Saturday, May 22, 2010

A wedding day.

I'm going to a wedding party tonight.  And I'm not looking forward to it.  Sure, I'm happy for the new couple but I don't share the same enthusiasm for celebration that everyone else does.  It's a reminder of everything that I don't have, can't have and never will have.

The heterosexual privilege of this nation will see to it that us gay folk all remain second class.  Even if we did have all the rights and privileges under the law, it would be naive to think that it would really change anything.  Just as racism in this country is alive and well, homophobic, bigotry will always be there too. 

So while I'm sitting there at that party, "pretending" to be pleasant and knowing full well that many people there despise my true nature and assume that I'm "one of them", I'll be thinking how glad I am that I'll never have to see any of these people ever again.


  1. It is clear you are upset, but as a person who is not attracted to members of the same gender, I believe it is incorrect to label me as a bigot and I disagree that I am in any way seeing to it that you are "second class." I assume you are attending a marriage between a man and a woman. You too have the right to marry one unmarried, adult, consenting member of the opposite sex. You may not want to, or if you do it may not be as fulfilling for you as for others, but you still have the right to do so. Similarly, the man whose marriage you are celebrating does not have the right to marry someone of the same gender. Regardless of whether or not he would want to, he does not have the right. So, I believe it's inaccurate to claim you have fewer rights than the man whose wedding you're celebrating or that you are a "second class" citizen. Just a thought.

  2. Anonymous,
    By stating, "Regardless of whether or not he would want to, he does not have the right." You are eliminating from the argument, the very core.

    You, as a heterosexual, HAVE the right to marry the person you WANT to marry.

    Heterosexuals don't want to marry people of the same sex. That's why they are called heterosexuals. So as a right, it doesn't even occur to them. Unless they are of the kind of heterosexual who is really a homosexual or bi-sexual and have lied to themselves into believing they are hetero. Are you one of them?

    I, as a homosexual, DO NOT have the right to marry the person I WANT to marry.

    So, back to your statement, "Regardless of whether or not he would want to..." Why regardless? You eliminate the 'want', and you are attempting to remove the core issue from the argument. At that point, you can say whatever you want in order to feel better about yourself. You may not be a bigot or a homophobe, but you are demonstrating your prejudice on this matter.

    Your argument, if you can call it one, is older than the hills. We've all heard it a million times.

    And despite all of that, and what I failed to state explicitly in my post, was that even if full rights were granted, the attitudes that you and I have demonstrated and described will continue, and the segregation of society will continue. As long as I'm asked by people to not talk about it, not mention it, just keep my god damn, gay mouth shut about it and don't flaunt my sexual orientation, I am second class. I'm not as important as the heterosexuals who wear their sexuality on their sleeve every god damn day of their lives. You are a heterosexual, try hiding it. I'm asked to hide it all the time. For decades, I did so as not to offend the privileged heterosexual population who clearly believe their sexual orientation makes them better than everyone else. I did it to also save my life from violence. Clearly, you have not experienced that "privilege".

    So, you felt the need to post something. Clearly, you have taken what I said personally as if I were directly talking to you, (out in western Nevada? Really?) Why would you feel the need to justify yourself with extra levels of anonymity. This is the Internet, there is no such thing as anonymity. I wasn't even talking to you. But now I am as you have stated your thoughts and have let me know where you stand on the matter. That my rights are only as good as what the privileged heterosexual class have allowed.

    Just a thought.

  3. Clearly this is a very emotionally charged issue. However, I never said you had to keep your mouth shut, or that being attracted to members of the same sex means you have necessarily done anything wrong, because I don't believe that.

    However, I don't necessarily get to marry who I want to marry, because they might be married to someone else or not want to marry me.

    By your logic, an man who wanted to marry a woman who was already married to another man could claim he was discriminated against because society does not permit polyandrous relationships. He could say that other men get to marry the woman they want to marry but he doesn't, so he's discriminated against. But just because a law prohibits a specific behavior does not mean the law is discriminatory.

    And just because an argument has been heard many times does not make it any less true.

    Just the truth.

  4. Let's get the root of this shall we?

    You have finally gotten to the point when you stated, "just because a law prohibits a specific behavior does not mean the law is discriminatory." BTW, the law doesn't prohibit the behavior. It just doesn't protect it. There is a difference.

    Let's look at all of this from purely the standpoint of behavior. All that other stuff you talk about is side skirting the real issue. Polyandry has nothing to do with it. (Neither does pedophilia or bestiality because with these types of arguments those are always the next things that get brought up.)

    What this is about is TWO CONSENTING ADULTS who WANT to marry each other but can't because they happen to be of the SAME SEX. Stay on topic here. These two adults end up living together but can't care for each other the same way that heterosexuals can because the laws will not protect them. Sometimes these adults may have children, by either adoption or previous relationships or whatever. Those families are not protected.

    So, since you have limited it down to being only about behavior, and my guess is you are the type that sees heterosexual unions as more than just behavior but see homosexual unions as only about behavior (specifically sex), you find homosexual behavior as something that should not be treated the same as heterosexual behavior. So let's assume, using YOUR logic, it's only about behavior and nothing more. And that includes heterosexual behavior only. (I have to assume that we both know what behavior means.) Two people falling in love and living together.

    My questions to you then are thus:

    What makes heterosexual behavior worthy of rights and protections in the case of monogamous unions where homosexual behavior is not worthy of the same? Both can have kids. Both can choose not to have kids. So the procreation part seems to be a moot point. What else is there? What makes The Gays icky people who should not be treated with the same respect as Non-Gays?

