: Declaration
Note: Straight State is analogous to Queer Nation in the real world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Nation
Note: Both sides of the homosexuality issue believe they have the right of it. One side says it is strictly a choice. The other side says it is part of a person's genetic code. Neither side has iron-clad proof that it is right. I am on the genetic side, because I know that I didn't wake up one morning and decide to be heterosexual, so I am equally sure that another person didn't wake up one morning and decide to be a homosexual. Although to be honest, I did wake up one morning and decide that maybe, just maybe, guys weren't so bad after all. ;~}