To Marry or Not To Marry II

In December 2009, NY voted down legalizing gay marriage. There was great hope that New York would be the first state in the Union to pass gay marriage by vote rather than have it court mandated. That hope was dashed by a vote of 38 to 24. This past year saw a slew of states voting down gay marriage as well. The most notably was California with the passage of Propositin 8 which overturned the CA Supreme Courts decision to legalize gay marriage. My question is: should gays and lesbians have the right to marry?

The traditional definition of marriage has changed throughout history but has always maintained at least one man and one woman. Do we as gays and lesbians have the right to demand our unions be recognized as legal unions? The argument against gay marriage contends that when marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, people will seek to further define it as unions between multiple partners, between familial relations and between people and animals. Sounds absurd, doesn't it? But it is through scare tactics like these that groups like the National Organization for Marriage use to portray gays and lesbians as the enemy.

I used to think why not just take the word marriage out of the equation and settle for domestic partnership or civil unions. But then, I heard a lesbian who is out and a celebrity explain it in the most simplest of terms. We want what every American wants, that is, to have our love recognized and to have it validated with the granting of over 1100 federal and state benefits. To settle for anything less than marriage is well...less. This celebrity went on to say that this issue is not a religious issue, nor a moral issue but rather a civil rights issue. And what I have been waiting to hear for so long, finally, she said it is rather amazing that we have allowed a majority to rule and vote on the civil rights of a minority. Amen!!

No other issue has divided the nation so vehemently as much, as well, another civil rights movement. I know the African American community cringes every time similarities are drawn between their own struggle for equal rights and the Gay and Lesbian fight, but how can you not see the parallels? If we took a popular vote pre-civil war to free the slaves or took a popular vote in the 1960's to further grant rights to the black community I think we would still have slaves. Likewise, if we took a popular vote to allow interracial marriages in the 1960's as well, I am sure it would still be illegal to mix races when marrying. So it only seems natural that while popular opinion continues to fight against what is just and right, the courts are needed to intercede and set things right. The people will follow suit when they see their fears are baseless and the world does not end.

To Marry or Not To Marry

Gays and Lesbians are fighting for the right to marry legally. We are fighting for the chance to enjoy the 1100 plus rights awarded to our straight counterparts when they utter those words, "I Do." The obstacle standing in our way is religious bigotry along with lies and smear campaigns put forth to paint homosexuals as sexual deviants who only want to push an agenda which include converting your children and trampling your rights to freedom of religion. This could be further from the truth.



To start with, the main argument put forth against gay marriage is the institution of marriage itself. We are told the institution of marriage consists of the union between one man and one woman. We are led to believe this union is essential to the furthering of the human race, in other words, for procreation. In looking back throughout history, marriage has also been defined by other "norms." In ancient times, including biblical times, marriage was a pre-arranged business deal between two families to secure their standing in a social caste system. Wives were betrothed for a sum of money, property or other means to gain power and persuasion amongst the ruling class. Additionally, polygamous relationships were the norm as was the marriage between barely pubescent girls to adult men. Typically, these marriages were all within the same race and mixing races was not permitted, until the mid 20th century. The 1900's saw marriage evolve radically when the definition changed to not only include mixed races but to outlaw polygamous marriages and those marriages between younger teenaged girls and adult men. In regards to the whole argument about procreation, this is a non issue. Otherwise, marriages resulting in no offspring would be null and void. Furthermore, in talking about barren couples, the science of in vitro or other means to artificially create a baby should fly directly in the face of any religious dogma. The whole notion of creating something obviously meant to not be seems to not cause even a ripple among the religious crowd.



