Today the Prop 8 trial court released its ruling. The court held that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, violating both the Equal Protection and the Due Process clauses of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. What is crazy to me is that the Due Process clause argument and analysis of the court ruling mirrors my personal logic in my previous blog post. I'm not trying to make some grand statement about my intelligence, but I will admit that it is a very validating moment to hear your personal conclusions of law thrown back at you from federal court rulings while you are in law school. If you are interested:
The Opinion
It is epic long, but with a handy-dandy index and very helpful headings, you can skip to some of really good stuff. To see where the money is really made, start reading around page 109 of the document or 111 of the .pdf file.
It is a good day for civil rights, people. God bless all of you, readers, and God bless America.
Showing posts with label Gay Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Rights. Show all posts
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Obama doesn't have that problem...obviously.
A couple things have converged in recent history to bring me to this post. Most recently I discovered that today marks Lisa Simpson's wedding day. Pretty exciting, huh? Yes, I think so, also. Furthermore, I have found myself discussing marriage a lot with friends, so this is the gay marriage post. Turn back if you don't care to hear my opinion of gay marriage, as a repentant-gay Catholic.
Still here? Alright, you asked for it. Here's how it all begins: I am Catholic. I am gay. I struggle with that dichotomy all the time. It was through a lot of prayer that I came to the realization that I was made the way that I am and that I have no choice but to be homosexual. I am called to be the love of somebody's life. I am called to be a parent - I want one boy and one girl. But, as a man of faith, I believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. The doctrine of marriage has evolved from a Judeo-Christian background and is now backed by the power of law. So I will never be the person to rail against religion for not letting me marry the man of my dreams in a church.
Here's where it gets tricky. As a man studying the law, I have learned that a marriage is a legal union between two people (a man and a woman in most states) that classifies their relationship for purposes of insurance, survivorship rights, spousal immunity, etc. Legally, everyone has the right to marry whomever they please, so long as they are of opposing sexes (with certain exceptions) and they are consenting adults.
Ready for the paradox? I am against gay marriage but I am pro-gay marriage. As a gay man I am limited, only, by the vocable "marriage." In this post, alone, I have already given two definitions of the same word. Some people spend months planning huge wedding in grand cathedrals. Some just go to the court house and make it official. Then there are countless marriages in-between.
Separate-but-equal is a term used to describe the state of the country when it came to different races. There were white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains, white seats on buses and black seats on buses. The struggles of minorities in the history of our country have been long and hard, and to a certain extent they continue today. There remains bigotry in hiring processes, a supposed need for affirmative action in scholarship, and racial profiling under the umbrella of 'public safety'. I don't want to draw too large a comparison between the vast struggles of African Americans in the mid-1900s and what is happening to the gay community now, but there is an analogy there that I am willing to illustrate. Many people, hoping to find a way out of a very large can of worms, advocate for "domestic partnership." They tell you that being a domestic partner is sufficiently similar to marriage, legally. You get partnership rights, insurance benefits, etc. But there is one huge problem: you aren't married.
Domestic partnerships are our own brand of separate-but-equal. Sure, the black drinking fountain still had water in it, but it wasn't equal. Sure, the back of the bus got you there as fast as the front of the bus (barring negligible travel times, for you anal-retentive physicist readers), but it wasn't equal. Equality is something we all strive for and something that the United States has prided itself on trying to provide for all her citizens. There is a fundamental problem with calling a purely legal union between people of the same sex a 'domestic partnership' but calling a purely legal union between a man and a woman a 'marriage.'
So, like I said, I am limited by the word "marriage." I don't have the right to get married in a church and I am not seeking that right. But I absolutely should have the right to the same marriage at a court house that anybody else does with the person that I love, with whom I choose to spend the rest of my life. If I could call the legal relationship anything but a marriage, I would, since the word is too easily twisted to mean any of its various definitions. It is hard to think of other words that describe separate things that are so facially similar yet fundamentally different. Whether two [heterosexual] people that are legally married care about the religious implications of their union or not, their relationship is a marriage.
They are married.
Nobody would call a man and a woman eloping at the courthouse a 'domestic partnership' so why should that be what I settle for? My civil right to marry can and should be divorced (no pun intended) from the religious doctrine of marriage. As far as I am concerned, I deserve the right to be married to the person that I choose. I don't entertain the religious aspects of marriage when I think about my rights. Not everyone can get married in a church anyway. I'm not reinventing the wheel here, but next time somebody asks you for your stance on gay 'marriage', think about the fact that a marriage isn't so easily defined. If I am to settle for a domestic partnership, then that phrase ought to describe any legal union between people, heterosexual or not, that isn't established under the auspices of a relationship with God.
Legally, I want to marry the man of my dreams (or at least the man I choose), anything less and I will remain a second-class citizen, yearning for my own pursuit of happiness, which is a fundamental right, I might add.
