...and I need to be jailed.
So says the Texas Republican Committee:
Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
This is the official position of the Republican Party in Texas. It goes on to say that the Supreme Court decision that made certain acts of intimacy between concenting audults should be ignored, and those acts should be re-criminalized. And anyone who issues a marriage license to a same sex couple should be charged with a felony (despite the fact that it's already not allowed in the state of Texas, as well as most other states in this great country).
I'm just curious exactly how I'm tearing at the fabric of society? How do my morals differ from theirs. I'm a good person. I give to charity. I volunteer in my community. I pay my taxes. I'm a productive member of society. I wake up in the morning, I go to work, I come home, make dinner for my family, walk the dogs, and then I go to bed. I've never killed anyone, I've never molested a child, I've never been involved in a gay sex scandal (unlike many GOPers), I don't lie, cheat or steal. I'm a good consumer, I support my local economy. I'm really pretty indistinguishable from most of the people I know.
There's one minor difference, of course. When I go to sleep at night, there's a man laying next to me instead of a woman. That's it. That's the extent of the difference in my "lifestyle".
I've read and heard a lot about this choice I've made and how it cannot be tolerated. Those who don't know anything about gay people think that I chose to be gay. Or they've read about ex-gay programs and think that I can just will it away. Why would I have chosen this lifestyle? Why would I want to become the target of hate from so many people? Why would I have chosen to become the target of a hate crime? Why would have have chosen to be legally discriminated against in employment in states such as Texas? Why would I have chosen to to not be able to marry the person I love, file joint taxes, benefit from hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and the thousands of other rights that come along with marriage? Why would anybody in their right mind choose that?
Let me tell you something about choice. Growing up, I wanted nothing but to be like everybody else. I dated girls because I was supposed to. I started to realize, especially towards the second half of high school, that dating girls wasn't really interesting to me anymore. I went to college. I tried again, and after a week with this girl, it was over. It was at that moment that I made a choice. I decided that I was going to spend the rest of my life, alone, closeted, forever. Grim. I realized very quickly how horrible that was going to be. Then, all of a sudden, I met Clark, things progressed, and I eventually came out. I made the choice to be the person I was made to be. The choice was to either be a miserable closet case, or live the way I was made. I made the only choice possible. (The choice to be a miserable closet case has been made time and time again, and not only is it unfair to the women that are married to gay men and the families they have, but it has been shown to end it gay sex scandals in many cases. The ex-gay or choose to not be gay thing doesn't really work, but that's a totally different topic of conversation).
The GOP of Texas position goes on to resent that people who are intolerant of homosexual people are referred to by some as bigots. Well, I'm sorry, but what's the definition of a bigot? "One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Sorry, but after the intolerance spewed forth by the Texas GOP, doesn't that definition fit?
But back to the question of morals, and why somebody else's morals are better than mine... The GOP position is laced with religion. Marriage is God-ordained. Homosexuality is against the truths that have been ordained by God. I don't believe in your God. So why does your God dictate policy regarding my life? Is this a theocracy? I don't for a second want to prevent you from practicing your religion, or living your life according to your beliefs. Please allow me the same courtesy. Your rights to religion are your rights, but your rights to your religion don't include the right to impose your religious beliefs on me. The basic protections afforded other minority groups (which homosexuals are) like protection from employment discrimination and respect for monogamous relationships (aka marriage) are CIVIL concepts. I've said this before - atheists can get married outside of a church, and a church marriage isn't legal until the proper paperwork is filed with the government agency, thus it is a civil right. Your religious beliefs need to stay out of my civil rights.
