Disagree?

Far too often I hear people utter the phrase, "I disagree with homosexuality."  My mind immediately enters a state of both confusion and concern.  There is no way around it - people who use that phrase are ill-informed and need to be corrected upon saying those four words.  

Please allow me to explain myself.  When people say they "disagree with homosexuality" it infers that there is some sort of choice involved on the part of gay people.  That somehow there is a choice we all, as humans, make about our sexuality.  One day we all wake up and decide if we are going to be straight or gay.  I certainly do not need to go into the ridiculousness that is that line of thinking.  Homosexuality is not a choice, it is not a mental disorder.  This is supported by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association.

So if in fact homosexuality is not a choice, and we know it is not, then what is there to disagree with?  It seems that the statement of disagreeing with homosexuality is as blatantly ridiculous as saying you don't agree with someone being black or having blue eyes.  It's just the way people are, there is nothing they can do about it (contrary to the beliefs of certain religious groups).  Disagreeing with the way in which a person is born?  Doesn't make much sense to me.

The notion that homosexuality is a choice and that it is even possible for people to "disagree" with it needs to stop being taught.  

Perhaps we should say we disagree with heterosexuality.  Doesn't make much sense does it?

There Will Come A Day

Perhaps now more than ever the rights of gay Americans are a major part of the nation's debate.  The passing of Proposition 8 in California has sparked a fire within Americans on both sides of the vote.  Florida and Arizona also passed bans against gay marriage and Arkansas banned unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children.  

My initial response to these votes was anger.  Anger at the lack of compassion, understanding, and love for fellow human beings.  Perhaps it stings a little more knowing that there are people in my life that would have voted in support of these bans and feeling an overwhelming sense of an entire group of American citizens being so misunderstood and so hated for reasons that are inaccurate, ridiculous, and hateful.  As the days passed after the election,  I began to hear all of the unfounded ways the proponents of these bans convinced voters to vote yes.  The purpose of this article is not to go into those absurd lies, but rather to discuss how my anger has turned to hope.

When I consider politics, I don't think there is necessarily a right or a wrong viewpoint.  We all would like to think that the side we align with is the right side, but the truth is that these are just varying philosophies that generally have the same goal - to form a more perfect Union.  When it comes to politics, I don't think that one side or the other is inherently right, perhaps one philosophy might work better than another at certain times throughout history.  Maybe one makes some really bad decisions on one issue, but redeems itself on another.  There isn't always clear cut answers to our countries problems, but there are certainly a variety of approaches to the problems.

However, when one considers the issue of gay marriage, there is a right and a wrong.  There is not a spec of doubt in my mind or my soul - allowing gay Americans the right to marry is right.  It is correct on every level of that which is the foundation of this country, the Constitution.  Many would argue that this is a moral issue and I wholeheartedly agree.  Denying rights to gay people - fellow human beings, is immoral.  Denying this is wrong.

I've been able to sleep at night because I know I am on the right side of this issue and I know there will come a day when most agree.  This is how I know.

In 1664, the state of Maryland passed a law against interracial marriage.  The rest of the states followed suit and by the time of the Civil War, miscegenation laws were on the books throughout the country.  It wasn't until the 1830's that a group in Massachusetts challenged the law claiming that it stood in the face of the fundamental principle of civil equality.  Abolitionists fought until 1843 when then legislature finally overturned the law.

The rest of the country did not follow.  In fact, towards the end of the Civil War, white southerners worked to pass stronger miscegenation laws.  The federal government fought back during the Reconstruction giving us the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing "equal protection."  As a result, eight of the eleven formerly Confederate states overturned their laws banning interracial marriage.

In the late 1870's, as Reconstruction collapsed, lawmakers and citizens began to reinstate and strengthen miscegenation laws.  They used four main arguments to plead their case: 

1) Marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government; 

2) they began to define and label all interracial relationships as illicit sex; 

3) they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will; 

4) they were adamant that interracial marriage was "unnatural."

Between 1880 and 1950, miscegenation laws strengthened and became the norm of society.  However, in 1948, the Supreme Court of California made a move in the right direction, declaring California's miscegenation law unconstitutional.  Justice Roger Traynor spoke on the decision, "A member of any of these races may find himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable."  He continued, "Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains...the right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups."

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court agreed and the case of Loving v. Virginia spelled the end of America's history of miscegenation laws.  Although some states didn't give up so easily.  Alabama didn't remove its miscegenation law until 2000.