Religius groups also mean to cause a diversion to the whole marriage debate by bringing innocent children into the picture. They maintain that by allowing gay marriage, schools will be forced to teach homosexuality as part of the school curriculum. This is not the case. Besides, homosexuality is already taught somewhat in school in the area of human sexuality. Next, these groups claim that ALL homosexuals are pushing an agenda which include converting innocent children to the gay lifestyle. This is an outright lie and is carried out with the intent to play on people's fear. To protect your child is every parent's main concern and when you present a homosexual as a predator you are creating an atmosphere where the parent has no choice but to side with the liars. In addition to preying on innocent children, some of the opponents also bring their own religion into play by saying the heads of their church will be forced to perform marriage rites to gays and lesbians in order to comply with their tax exempt status. For myself, I can not see forcing a minister or priest to marry me and my partner against their will or belief. I would seek out someone who would have no problem in performing this rite. Again, I believe fear plays a role in this angle as well. People's beliefs are so intrinsic to who they are that any affront against them is an assault on them and again, when attacked, who wouldn't protect themselves?

So we have seen how the "definition" of marriage has changed throughout history. We have seen how fear tactics have been deployed to divert attention from the issue at hand. Finally, I want to address the separation of church and state. A friend of mine has repeatedly pointed out to me that the idea of separation of church and state is not outlined anywhere in our founding documents. To understand this concept we have to explore the motives of our founding fathers and interpret, just like we do the bible, their actions. All we have to do is look at a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. In this letter he stresses the importance of government not intervening in any matter related to a religious institution. While I think we can all agree that the first Americans were deeply religious, I think we can also agree that they were fleeing England to avoid persecution for their religious beliefs. This is why we have freedom of religion and furthermore, this is why we have no National religion. Otherwise, atheists should not be allowed to get married as well as Buddhists, Muslims, Jews or any other non-Christian. If we are going to rule by religion, then let's examine divorce rates, pre-marital sex, out of wedlock births and adultery. If we aren't going to allow gays and lesbians to get married because of religious dogma then we shouldn't allow the many other transgressions against the sacred institution of marriage. To take it a step further, the government should really get out of the marriage business and stop offering "special" rights to heterosexuals simply because they choose to get married.

In conclusion, I want to point out the absurdity of voting on the rights of a minority by a majority. While majority rule is the backbone of our Democratic society, it does not reach so far as to oppress a minority group and strip them of their equal rights as outlined by the Constitution. If the old adage about history repeating itself is true, we are definitely on the upswing. With State Supreme Court decisions being overturned by majority vote at the polls, it should stand to reason that eventually this will not be the case. Like all Civil Right movements within the last century, it has been the Supreme Court that has had to step in and go against popular opinion and do the right thing. We just have to hope this will happen soon.

To Be or Not To Be - Part II

I thought this second part would be easy to write. The pent up anger and frustration in me would come out so easily I thought. However, I am faced with a dilemma. In talking with a friend about the nature of this post, she cautioned me about crossing the line of imposing my own beliefs onto those I don’t agree with or vice versa. I respect that. Before going any further though, I think I need to give a little background into my own experience with organized religion.

By the time I was thirteen, I had been to many different churches. Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic and The Church or Christ all claim to belong to the greater faith of Christianity but differ dramatically in their interpretation of the Bible. I have seen this first hand. I guess this is why, as an adult, I have rejected all things pertaining to organized religion. In MY opinion, I believe religion is nothing more than a belief system designed by man to control the masses. People since the dawn of time have always been afraid of the unknown. Through a system of gods and beliefs, they have managed to soothe their worries and calm their fears because they have an answer. Sometimes this answer is that there is no answer or we are not to know the answer. I have always been amazed that a group of people can honestly say to another group of people that their belief system is not only superior but the ONLY belief system thereby, damning the other group to some gruesome fate. Likewise, I find it appalling that this same group of people can interpret their bible anyway they see fit to fit the agenda of the day.

In attempting to interpret the Bible, the extremist right of the Christian faith will stop at nothing to persuade the gullible that homosexuality is such a grievous sin that God would condone an automatic death sentence to all homosexuals. It is my understanding that a sin is a sin is a sin. While there are many “commandments” listed in the Bible, only ten are highlighted and of those ten, only two are actual laws in the US. This persuasion comes in the form of a mere recitation of a few versus scattered throughout the Bible. The arguments also call on the question of nature saying that homosexuality defies the natural law of how we are created.