I applaud you, the reader, for making it this far. I have lots of friends in Texas. I enjoy visiting Texas, my parents still live there. I've hinted at this before, but politicians are supposedly there to represent you. There are just about three kinds of people - those who support a platform, those who don't support a platform, and those who don't really care. In my experience, with issues relating to homosexuality, the people who oppose it are VERY vocal to their representatives. Those who are on the fence and those supportive of homosexuals aren't nearly as vocal, except some of the people who actually are homosexual (only some), and some staunch supporters. If those who read the GOPs position on homosexuality and find it over the top in its demeaning of good people, productive American citizens who just happen to be a little different, please, for the love of all that is good, tell someone. Write your state representatives. Write your US representatives and senators. Write the people leading the Republican Party in your state and tell them that you are a conservative, and that you stand for the values of conservatives, but you don't agree with the marginalization of gay people. Tell them that you think gay people should have the protected right to have a job. They should have the protections to form a family, even though their family isn't the same as your family. Tell them how you feel. This is how a democracy works. Tell them how you feel, tell them that they are supposed to take your feelings into consideration. And if you don't like the fact that they ignore your feelings, vote them out.
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/06/texas-gop-platform-criminalize-gay-sex-and-imprison-anyone-who-issues-a-marriage-license-to-a-gay-co.html
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Sunday, December 6, 2009
I just don't get it
There are two things that I'm struggling with.
First, is the fear. I don't listen to the radio very much at all. I only listen to it when I'm in the car, which is about 30 minutes every third week or so. But I was listening to my local oldies station last night, and an ad sponsored by the national organization for marriage came on, urging New Jersey citizens to write their representatives and urge them to protect the definition of marriage. I've asked this many times, and i haven't heard a single answer, let alone a good answer. By allowing Clark and me the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage, how does that jeopardize anybody else's marriage? Why do you fear so much, why do you hate so much? The ad pointed out that every popular vote that has come up across the country has resulted in denying equal rights (ok, they didn't phrase it like that, but that's what it means). Do people have such a short memory? Do people not realize that 43 years ago, when the supreme court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage, it wasn't by popular vote. It was a panel of highly educated people, analysing the law, and doing what was right. The ad said that they believed that gays and lesbians should be able to live their lives the way they want to, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry because that'll screw it up for everybody else. Why? Why? Why?!?
Second, who's fighting for me? I mean really fighting for me. The Human Rights Campaign? The American Civil Liberties Union? Maybe it's natural to dwell on the negative, but I'm much more familiar with the National Organization for Marriage and what they're doing. And why is the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund, which they describe as "The NOM Education Fund represents another aspect of NOM's overall effort to protect marriage, engaged solely in pro-marriage education and research, making information resources available to clergy, scholars, political leaders, and activists across the country", a 501(c)(3) organization - a tax deductible "charity". Lobbyists are not tax deductible. How can what they describe not be seen as a lobby? I guess it's a fine line, but I'm pretty sure they're still on the lobbyists side of that line.
First, is the fear. I don't listen to the radio very much at all. I only listen to it when I'm in the car, which is about 30 minutes every third week or so. But I was listening to my local oldies station last night, and an ad sponsored by the national organization for marriage came on, urging New Jersey citizens to write their representatives and urge them to protect the definition of marriage. I've asked this many times, and i haven't heard a single answer, let alone a good answer. By allowing Clark and me the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage, how does that jeopardize anybody else's marriage? Why do you fear so much, why do you hate so much? The ad pointed out that every popular vote that has come up across the country has resulted in denying equal rights (ok, they didn't phrase it like that, but that's what it means). Do people have such a short memory? Do people not realize that 43 years ago, when the supreme court struck down state bans on inter-racial marriage, it wasn't by popular vote. It was a panel of highly educated people, analysing the law, and doing what was right. The ad said that they believed that gays and lesbians should be able to live their lives the way they want to, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry because that'll screw it up for everybody else. Why? Why? Why?!?
Second, who's fighting for me? I mean really fighting for me. The Human Rights Campaign? The American Civil Liberties Union? Maybe it's natural to dwell on the negative, but I'm much more familiar with the National Organization for Marriage and what they're doing. And why is the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund, which they describe as "The NOM Education Fund represents another aspect of NOM's overall effort to protect marriage, engaged solely in pro-marriage education and research, making information resources available to clergy, scholars, political leaders, and activists across the country", a 501(c)(3) organization - a tax deductible "charity". Lobbyists are not tax deductible. How can what they describe not be seen as a lobby? I guess it's a fine line, but I'm pretty sure they're still on the lobbyists side of that line.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Blood? No thanks.