Still here? Alright, you asked for it. Here's how it all begins: I am Catholic. I am gay. I struggle with that dichotomy all the time. It was through a lot of prayer that I came to the realization that I was made the way that I am and that I have no choice but to be homosexual. I am called to be the love of somebody's life. I am called to be a parent - I want one boy and one girl. But, as a man of faith, I believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. The doctrine of marriage has evolved from a Judeo-Christian background and is now backed by the power of law. So I will never be the person to rail against religion for not letting me marry the man of my dreams in a church.
Here's where it gets tricky. As a man studying the law, I have learned that a marriage is a legal union between two people (a man and a woman in most states) that classifies their relationship for purposes of insurance, survivorship rights, spousal immunity, etc. Legally, everyone has the right to marry whomever they please, so long as they are of opposing sexes (with certain exceptions) and they are consenting adults.
Ready for the paradox? I am against gay marriage but I am pro-gay marriage. As a gay man I am limited, only, by the vocable "marriage." In this post, alone, I have already given two definitions of the same word. Some people spend months planning huge wedding in grand cathedrals. Some just go to the court house and make it official. Then there are countless marriages in-between.
Separate-but-equal is a term used to describe the state of the country when it came to different races. There were white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains, white seats on buses and black seats on buses. The struggles of minorities in the history of our country have been long and hard, and to a certain extent they continue today. There remains bigotry in hiring processes, a supposed need for affirmative action in scholarship, and racial profiling under the umbrella of 'public safety'. I don't want to draw too large a comparison between the vast struggles of African Americans in the mid-1900s and what is happening to the gay community now, but there is an analogy there that I am willing to illustrate. Many people, hoping to find a way out of a very large can of worms, advocate for "domestic partnership." They tell you that being a domestic partner is sufficiently similar to marriage, legally. You get partnership rights, insurance benefits, etc. But there is one huge problem: you aren't married.
Domestic partnerships are our own brand of separate-but-equal. Sure, the black drinking fountain still had water in it, but it wasn't equal. Sure, the back of the bus got you there as fast as the front of the bus (barring negligible travel times, for you anal-retentive physicist readers), but it wasn't equal. Equality is something we all strive for and something that the United States has prided itself on trying to provide for all her citizens. There is a fundamental problem with calling a purely legal union between people of the same sex a 'domestic partnership' but calling a purely legal union between a man and a woman a 'marriage.'
So, like I said, I am limited by the word "marriage." I don't have the right to get married in a church and I am not seeking that right. But I absolutely should have the right to the same marriage at a court house that anybody else does with the person that I love, with whom I choose to spend the rest of my life. If I could call the legal relationship anything but a marriage, I would, since the word is too easily twisted to mean any of its various definitions. It is hard to think of other words that describe separate things that are so facially similar yet fundamentally different. Whether two [heterosexual] people that are legally married care about the religious implications of their union or not, their relationship is a marriage.
They are married.
Nobody would call a man and a woman eloping at the courthouse a 'domestic partnership' so why should that be what I settle for? My civil right to marry can and should be divorced (no pun intended) from the religious doctrine of marriage. As far as I am concerned, I deserve the right to be married to the person that I choose. I don't entertain the religious aspects of marriage when I think about my rights. Not everyone can get married in a church anyway. I'm not reinventing the wheel here, but next time somebody asks you for your stance on gay 'marriage', think about the fact that a marriage isn't so easily defined. If I am to settle for a domestic partnership, then that phrase ought to describe any legal union between people, heterosexual or not, that isn't established under the auspices of a relationship with God.
Legally, I want to marry the man of my dreams (or at least the man I choose), anything less and I will remain a second-class citizen, yearning for my own pursuit of happiness, which is a fundamental right, I might add.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
For Your Entertainment - The Adam Lambert Edition
Most of my readers know that I do not use this blog as a pulpit, except to trumpet my own successes. However, today I have been inspired by the recent Adam Lambert fiasco to say something on the topic.
When I came out as a proud gay man, I did so after much introspection and self-discovery. I thought about what my sexuality meant to me and what it meant to the people that I care about. I also thought about what my sexuality meant to my faith. I am still devoutly Catholic and my biggest hurdle to my current life was reconciling those two ideas. It was through much prayer that I realized God doesn't make mistakes and I am not called to the single life. More or less, I had to take an "agree to disagree" stance with my faith, which was very hard. VERY hard.
What has proven to be much easier is my ability to exist in the world as a gay man. I am blessed to have lived my life free of people who hate me for who or what I am. Even my ex-girlfriends have been understanding of the subterfuge that I used with them. All-in-all it has been a charmed life for me as a gay man. Until Adam Lambert.
If you haven't seen his performance on the American Music Awards from this past weekend, I suggest you Google search the video, as they keep getting put up and taken down at the blink of an eye. Here's some highlights: man-on-man tongue locking, simulated oral sex, and Adam Lambert's middle finger displayed to prime time television. The issue? His subsequent performance of Good Morning America has been canceled by ABC.
Adam Lambert, along with numerous outspoken (and public) homosexuals, is screaming "HOMOPHOBIA" like it's going out of style. Homophobia is Matthew Shepard getting hung on a fence to die, just because he was gay. Homophobia is being burned alive because you are gay. Homophobia is not a canceled performance due to poor choices.
