The Fight for Equality Continues

The state of Maryland is inching towards becoming one of the handful of states and the District of Columbia to legalize same-sex marriage. The bill was signed on March 1st, 2012 by Governor Martin O’Malley with the stipulation that same sex marriages will not be legally performed until January 1st, 2013. Why there is this stipulation to wait almost a full year to take effect is absolutely beyond me. This was an item of contention during the debate of the bill. I suppose that those opposed to the bill want to hold off until after the Mayan prediction of end of the world in December 2012. It’d be a literal, “over our dead bodies” statement. But as much as that theory is amusing to me, it’s more likely that opposition to same-sex marriage just wants the time to put a possible referendum and repeal on the November ballots for the people of Maryland to vote on.

The philosopher Aristotle once wrote, “If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.” While those opposed to legislative or judicial actions to enact same-sex marriage would love to place an issue in front of the people for them to vote on so that they can “share in government to the utmost,” there is a disturbing caveat to that: Majority rules. And democratic voting on matters pertaining to a minority group numerically does not bode well for the minority. I may not be good in math, but that seems like a sound statement to me. This concept can be demonstrated by what has happened in California, where same-sex marriage was legal and then Proposition 8 was put to the vote of the people and now same-sex marriage is no longer legal in California.

In Maryland, the fight for marriage equality is summarized by Max J. Rosenthal of the Huffington Post on March 28, 2012:

"According to the Associated Press, nearly 56,000 signatures will be needed to put the [referendum] measure on the ballot.

If the drive succeeds, same-sex marriages opponents seem to have greater core support: 37 percent of voters in the OpinionWorks poll said they 'strongly' felt they would vote against repeal, while only 31 precent said the same in favor of the law.

But 16 percent of those polled remain undecided in some form, which, according to OpinionWorks, could be a good sign for those favoring marriage equality. 'Those who remain undecided on the referendum tend to be slightly more Democratic and younger, and less religious than the population as a whole -- all groups that lean towards upholding the law,' said the firm."

***

While the divide among those that are adamantly against gay people and those that are supportive towards them is narrowing, it is in the fights like these that will make a difference in terms of equality for everyone.

This fight will not necessarily be a fair one. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is representative of the coalition of those that are against marriage equality. The Chicago Tribune wrote, regarding a memo from NOM detailing its 2008-2009 accomplishments:

"[The memo] outlined its strategy for fighting the movement to legalize gay marriage, including one effort called 'Not a Civil Rights Project.'

'The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key Democratic constituencies,' the memo said. 'Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots.'

The memo also discussed efforts to reach out to Hispanics by labeling support for same-sex marriage a concession to 'Anglo' culture and a plan to get Latino celebrities to do television ads.

'We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation,' the document said. Following the memo's release, NOM issued a statement saying the group has 'worked extensively with supporters of traditional marriage from every color, creed and background.'"

***

So, it’s numerically hard enough to get a democratic majority out of a minority group... organizations like NOM want to divide minority groups even more so. To what end? Is this truly what Aristotle was talking about when he wrote of, “all persons alike share in government to the utmost?” I don’t believe so.

Now, how do we fix this? And yes, it is a “we.” We are all meant to share in government to the utmost and that means we get a say in how it’s going to turn out. Do we want unjustified scare tactics and bigotry to rule our lives? Do we want to make decisions based on unproven rhetoric? Or do we want to live in a world that truly is a democracy and everyone gets a real voice and equality is not an unattainable ideal, but a reality?

With that in mind, I offer up the following thoughts:

1. Same-sex marriage has not ended the world. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004 and it was the first state in the United States to do so. In 2001, the Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. Since then, other countries and other states in the US have followed suit. Birds are still chirping. The sun still rises and sets. I don’t really see a discernible difference in my life in specific regards to marriage equality around the world. And if for that small price of “no discernible difference in my life,” someone else gets to visit their dying spouse in the hospital or enjoy the many benefits that married couples are afforded by the government… that’s a price I’m willing to pay.