As soon as I turned 17, I started giving blood. Annual school blood drives, church blood drives, work drives. The last time I gave was when I was interning at MetLife, summer of 1998. A few months later, I was no longer desirable. It was a few months later that I became, er, romantically involved with Clark.
Gay men who have ever been sexually active are not allowed to give blood, platelets, or marrow. We're lumped into the same category as those who have sold sex for money or drugs and people who share needles. I've been in a committed, monogamous relationship for over a decade. And I'm at an unreasonable risk for HIV/AIDS.
In response to the AIDS crisis of the 1980's the FDA banned any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from giving blood. This 1985 provision argued that men who have sex with other men are at higher risk of contracting and transmitting HIV and hepatitis, posing a health risk to potential recipients. Thus, even with a needed rare blood type, gay men are prohibited from donating blood. What if a terminally ill patient is in need of a specific blood type and there is a gay man willing to be a donor? Due to the 1985 ban on gay blood donors, the patient in need would continue to wait for another suitable match, risking death. The patient is not informed if a gay donor has been found and does not have the opportunity to decide if they are willing to accept the "health risk". How archaic.
Tonight, I went with Jen to Long Island. A friend of ours has a cousin who is in very bad need of marrow. I'll spare the details because frankly, I don't know many of them. But this is a 15 year old kid who is in pretty bad shape. Jen and I went to a blood / marrow drive in Long Island, an hour each way, to register as marrow donors. Jen did, I didn't. I was willing to help, but not given the chance. I suspected that it might be the case, but I thought I'd try anyway. Sure, there's like a 1 in 100,000 chance that i would be a match, but I could help save somebody's life, if not him, then someone else. But I'm too much of an HIV risk.
Now, it presents me with a bit of a moral quandary. I can lie. I can tell them that I've never had sex with a man and give blood or register to donate marrow. I can help save lives. Or I can make a stink about, and make this rule more known. Even though it's clearly printed on the application forms, very few people realize this, that gay men cannot donate. I can make a stink and try and get people to rise up and get the rules changed. But that doesn't help people in the now. What did I do? I returned my application to the volunteers at the front desk and said that I didn't qualify. When asked why, I told why. They were disappointed.
Blood banks in other developed nations have realized that this is really not a wise thing to do, to limit the pool of donors. These regulations were quick to be put into place, but have been slow to be challenged, and will be even slower to be reversed. I wonder when the rules will change in the US and Canada.
Gay men who have ever been sexually active are not allowed to give blood, platelets, or marrow. We're lumped into the same category as those who have sold sex for money or drugs and people who share needles. I've been in a committed, monogamous relationship for over a decade. And I'm at an unreasonable risk for HIV/AIDS.
In response to the AIDS crisis of the 1980's the FDA banned any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from giving blood. This 1985 provision argued that men who have sex with other men are at higher risk of contracting and transmitting HIV and hepatitis, posing a health risk to potential recipients. Thus, even with a needed rare blood type, gay men are prohibited from donating blood. What if a terminally ill patient is in need of a specific blood type and there is a gay man willing to be a donor? Due to the 1985 ban on gay blood donors, the patient in need would continue to wait for another suitable match, risking death. The patient is not informed if a gay donor has been found and does not have the opportunity to decide if they are willing to accept the "health risk". How archaic.
Tonight, I went with Jen to Long Island. A friend of ours has a cousin who is in very bad need of marrow. I'll spare the details because frankly, I don't know many of them. But this is a 15 year old kid who is in pretty bad shape. Jen and I went to a blood / marrow drive in Long Island, an hour each way, to register as marrow donors. Jen did, I didn't. I was willing to help, but not given the chance. I suspected that it might be the case, but I thought I'd try anyway. Sure, there's like a 1 in 100,000 chance that i would be a match, but I could help save somebody's life, if not him, then someone else. But I'm too much of an HIV risk.