Homosexuality is not a choice. I do not choose to be gay, instead, I know that I am gay. Part of being gay is taking the responsibility of not being another 'homo who cries "hate"'. I am disgusted, as a gay man, and as an American, that ANYONE who have the audacity to say Adam Lambert's only fault, for which he is being punished, is his status as a gay man. Furthermore, I reject the argument that a woman in the same position would be allowed to perform on Good Morning America.
If Christina Aguilera were to lay on her back and cram a male (or female) dancers face into her crotch, she would also have a serious PR problem. On top of that, imagine if Britney Spears, without warning to the network, decided to give the camera the middle finger during prime time on a Sunday. I don't think anybody should think she would go without punishment. I do not (and cannot) deny that people hate Adam Lambert because he is homosexual. That is something he will deal with his entire life, and so will I. Hell, we still can't get married in most of the United States. That could be classified as anti-gay. I shudder to think that outspoken (and oft-heard) gay men and women (I'm looking at you Perez Hilton. Shut up, already) are rallying behind a performer and raising him as a gay activist, when it is his vulgarity that is being punished. Vulgarity and homosexuality should not be the same concept and to classify Adam Lambert's canceled performance as anti-gay or homophobic is to equate these mutually exclusive ideas. I'm gay, I'm vulgar, but dammit, I am not one because of the other.
I challenge Adam Lambert to make the remainder of his performances focus on the music (which was SORELY lacking in his performance on Sunday) for which he rose to stardom. I'm pretty sure that this would be more "For [My] Entertainment" than offensive bullshit and wielding his status as 'gay' as a shield against punishment for actions. Don't be another 'mo who cries "HATE!" anytime something doesn't go your way, Adam Lambert. Be a man, albeit a gay one, who stands for something and is able and willing to be a good example to the world, not another self-serving queen who abuses gay rights in lieu of fighting for them.
Shame on you.
When I came out as a proud gay man, I did so after much introspection and self-discovery. I thought about what my sexuality meant to me and what it meant to the people that I care about. I also thought about what my sexuality meant to my faith. I am still devoutly Catholic and my biggest hurdle to my current life was reconciling those two ideas. It was through much prayer that I realized God doesn't make mistakes and I am not called to the single life. More or less, I had to take an "agree to disagree" stance with my faith, which was very hard. VERY hard.
What has proven to be much easier is my ability to exist in the world as a gay man. I am blessed to have lived my life free of people who hate me for who or what I am. Even my ex-girlfriends have been understanding of the subterfuge that I used with them. All-in-all it has been a charmed life for me as a gay man. Until Adam Lambert.
If you haven't seen his performance on the American Music Awards from this past weekend, I suggest you Google search the video, as they keep getting put up and taken down at the blink of an eye. Here's some highlights: man-on-man tongue locking, simulated oral sex, and Adam Lambert's middle finger displayed to prime time television. The issue? His subsequent performance of Good Morning America has been canceled by ABC.
Adam Lambert, along with numerous outspoken (and public) homosexuals, is screaming "HOMOPHOBIA" like it's going out of style. Homophobia is Matthew Shepard getting hung on a fence to die, just because he was gay. Homophobia is being burned alive because you are gay. Homophobia is not a canceled performance due to poor choices.
Homosexuality is not a choice. I do not choose to be gay, instead, I know that I am gay. Part of being gay is taking the responsibility of not being another 'homo who cries "hate"'. I am disgusted, as a gay man, and as an American, that ANYONE who have the audacity to say Adam Lambert's only fault, for which he is being punished, is his status as a gay man. Furthermore, I reject the argument that a woman in the same position would be allowed to perform on Good Morning America.
If Christina Aguilera were to lay on her back and cram a male (or female) dancers face into her crotch, she would also have a serious PR problem. On top of that, imagine if Britney Spears, without warning to the network, decided to give the camera the middle finger during prime time on a Sunday. I don't think anybody should think she would go without punishment. I do not (and cannot) deny that people hate Adam Lambert because he is homosexual. That is something he will deal with his entire life, and so will I. Hell, we still can't get married in most of the United States. That could be classified as anti-gay. I shudder to think that outspoken (and oft-heard) gay men and women (I'm looking at you Perez Hilton. Shut up, already) are rallying behind a performer and raising him as a gay activist, when it is his vulgarity that is being punished. Vulgarity and homosexuality should not be the same concept and to classify Adam Lambert's canceled performance as anti-gay or homophobic is to equate these mutually exclusive ideas. I'm gay, I'm vulgar, but dammit, I am not one because of the other.
I challenge Adam Lambert to make the remainder of his performances focus on the music (which was SORELY lacking in his performance on Sunday) for which he rose to stardom. I'm pretty sure that this would be more "For [My] Entertainment" than offensive bullshit and wielding his status as 'gay' as a shield against punishment for actions. Don't be another 'mo who cries "HATE!" anytime something doesn't go your way, Adam Lambert. Be a man, albeit a gay one, who stands for something and is able and willing to be a good example to the world, not another self-serving queen who abuses gay rights in lieu of fighting for them.
Shame on you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)