Reading this article-http://www.autostraddle.com/gop-presidential-candidates-unanimously-ensure-gay-apocalypse-bachmann-fears-lesbian-attack-93938/- has made me seriously depressed. Like, really. I guess with Obama in the Oval Office I was able to hate the vast majority of his politics but still be kind of happy with what was going on with the gays/marriage, if not how slowly it was going. But now, looking at the rundown of the Republican candidates lining up to unseat him, the future looks pretty grim for those who, like me, would like to save our economy but also get married to our (same-sex) partners in the not-too-far future. Pretty much all of the major candidates have something nasty to say about same-sex marriage. Michelle Bachmann is, frankly, quite frightening. While I would adore having a woman for president, it's like I said for Hillary: I'm not going to vote for her just because she's a woman. If she thinks that because I love who I love I'm "part of Satan," as she says in the article, I can't find it within myself to cast my vote for her.
Sigh...
When I was in high school taking Poli Sci and I read about how many Americans JUST DIDN'T VOTE in presidential elections, let alone regional ones, I was appalled. I couldn't understand it. Of course, I was at the height of my political activism then- reading at least six political blogs a day to keep abreast of the election news, and watching the news every night- but even so, it seemed unconscionable. How could you just not care?
But now I understand. It's not necessarily about not caring...it's about being caught between a rock and a hard place, Scylla and Charybdis. If I go with the Democrats, it is entirely possible that I will be able to get married, but I am firm in my belief that the majority of their economic and social policies will ruin the country (Obama's doing a great job of it right now). I also think my vote might hasten the slide into socialism. If I go with the Republicans, their economic policies just might save the economy- we can hope- but my very being what I am, a genderqueer gay butch who loves a beautiful, wonderful girl who loves her back- will be condemned as wrong, evil, and "of Satan."
Let me put that more clearly: the very best thing in my life- my love with and for this girl- mean, to these candidates, that no matter who I am and what I do, I am wrong, evil, and "of Satan." At best, I am woefully misguided, some sick, sad sort of deviant who just needs to be "cured" or "healed." At worst, I am a menace, looking to corrupt innocent young children. God forbid I try to adopt some- there would be no hope for those poor youngsters. I would corrupt their minds and, to quote Bachmann again, force them "to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it". Even if I and whoever my partner might be would just be trying to provide them with a safe, loving home, we are automatically worse than wherever they might have come from- abusive or neglectful as their birth parents might have been- simply because there is no Y chromosome in our relationship.
Beyond this, however, I'd simply like to point out one more thing: http://www.autostraddle.com/hrc-polling-trends-say-lawmakers-are-behind-the-public-on-gay-marriage-74868/ WE WON. The kids, the public say gay marriage is a good thing, if you want it- in the minds of the populace, that battle is over. And here I thought democracy was supposed to reflect, at least in part, the mind of the majority- with due consideration taken for the protection of the rights of the minority. But I don't see gay marriage as violating the rights of the minority at all- after all, how am I hurting YOU if I want to get married and have a family? I'm not stealing your children; I'm not having my awesome gay sex in front of your children, nor am I telling them that being gay is what they should do. I am living, existing, and procreating with the person I love, who loves me back. And here I thought this was a basic human right, one that everyone simply received, not was given or stole from someone else. Just because I have the right to get married doesn't mean that you don't. What about this don't these candidates get?
This is just causing me a lot of pain right now, because in my economic and most of my social policies I am very staunchly Republican (or at least I agree with them more than I agree with the Democrats on these issues), and if it was anything else I'd bite the bullet and go with it. But this is an issue that is very near and dear to my heart, because when I look down the road and see that I will be unable to marry , like all of my straight friends; that I will be unable to have children and have them carry both mine and my partner's names; that if my partner is dying in the hospital I will be unable to see her without her family's consent; that I will have to pay thousands more in taxes simply because I am not married to a man...what is it they say in the pledge of allegiance? "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Guess they skipped the justice part.
Postlude: I was just talking with my girlfriend, and she raised some excellent points. I was ranting about the fact that the candidates who are against gay marriage would be imposing their particular religious views on the entirety of the electorate- not all of Christianity/Judaism/Islam/whatever, but their particular views- and I thought our "separation of church and state" clauses in that funky old thing called the Constitution were designed to prevent exactly that. After all, marriage was, from the beginning, a religious and social institution. There should be no governmental blanket mandate telling everyone that they can only get married if there's one penis and one vagina in the mix.
However, C brought up the point that that's the same thing the gay-marriage supporters want: a blanket governmental mandate telling all the churches and synagogues and mosques and everything that not only do gays have equal rights under the law, all of the religious- not governmental!- institutions must marry them, no matter how that clashes with their religious beliefs. And that struck me as wrong too. If I were president, at this point, my stance would be that gays should have the same civil rights as any other human being, and that civil unions should carry the same rights as marriages. However, marriage is something to be decided on a church-by-synagogue-by-mosque basis. If it is against your religious beliefs as a pastor/rabbi/whatever it is in a mosque, then you shouldn't have to perform those marriages. You're a bigot, but you're not hurting me; if it's my church/synagogue/mosque/whatever saying it won't marry me and my fiance, that's your prerogative and I need to find another religious institution that will marry me. But no one should be forced to have to do something that is against their beliefs...and it is against my beliefs that I am an evil, sick, deviant human being and that I should not be allowed to get married.
No comments:
Post a Comment