Now, it presents me with a bit of a moral quandary. I can lie. I can tell them that I've never had sex with a man and give blood or register to donate marrow. I can help save lives. Or I can make a stink about, and make this rule more known. Even though it's clearly printed on the application forms, very few people realize this, that gay men cannot donate. I can make a stink and try and get people to rise up and get the rules changed. But that doesn't help people in the now. What did I do? I returned my application to the volunteers at the front desk and said that I didn't qualify. When asked why, I told why. They were disappointed.
Blood banks in other developed nations have realized that this is really not a wise thing to do, to limit the pool of donors. These regulations were quick to be put into place, but have been slow to be challenged, and will be even slower to be reversed. I wonder when the rules will change in the US and Canada.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
single minded
I appreciate how the economy is very important. I do. But how many congressmen/women do we have? At the federal and state level?
Vermont's Senate has just overwhelmingly passed a bill that will allow same sex marriage in the state of Vermont. From here, it goes to the house, where the judiciary committee has a week's worth of testimony on the issue. It's expected to pass there as well. This is significant because it's the first time that same sex marriage has been granted from a legislative body and not "legislated from the bench by activist judges."
I know, Vermont's (republican) governor doesn't support same sex marriage, he's said that before. He officially announced today that he will veto this bill. He made the announcement today to stop speculation and to focus attention on the economy.
Can't we do two things at once? Vermont has 30 senators (26 of whom voted for this bill). Do all 30 of them have to spend all of their time fixing the economy? I'm a software developer by trade, and if my application has a critical, all 100 developers don't stop what they're doing to fix the problem. People still have progress to make in other parts of the application. Similarly, just because the economy stinks doesn't mean that we can ignore human dignity and civil rights, it doesn't mean we can ignore the environment, it doesn't mean that no other progress can be made until the recession is over. Does it?
And even so, how does vetoing a bill that has already been debated and already passed both houses of congress help to focus on the economy? Seems to me that it detracts from the economy, because now the bill has to go back to the house and senate and get the two thirds majority to override your veto (a majority that it currently already has).
Vermont's Senate has just overwhelmingly passed a bill that will allow same sex marriage in the state of Vermont. From here, it goes to the house, where the judiciary committee has a week's worth of testimony on the issue. It's expected to pass there as well. This is significant because it's the first time that same sex marriage has been granted from a legislative body and not "legislated from the bench by activist judges."
I know, Vermont's (republican) governor doesn't support same sex marriage, he's said that before. He officially announced today that he will veto this bill. He made the announcement today to stop speculation and to focus attention on the economy.
Can't we do two things at once? Vermont has 30 senators (26 of whom voted for this bill). Do all 30 of them have to spend all of their time fixing the economy? I'm a software developer by trade, and if my application has a critical, all 100 developers don't stop what they're doing to fix the problem. People still have progress to make in other parts of the application. Similarly, just because the economy stinks doesn't mean that we can ignore human dignity and civil rights, it doesn't mean we can ignore the environment, it doesn't mean that no other progress can be made until the recession is over. Does it?
And even so, how does vetoing a bill that has already been debated and already passed both houses of congress help to focus on the economy? Seems to me that it detracts from the economy, because now the bill has to go back to the house and senate and get the two thirds majority to override your veto (a majority that it currently already has).
Welcome
So I was trying to write a note on facebook today, but I couldn't find where to do that in the new facebook. I did, however, see a feature that lets you import posts from a blog to your facebook notes! Given that when I started posting facebook notes, it was because I was looking for a blogging feature within facebook (I thought it had one) and didn't find one, I thought I'd give this a go. So here it is. My first blog entry. Thrilling. I know. There will be more later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