The most brandied about verse come from the book of Leviticus. Basically, it states that a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman. The problem I have with this verse being used as “proof” that God disapproves of homosexuality is that this verse is taken out of context. If we are to follow this verse then why do we not follow the verses surrounding it, mainly the ones that talk about not eating shellfish or stoning a child who talks back to their parents? Supposedly, these rules are negated in the New Testament by Jesus Chris himself, therefore, I don’t see how we can pick and choose which ones to ignore and which ones we revere. Next, we must look at the context in which these were written. In the time of Moses, women were not seen as equals. They were second class citizens at best and more likely treated as possessions. The verse talks about in battle or war where upon conquering the enemy, it was customary to defile them by basically raping them thereby treating them as women. A couple of other verses condemning homosexuality are also interpreted according to what the interpreter wants the verse to say. In the end though, the Bible clearly states that all sins can be washed away with the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior. In addition, as also preached, let thee without sin cast the first stone and ye shall not judge lest ye also be judged. I think that pretty much clears up the whole Homosexuality issue.

Next, the most compelling argument against Homosexuality occurring naturally comes in the argument that God created man in his image in his image he created man. Next, God created woman to compliment man and to give him companionship. The whole idea of man and woman was to populate the world. So the fact that homosexual relationships can not produce offspring makes this coupling “unnatural.” In recent decades we have seen heterosexual relationships form where no offspring can be produced “naturally” thus creating a method through science to make this possible. I don’t hear the religious fervor over this “unnatural” producing of offspring. Additionally, we have seen many cases in the animal kingdom where same sex partners come together and shun the opposite sex. We have even seen cases where the same sex couple will “adopt” another’s offspring and raise it as their own. Funny, how in a world without the influence of God, this phenomenon can happen so naturally.

In 1973, the American Psychological Association declassified Homosexuality as a mental disorder. Debates ensued and accusations flew against the board accusing them of caving in to outside activists influence or claiming it the result of an inside job. Next, reparative therapy or conversion therapy cropped up claiming to “cure” homosexuals of their deviant behavior. I personally had an email exchange with one of the subjects cited in a study where the results showed a significant number of participants converted over to heterosexuality. There were certain degrees though, a certain number had not yet had sex with a member of the opposite sex while another group had gone so far as to develop a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex. The individual I spoke with was lumped in with the group not yet inducted into their heterosexuality. I asked if any follow up study was conducted. You know, to see if there was any backsliding or if the middle group had graduated to full blown heterosexuals. He stated no, there was no follow up. I asked him if he still lusted after members of the same sex, he said that yes, he did. However, these thoughts were more and more becoming less frequent. I finally told him I thought he was a homosexual living a heterosexual’s lifestyle. He never wrote back. The point of this being, there is no conclusive evidence that someone can alter their sexuality. Most of the participants in this study came from a family rooted in religion. To conduct a fair and accurate study, it has always been my understanding that you have to include a control group and that all participants must be free from biases or any other factor which could taint the results. This was not the case. Furthermore, it is my opinion, that the reason these religious zealots fight to show that conversion therapy works or that the APA made a mistake by declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder is so that they do not have to admit that GOD made us this way. Because if GOD made us homosexuals, how can he make a mistake?

So there you have it. The real reason these fanatics twist the truth, spread lies and choose to convey their message through fear tactics is to protect their own faith. To cover up the fallacies which exist in their texts is the only way to further their own agendas. I will state that I don’t care what you choose to believe. You can choose to believe whatever you want, just don’t expect me to believe the same. I also call out to all the Christians who believe that God loves everybody and that Jesus Christ truly died for our sins so we don’t have to pay for them to come out and call out these bigots for their shameful behavior. I find it appalling that these liars are not held accountable for their words of hatred and condemnation under the false approval of God! I find it sad that their words carry such weight and succeed in spoiling the minds of millions blinding them from seeing the true message of their God! A message of acceptance and love.