    And a few more questions because I'm seriously curious:

    Why are you so invested in this? Why are you coming on to my blog with such patronizing arrogance to try and convince me that I have the same rights as you? What do you have to gain by discussing this with me? Are you trying to learn something from a gay man or are you trying to save a gay man from sin?

  5. Gotta admire the balls on all those anonymous commenters. Nice to know they believe so much in what they say that they'll put their name on it.

    Marriage equality is something I've really struggled with, even as a straight woman. Prop 8 made me sick. Seeing my family members pour their time and money into getting Prop 8 passed was even worse. I'm engaged right now, and I've considered having my wedding in a state that recognizes gay marriages, or even in a different country. Making a statement, I guess. Financial constraints make it next to impossible, but... probably we'll "tithe" a portion to a gay rights advocacy group.

    Anyway, I do have faith that this will all change someday. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.

  6. Oops, I meant "tithe" a portion of the wedding gifts (which I'm hoping will be mostly cash).

  7. I often feel that I fall short in being a kind and selfless spouse and know that there are many LGBT couples out there who do a better job than me on any given day. I see no reason whatsoever that I should have the right to marry the one i love when others do not have that right. It's to the point where I have been thinking that I would rather 'undo'/ 'renounce' my marriage in some kind of act of solidarity for the members of the human race who have had this right kept from them. TGD you have every right to be dissatisfied, mad, sad etc at the current state of affairs!

  8. @Eliza R. Snitch, @Maureen,

    Thanks for your comments. I really appreciate you both for taking the time to tell me how you feel about this.

    Honestly, I don't think my anonymous commenter is coming back. My words were harsh. Deserving, but harsh. My version of tough love if you will. I wouldn't blame him/her for staying away. Frankly, I'm not interested in debating the semantics of marriage with anonymous. I'm much more curious about why s/he felt the need to make his/her voice known here. On this little, nondescript little corner of the Internet. What was it about my particular little rant that prompted him/her person to actually make an effort and reach out the why s/he did. No doubt with only the best of intentions but, WHY?

  9. Racism may be alive and well in this country, but that doesn't mean that those of us who've been subject to it (and believe me, I have some hair-raising stories) have to let it dominate our lives. You're only a victim if you choose to be--which doesn't mean that racism doesn't suck, but that it only controls your life if you let it. Personally, I enjoy fully embracing my civil rights, and making certain folks mad :-)

    Everyone's a second class citizen in someone else's eyes. Eventually, if we keep fighting, marriage--for everybody--will be legal everywhere. In the meantime, there's always Massachusetts ;-)

  10. @C.J. So, true. No matter what, there are always going to be people who think they are better than someone else, i.e. most Christianists and snarky left-wingers like Keith Olbermann. :)

    As for Massachusetts, Nah. One state's marriage rights mean nothing to me if I need to move around the country. It does me no good at the federal level anyway. I'm better of getting married in Denmark and staying there.

  11. Why Denmark? Personally, I'd go with the Netherlands :-) The Hague is one of the most beautiful cities I've ever been to. Or, indeed, Poland is a wonderful country with an interesting history--and a long history of complete religious tolerance. When everyone else had the Inquisition, Poland had separation of church and state and an elected monarchy.

    In all seriousness, though, I know what you mean. It's difficult to truly consider something a right, when it's only one state; your constitutional right to travel is being infringed. This is why my best friend moved to Canada when we were 18; he (shockingly!) wanted to be recognized as a full citizen.

  12. Also, by way of postscript, it's not possible to change the world, but it IS possible to get married in a way that respects everybody involved, and I wish more people recognized that. I went to a wedding where the bride and groom made a gift in "my honor"--they were our "favors"--to their church, a church which preaches that I'm going to Hell. This was NOT necessary.

    I'm certainly not perfect, but when we were first planning our wedding, I felt very strongly that we needed to get married by a church that fully accepted the GLBT community. Which is certainly not my church. So, instead, we elected to have an Episcopal ceremony under a tent, where everyone could feel equally welcome, and where my best friend would feel comfortable (I asked; I didn't just presume, oh, he'll be OK with this) participating.

    If Jesus were to reappear here tomorrow, I don't think he'd be too hip to all this exclusion--especially when justified in the name of religion.

  13. Why Denmark?

    Back in the 1890's a single family immigrated to Utah from Denmark. That is the line I descended from. I'm related to more people in Denmark than I am in the US or Canada.

  14. Awesome. That's a perfectly sensible explanation, one I never think of. Personally, I get that "family feeling" from more non-relatives than relatives ;-)

  15. I remember when I was a little boy, it wasn't a requirement to wear seat belts. I was upset with the idea of it becoming a law. Now, I cannot imagine not wearing one. The easiest way to change people will be for the law to change. I know that it is an uphill battle, and such an important issue.

    Living in a country with the law favouring equality makes a difference in the what I see around me. I teach school to seven and eight year olds. I can be an openly gay man. I can get married and hope to. In fact, I've never dated a man that doesn't want to get married.

  16. @Devin, thanks for your comments. It's encouraging see what is happening in other countries. However, we are a long way from full equality in the US. I'm not optimistic enough to believe it will happen in my lifetime though. Assuming, I even live another 10 years.


Copyright (c)2009-2013. All rights reserved.