2. Same-sex marriage does not ruin ALL marriage or “re-define” it. The argument that same-sex marriage being performed is akin to the Butterfly Effect, in that if a butterfly flaps its wings somewhere on the planet, something horrible will happen elsewhere, is a tenuous argument. For those of you that are married, stop reading right now, and take a look at your spouse. Did Adam and Steve getting married in Massachusetts or Ada and Eve getting married in the Netherlands change how you feel about him or her? Did it re-define your marriage? Did it change your religious beliefs? Was your ability to worship compromised because someone else somewhere got married? Because at some point today, yesterday, last week, last year… a same-sex couple somewhere did get married. Do you have a sudden compelling need to divorce your spouse just because of that fact? I hope not. Do you feel like your religious beliefs were trampled upon? You can still go to your house of worship and still be the same person you were before in the eyes of whatever deity you believe in.

3. Kids know about gay people anyways. I love what the argument that, “But now I’ll have to explain to my kids about ‘The Gay,’” implies. It implies that children today don’t have friends with gay parents or know other gay kids or are possibly gay themselves. What difference does it make to say, “Oh, little Billy has two married dads,” or “Oh, little Billy has two dads in a commited relationship,” or "Oh, little Billy has two dads?" Do you really care that they’re married or not? Does your child really care? Do you make it a point to explain the intricacies of everyone’s family life to your kids? “Oh, little Johnny’s adopted,” or “Oh, little Sally’s mom passed away and her dad married his stepmom last year,” or “Oh, little Betty only has her mom because her dad ran away with his secretary.” Does it really matter how everyone else’s family is set up? It shouldn’t matter that someone else’s family involves a same-sex marriage. But that simple marriage certificate would mean the world to that family. Your child will grow up, learn from you and your values, meet other people both gay and straight, and interact as an adult based on lessons learned from you. And do you really want that lesson to be to judge others by outward appearances and not by the content of their characters?

Ultimately, it comes down to: Why should I care? This is a simple question. Those that are adamantly against same-sex marriage will always be adamantly against it. Those that are fighting for equality will always fight for that equality. But like the polls said, it’s those that are undecided or potentially apathetic that will tip the scales towards one side or another. Again, I come back with the Aristotle quote, “If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.” It is our moral obligation as Americans to participate in democracy. We are in one of those unique places in history where we get to help decide something big. The fight for same-sex marriage is everywhere. Will allowing same-sex marriage change your life? No, not really. Supporting or voting for same-sex marriage won’t suddenly make a same-sex partner appear next to you handing you a marriage certificate. But it will change the lives of those that have been fighting for this right their entire lives. Having two people of the same sex getting married won’t end the world. It won’t cause every heterosexual marriage to come apart at the seams. Families won’t implode. Religions won’t collapse. These are proven fact. Same-sex couples are married. They have been for years. The rhetoric may sound scary and threatening, but the facts should speak for themselves. Same-sex couples deserve to share in our government to the utmost and it’s time we all do our part to bring liberty and equality to democracy.



This post is dedicated to all of my married friends and those that will be getting married in the future... gay and straight.

With Liberty and Justice for All...

First off, I have to give a shout out to my buddy Adam and his recent rants on Facebook. His views on California's Proposition 8 is absolutely fantastic and is a must read : http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500081188&ref=ts#/note.php?note_id=41208394998

I generally avoid touching on hot-button political issues straight on because of what I do for a living. It's a slippery slope if I start criticizing things directly, so I just make fun of dumb people that say and do really dumb things. Although by this time, I'm sure fans of What's YOUR Deal?!? have a fairly decent idea of my opinions on certain topics. But this time, Adam made some excellent point that I just want to throw my two cents in on. (Apologies Adam for slightly piggy backing on your totally excellent Facebook note.)

I just think that If only more people saw the world like that... everyone gay or straight would be living in a wold that is far more just and equitable. But apparently equality is scary to people that currently possess rights that others want. Historically speaking, every race, color, and creed has been persecuted. There were settlers that came to the New World to escape religious persecution so that they could practice their religion freely. America was founded on liberty and equality. Throughout our history we've done dumb things to the rights of others, but eventually America realizes the error of its ways and changes course. How many Americans wouldn't be where they're at right now if it wasn't for the pioneers of civil rights fighting uphill battles against the status quo? I am a minority woman in the United States military... if my rights weren't fought for me generations ago, I'd most likely be making "flied lice" as an indentured servant, unable to vote, get an education, or write this wonderful blog that you are currently reading.