To Be or Not To Be - Part 1

This is the first part of a two part post. I am taking on the oh so controversial question of whether people are born gay or if they choose to be gay. Many people believe being gay is a choice. While these people fail to recognize the fact they did not choose their own sexuality, they think all gay people make a conscience effort to decide whether to be gay or straight.

I am a gay man. Ok, so no surprise there. But, I have KNOWN I was gay ever since I could remember. I can literally remember at around the age of five that I knew I was different. I knew I was attracted to boys. Now before you say ew or gross or any other vomit inducing sound, I thought this strange myself to know this from such an early age. That was before I had a nephew. My nephew is six years old. A few months into kindergarten, my nephew comes home and states he has a girlfriend. A little brunette in his class has caught his eye and he proclaims this is the girl he will marry. Now my sister and her husband of course paid no attention to this declaration of love and instead thought it cute. I finally understood the workings of sexuality. I could have been that boy at six proclaiming my love for a fellow classmate who happened to be a boy. When I was little and realized I was different, I had no understanding of straight, gay, homosexual or heterosexual. I just knew that I couldn’t really make it known that I liked boys. I understood this as well in looking at my nephew. When my sister and her family came down to Dallas for their annual visit, they live in Wisconsin, I went to hug my nephew. He promptly held his hand out and told me, “Boys don’t hug boys.” I looked at my sister and she just shrugged her shoulders. I know for a fact my sister or her husband did not teach my nephew this. It made me realize how I KNEW at such a young age to keep my own attractions a secret because just like my nephew said, “Boys don’t hug boys.”

In reading studies regarding the childhoods of gay adults, I learned of many perceived characteristics which were thought to have contributed to their orientation. I fit almost all these characteristics. I had a dominating mother, I was sexually abused as a kid, I came from a broken home and the list just keeps getting longer and longer. I wondered about the duality of a genetic disposition to a specific sexuality and the impact of environmental influences. In asking myself if I was genetically predisposed or if my environment surrounding me in my formative years determined whether I was gay or not, I wondered about the lives of several gay people I knew. What I found was that environmental influences could not have had much of an impact in determining my sexuality. Sure it might have played a role as to when I finally accepted my sexuality but not in making me straight or gay. So I have to believe that something happened either at the moment of conception or something else en utero. Otherwise, why would children with parents still married and with no history of any kind of abuse who also were raised in a so called upright religious setting, turn out to be gay? They certainly did not fit any stereotype.

Years ago, when I came out to my younger brother, the first thing he asked me was why I had to “live” gay. Why couldn’t I just bottle up all those feelings and find a nice girl to marry and settle down with kids? I asked him if he wanted me to be happy. He responded that he did want me to be happy and I told him that is why I would never do those things. I would not be happy!
Now, when talking about choice, I will concede that yes, I do CHOOSE to live as an openly gay man. I associate myself with others like me and I find entertainment as well as comfort in participating in many things gay. Going to gay bars, attending drag shows and having sex with men will always be my choice. And I make that choice because that is who I am. To even consider living a double life where I imprison myself in a fake marriage so as to appease those who are “uncomfortable” with my lifestyle is simply out of the question. Not only would it be unfair and unjust to me, it would not be fair to the woman who thinks she knows me and is in love with an illusion.

I had a friend once who commented that being gay was not “who” he was. Being gay was like 10% of who he was as a person. I told him no, that’s 10% of the population…badabum…but I digress. I started thinking about how we “identify” ourselves. We first identify ourselves as male or female. Then I think we identify ourselves as single, dating, partnered, married or something of that nature. Next, we might think of ourselves in relation to what we do for a living; such as a waiter, engineer, doctor or some other profession. Another identifier could be our age; are we old, young, an old youth or a youthful old person? There are infinite possibilities that tell people who we are. Sexuality is a minute part of that image but it certainly creates an impasse when you throw homosexuality in the mix. Suddenly we are the “gay person” instead of the single forty-something man who is a respected lawyer.