To most Americans, the idea of banning interracial marriage is now a ridiculous one, but not many years ago - it was the norm.  The reasons used to support this ban are many of the same reasons used to support the ban on gay marriage.  How are those people viewed today that held these views on interracial marriage?  My hope and firm belief is that there will come a day when the same happens with same-sex marriage.

There will come a day when Americans join in embracing all human beings.  There will come a day when this great country realizes that there is nothing to be afraid of in allowing equal rights to all its citizens.  There will come a day when all will realize that people are who they are and they should be accepted as they are.  There will come a day when those who preach and cause division and exclusion will see the error of their ways.  There will come a day when the proponents of denying rights to gay people today will be viewed just as the people who denied rights to interracial couples of the past.

There will come a day when those who are on the right side of this issue will prevail.

Thank you, Mr. Olbermann

Monday evening MSNBC's Keith Olbermann had a Special Comment on Prop 8. For those of you who may not know, Prop 8 was the amendment that passed in California banning gay marriage.

I was moved and inspired by Mr. Olbermann's comments. He spoke sincerely and eloquently about a subject that affects me in a deeply personal way and I must say that I was humbled at his ability to truly understand this issue. Please read and share his comments:


Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.

This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.

If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

---

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...

Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.

"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:

"So I be written in the Book of Love;

"I do not care about that Book above.

"Erase my name, or write it as you will,

"So I be written in the Book of Love."

A New Day

The people have spoken; better days filled with hope are ahead. My mind is spinning out of control today. I'm consumed with so many thoughts and emotions. As I stood in line to vote yesterday I was overcome with emotion and a sense of pride in my country. Often during that hour and a half that I stood in line, tears filled my eyes as I thought about what was at stake. The people of America had a duty yesterday, a duty to voice their opinion on what direction they wanted the future of America to go.

While the polls were certainly favoring Sen. Obama, I was fairly nervous as the outcome of elections lay in the hands of the voters and there were so many extraneous variables - all I could do was wait.

It's safe to say that everyone in the world is now aware that Barack Obama is President-elect of the United States of America.

As a democrat, obviously this is good news to me. As I watched the remarkable scene from Chicago last night I, as a minor addict, was browsing the statuses of fellow Facebook users. Several were statements of joy and excitement, many reflected the historic nature of the event and huge step forward that America had taken. We were all waiting for the President-elect to take the stage and set the tone for tomorrow.

My almost euphoric state began to diminish as I continued to read the Facebook statuses. Several were hateful, unfounded, and just unhappy statements about what had just taken place. I was reminded that this isn't a united country and while this election was an incredible step in the right direction, there is still so much work to do - difficult work.

A lot of concern seems to be around this idea that Sen. Obama, I suppose I can now refer to him as President-elect Obama, is this extreme liberal who is going to destroy the country. Without getting into too much policy discussion, I would have to disagree. Research suggests time and time again that democrats are much better in restoring a thriving economy, an economy that works for all Americans. It seems to me that this emphasis that people are placing on taxes is unwarranted. Obama's tax policy will essentially take us back to the tax rates of the Clinton years. I would argue that during that time no one went bankrupt from their tax rate. Do people really think that Obama's goal is to tax people to the point of having nothing? This view seems to be just as extreme as they view Obama to be.

The older I get the more I realize that extremes don't get much accomplished. All extreme views do is divide and I would say that the country doesn't need to be any further divided than it has already become. I would like to live in an America in which all people are taken care of, no one is left behind - an America that embraces people of all walks of life. We aren't there yet - but the day is coming.

Sen. Obama began last night, "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."

"It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America." This is the America I hope we can all strive for.

The most important passage from Obama's speech is one that I hope is repeated. It reads, "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too."

We have to join as one, there is perhaps not been a period in my lifetime when unity is more important. Our ideas and philosophies may never be all the same, but it is time that we put aside our personal pride, start a civil discussion, and get things moving in a positive direction for all Americans.

Our country is changing, and I might add changing rapidly. It is up to us to make sure that the change is in the right direction - the direction that was set forth by our found fathers. That all people are created equal and desire the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is our duty, as Americans, to work for a more perfect Union. We aren't there yet, but yesterday proved to me that this a pretty darn cool place.

My Perspective... Weekly Poll

This week's poll:

Which network did you prefer to watch during this election season?

Vote on the right side of the page!

Last week's poll results:

Will you be glad when this election is over?

Yes: 82%   

No: 18%