I'm sorry that just because something is different to people that it suddenly also becomes dumb and dangerous. Seriously, does it REALLY matter to me or you personally if Adam and Steve or Ada and Eve got married rather than Adam and Eve? Are they consummating their marriages in YOUR bedroom? Probably not, but if they are... it's not just gay or straight people that you have the problem with, it's really just the rude friends that you have. I don't care whose wedding I go to, it's free food, good cake, and I get to chuck rice at my friends (every Asian person's sub-conscious dream).

Did the world come to an end when slavery ended? How about when the military desegregated? What about when women started to work? How about when minorities and women were able to vote? More importantly, did the world come to an end when gay people in Massachusetts first were able to get married there? Did the institution of marriage spontaneously combust? Above all, ask yourself this question: What about those gay Chinese penguins?



I mean, I understand that the world won't suddenly be holding hands and singing songs around a campfire together. Race relations still has growing pains:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/29/ny.officer.killed/index.html

An police officer in New York shooting the first armed black man they see, when unfortunately the armed black man is actually an plain clothed NYPD officer. According to the article:

"The officer in the front passenger seat got out of the vehicle and shouted for Edwards to stop running and drop his weapon.

According to Kelly, the officers reported that, after the command was given, Edwards turned toward Dunton with his gun in his hand."

Apparently, turning around to acknowledge the command to stop and probably trying to identify yourself as a fellow police officer is enough to get shot if you happened to be a black officer. Great. I wonder if that means if I get pulled over, police will assume I'll dry clean their uniform and pull an egg roll out of my butt...

There is so much wrong with American society today. We are so afraid of the sterotypes and the "threat" that minorities of all kinds apparently pose. We fought and won World War II to stop that kind of racial purification propaganda from spreading across the world. Remember that? Remember Nazis? They didn't like minorities, women, and gay people either.

And religious fanatics need not apply:



We are all human beings. We all die equally, why can't we all live equally. Why do we always have to seek out differences among each other and fear anything we find?

Minorities aren't scary.

Women aren't scary.

Gays and lesbians aren't scary.

People in general ARE scary though, regardless of the color of your skin, the church you go to or not go to, or the people that you love. Dumb people exist everywhere. Can't we focus on them, rather than the innocent minority, woman, or gay person? Don't get me wrong, there are some dumb ass minorities, women, and gay people that I wouldn't want to think came from the same evolutionary path that I do.

Case in point, this is a talking point flyer from the National Organization for Marriage website:
http://www.nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39D8B5C1-F9FE-48C0-ABE6-1029BA77854C%7D/CatholicEnglish.pdf

Now... let's change the words a little to create "7 Scientific Reasons" to ban dumb people:

Elimination of dumb people reduces the risk of poverty for children and communities.
The majority of children whose parents are dumb experience at least a year of poverty.

Dumb people households increase crime. Boys whose parents are dumb, for example, are two to three times more likely to end up in jail as adults.

Elimination of dumb people protects children’s physical and mental health. Children
whose parents are not dumb are healthier and also much less likely to suffer mental illness, including depression and teen suicide.

Both men and women who aren't dumb live longer, healthier and happier lives. On
virtually every measure of health and well-being, non-dumb people are better-off than
otherwise similar singles, on average.

Just pretending to be smart is not the same as being smart. Smart pretenders are thirty to fifty percent more likely to divorce. People who are dumb do not
get the same boost to health, welfare and happiness, on average, as non-dumb people. Neither do their children. Children whose parents are dumb are at increased risk for domestic violence and child abuse and neglect. Children born to parents who are dumb are also three times more likely to experience their parents’ stupidity by age 5.

Parents who are dumb put children’s education at risk. Children
whose parents are dumb have lower grade point averages, are more
likely to be held back a grade, and to drop out of school. They are also less likely
to end up college graduates.

When dumb people exist, ties between parents and children typically weaken too. Adult children whose parents are dumb are only half as likely to have warm, close ties to both their mothers and their fathers. For example, in one large national survey, 65 percent of adult children of dumb people reported they were not close to their fathers (compared to 29 percent of adults from non-dumb people).

********

How's that make you feel? Don't those talking points make sense regardless of what group you fill in the blanks for? We can justify discrimination to anyone and everyone. But that doesn't mean we should.

Perhaps logic WILL prevail... probably not.