Being gay does not define who someone IS! Just like being straight does not pigeonhole someone into a specific set of characteristics, being gay does not accomplish this as well. So if anyone still believes that a person can choose their sexuality, let me ask a few questions. Why would someone choose not only to sleep with someone of the same sex but then to choose to openly live a lifestyle such as that of a gay person? Why would someone purposefully choose a life or lifestyle that automatically comes with scorn, hate, rejection and a basic overall feeling of loneliness and despair? The answer is that no one would. If anything, some would try to reject that lifestyle and choose instead to live a life of lies, deceit and unhappiness; and that just isn’t fair to ask of anyone.

To Speak or Not To Speak

What does it mean to have Freedom of Speech? In researching for this post, I found out that Freedom of Speech has been broadened to cover a wide variety of different forms of speech. However, there are exceptions to what is protected and what is not. The jurisdiction of Congress or the courts over the protection of speech or the outlawing of speech is not totally clear. Someone speaking falsely or deliberately misleading in their words could be sued for libel or defamation. Also, words which incite violence or criminal behavior could fall under restricted speech. In determining whether said speech does indeed incite violence or criminal acts relies heavily on the intent of the speaker. For years, the lyrics of rap songs have come under fire for explicit wording involving cop killing and the raping of women. After strong debate from both sides, it is now common for such lyrics to not be aired, however, there have been cases where the courts have stepped in and punished those for going too far. The wife of a Vice President even mounted a campaign to urge production companies to voluntarily label their product with a rating system which warned the consumer about the products content.

My quandary for this post stems from politicians, journalists, or any person in the public eye exorcising their right to Free Speech in a reckless manner. How and when do we determine which words spoken in the public arena could be defined as those which could incite violence or worse, criminal behavior? Specifically, my bone of contention lies with politicians who passionately convey their message through scripture or other forms of religious diatribe. To keep this post on track, matters of religion will be addressed in a later post. For now, I want to concentrate on two examples of reckless speech, both espoused by politicians.

The first comes from Sally Kern. Sally Kern is a State Representative from Oklahoma. In a dialogue caught on tape unbeknownst to Sally, she expresses her views of homosexuality as the biggest threat to our National security. In fact, she states terrorism and Islam, while also threats, are not as great as Homosexuality. To show the outrageousness of this claim, she first states that any nation that totally embraced homosexuality lasted no more than a few decades. A few DECADES? I would really like to see the historical data backing up this claim.

The second example of reckless speech by a politician comes from Scott Renfroe, a Colorado State Senator. Here we have a very passionate and God fearing man extolling the dangers of Homosexuality while acting in his role as an elected official. He quotes the oft recited verses from the Bible which condemns the practice of Homosexuality. He then proceeds to liken Homosexuality as a sin on par with murder. His analogy of course brings him to the conclusion that since murder is illegal, then so should homosexuality be illegal. In keeping with the Bible theme, he recites a verse which calls for the revealing of the wrath of God including putting to death homosexuals.

Both of these examples illustrate, in my opinion, words which could incite violence or criminal behavior. I think it grossly irresponsible for these politicians to use such inflammatory language while operating in the role of an elected official. While Sally Kerns was speaking technically off the record, her carelessness in making sure her words be kept private were negligent. Furthermore, she not only confirmed the fact she said these things; she offered no remorse or retraction from her message. Religious arguments aside, Scott Renfroe acted irresponsible as well. To use religion on top of comparing homosexuality to murder and calling for the wrath of God to be carried out on Homosexuals is horrific and inexcusable. It would stand to reason, that any mentally stable person would not take these words as an invitation to seek out and kill anyone who is gay. But how can we be sure that this message was not mistakenly conveyed to someone who is not mentally stable? I am sure Sally and Scott did not intend to promote a message authorizing the killing of innocent people. However, can we be sure that these words, in their basic definition, are not misconstrued? I say we cannot.

In furthering my point, I want to tell you about two individuals who died because someone thought homosexuality was wrong. They are Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King.