Greetings readers! I know, it's a Saturday night and normally I post these rants on Sunday mornings, but I will be busy tomorrow and rather than getting angry Facebook wall posts from my friend Mentos for not posting a new rant... I'm doing so now. Shout out to Mentos! I just want the world to make sense sometimes, rather than this, which still boggles my mind... Watch this video at the 1:15 or so mark about the Tango Makes Three book:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Seriously? A book about gay penguins tops the list of banned books yet again? Clearly, America did not read this old blog entry of mine: http://pooniethegreat.blogspot.com/2009/01/special-update-news-that-make-you-go.html The United States of America... the alleged shining beacon of hope, freedom, and humanity chooses to ban books about penguins while China, a shining beacon of Communism and state-sponsored censorship let two penguins get married. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with that concept? It's a book about a penguin family... not porn! You close-minded folks sure are perverted if all you think about are the private lives of Arctic animals. How can something this adorable be wrong? And how about this to twist your medula oblongata? Midwestern stalwart Iowa allows gay marriages while supposedly liberal hippie California doesn't? Holy Jebus people! The world has gone insane... Okay, before everyone's brain explodes in a less than spectacular gurgle of gray matter... I offer you one small victory in our ongoing fight against the airline industry: http://www.wgntv.com/landing/?United-Airlines-bumping-bigger-passenger=1 &blockID=267721&feedID=209 In case the link doesn't work... here are the key excerpts: "Passengers who are too large to fit comfortably in a coach seat will be required to buy a second ticket or upgrade to business class, where seats are larger, if United's flight attendants can't find two open seats for them. The Chicago-based carrier said it decided to adopt the tougher policy after receiving more than 700 complaints last year from passengers 'who did not have a comfortable flight because the person next to them infringed on their seat,' spokeswoman Robin Urbanski said. Most airlines in the U.S. spell out similar rules in a legal document called the 'contract of carriage' that establishes services and charges for flights, airline analysts said." Sidenote: 700 complaints? That's it? I think there are more people that quietly suffer without telling anyone or perhaps post their stories on this wonderful website: http://flightsfromhell.com/ Anyways, the article continues with a mention of a fat people fighting for their right to be fat and this: "'We'll first try to re-accomodate you on another seat on the flight,' Urbanski said. "If the flight is full, and that's not often the case these days, you'll be bumped from the flight." If this occurs, passengers will be forced to either find a flight with open seating or be required to buy two seats or an upgrade to a class of service with wide seats. If seating is not available and a passenger decides not to travel, the ticket will be refunded without any penalty, even if it is a non-refundable ticket." HALLELUJAH!!!!! But before anyone gets all up in arms about discrimination against fat people... think about this logically. Consider these points... (1) If your bags are too heavy, you get charged extra. (2) If you take too many bags with you, you get charged extra. (3) I fly with my cat a lot and despite the fact that he doesn't take up any more room beyond the carry-on space underneath the seat in front of me... I have to pay extra for him. And about point number 3... don't you dare give me a sob story about how people may be offended by the smell or may be allergic to the cat. Milo doesn't smell (neither did the late, great Monty) and even if he does, it's nothing compared to some of the funky fresh people I've had the pleasure of sitting next to. So... if you take up more room than what is allotted to you... why shouldn't you be charged extra? Why do I have to pay full price for half the space? I am entitled not to have your fat rolls touching me. No, it's not discrimination... you PHYSICALLY DON'T FIT IN THE SEAT. How about I put it this way... There's a plane... open seating... but there is a weight limit. Technically, there are enough seats for everyone... however, if everyone boards the plane... the plane will crash because it's too heavy to fly. If it's my tubbalicious butt causing imminent doom... um, I wouldn't fly on that plane. It's not discrimination... it's PHYSICS. Besides, being fat is a lifestyle choice... your fat rolls don't really have to come out... You don't need to rub that in our faces. What you do in the privacy of your own kitchen is your own business. I just don't want my family and my children exposed to your lifestyle. I might catch obesity from you, just by sitting next to you. I don't need you to try to convert me to your immoral acts of deviancy... (I can keep going with this...) So... let's summarize... gay penguin family is bad... fat people demanding more room for themselves at the expense of everyone else is okay? Hmmm... Yeah. Rock on. But... kudos to United Airlines for fighting the good fight.