Matthew Shepard was 21 when he was robbed, pistol whipped, tied to a post and left to die. His attackers would claim many motives throughout the course of their trial. These motives included: robbing a gay man, for what, is still unclear, although drugs entered the equation at one point then denied later on, as well as teaching Matthew Shepard a lesson. That lesson was for Matthew Shepard not to hit on a straight guy. We will never know the true motive because Matthew Shepard is dead and cannot give any incite as to what actually happened that night. The convicted killers have changed their story so many times; they can no longer be trusted in telling the truth. Because of the national coverage of Matthew’s death, Hate Crime laws with the inclusion of sexual orientation have been enacted in several states. Just recently, a bill was introduced in Congress which would define a crime motivated by a person’s sexual orientation as a hate crime. It is expected to be signed into law on a national level by President Obama. Sad to say, the killers could not be tried as committing a hate crime because sexual orientation was not included as part of the definition yet.

Lawrence King, a fifteen year old boy, came out to his family and schoolmates as being gay. He had no problem with who he was or expressing himself through fashion or other avenues. Typical eighth grade classmates teased him and even harassed him, but this was thought to be just normal. On February 12, 2008, Lawrence King was in the computer lab at school when Brandon McInerney, a classmate, walked in with a gun, pointed it at Lawrence Kings head and pulled the trigger. The motive behind this shooting is still unclear but many think it stems from a crush King had for Brandon. Feeling humiliated by King’s crush, Brandon executed him. Fortunately, this time, the killer has been charged as committing a hate crime.

While these sad and horrific acts were not directly linked to the words spoken by Sally Kerns or Scott Renfroe, it is logical to think that their words could provoke similar acts of violence and criminal behavior. For a person to be killed simply because they came on to another person or developed a crush on someone is beyond my comprehension. For a fifteen year old child to harbor such hatred and humiliation towards an innocent school yard crush begs society to examine more closely how this cold blooded and calculated murder came about.

In closing, I want to highlight another murder motivated by a humiliating crush; a same sex crush, only this time, the crush was revealed not in a school yard but on national television. In 1999, The Jenny Jones show taped an episode with the topic “Revealing Secrets.” A young man was flown out and told he had a secret admirer. He was also told the admirer could be either male or female. The identity of the admirer was revealed to be a man the guest already knew. After the show, they flew home together and even went shopping together. Later, the humiliated guest shot his admirer and killed him. The parents and family of the slain man sued The Jenny Jones show saying the producers and the host herself should have anticipated the outcome. I mean seriously, how can you not see that by revealing a same sex admirer to a straight man that it would result in murder? Imagine the humiliation, the shame. Imagine that EVERYONE knowing about a gay man’s crush on YOU. Sends chills up your spine doesn’t it? Incredulously, the jury awarded the plaintiff a twenty five million dollar settlement. Jenny Jones practically shot the man herself it seemed by the overwhelming victory. Finally, sanity prevailed and the judgment was thrown out.

To speak or not to speak. When do we start taking responsibility for the actions caused by the words we say? When do we start taking responsibility for the acts committed in response to messages condoning violence? When do we stop preaching hate and humility and start preaching love and acceptance? I am not saying that anyone who kills someone under the excuse well so and so said is not responsible, but I am saying you should be a little more careful in the words you choose to express yourself. I understand the argument of Free Speech, but with that freedom comes accountability. Certainly, you have the right to say whatever you like, just expect that maybe someone, somewhere will actually believe you.

To "Out" or Not to "Out"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

To Blog or Not to Blog

Welcome to my home in the Blogosphere

In answering the title question, I examined why I would want to create a blog. For years now, I have asked myself questions in regards to my homosexuality. These questions ranged from whether I was born this way to should I force others to accept my sexuality. I also questioned the validity of societies judgments towards homosexuals and the effects these judgments had on my life as well as others. In the end, I decided I wanted an outlet where I could put these questions out there and offer my opinions for anyone to read. In return, I want my readers to comment and offer their own take on my views whether they agree or disagree. I welcome everyone's opinion and while I acknowledge that this blog will expose my own point of view, I hope you respect it for what it is and I will return the favor.

Again, thanks for stopping by. Feel free to comment anytime you like. I hope to open an honest and intelligent discussion on all things Queer!!