Bullies and Marriage Equality

Faggot. Queer. Cocksucker.

I’ll take “Names from high school” for $1000 Alex. Yup, I heard them all. Now I wonder how they knew about me back then when I never acted on my feelings. Okay, there was that one time at band camp, but I’m not sure that mutual masturbation under the covers truly counts as a sexual encounter.  Quasi-encounter maybe. But my first full blown (no pun intended) gay sexual experience didn't occur until I was 21.

I debated about putting a warning at the beginning of this because that language isn't what I normally put into my writing. But I figured the shock might be good for readers to have - if they’re shocked at all. I certainly was when I was reminded of how strangers are during an online debate about marriage equality here in Indiana. Once the other guy pulled out the queer word I thanked him for the reminder of what people really think and that I mistakenly thought I had left the bullying shoved into a corner of my high school locker like some wadded up piece of notebook paper. Luckily  though I was never stuffed into one - even though  back then I probably would have fit. I did however have books knocked out of my hands, got tripped in the hallway one day, faggot and cocksucker hissed at me in passing, and once had my school t-shirt ripped off one shoulder in the lunch line. That was a fun afternoon going around from class to class with my shirt held together on one side by a couple of safety pins all because two of school jocks decided they couldn't wait behind me.

So even if I did leave all that back in high school, there are plenty of people to remind me that they haven’t. People like Mike Delph, Micah Clark, Mike Pence, and a cast of several dozen internet commentators (not here) who remind me on a daily basis that the “home-sek-shuls” are not fit to breath the same air as the fine upstanding, God fearing, bible thumping, people of the Great State of Indiana! Why how dare I say that I’m a Christian? How dare I raise a child in this god-less house with my deviant husband? How dare I still live? Why I should just go kill myself and save humanity from my evil wicked ways. Yes, I've heard that one also.

But I’m the bully. Any guesses as to why? Because I demand to have my civil rights is why. Because I refuse to go “back in the closet” or better “see the sickness and depravity of” my life by opening my eyes. The latter help came from a man who said he lived the same “sick deviant” life that I live until he woke up one day to see how sick it really was. I wanted to say that he apparently wasn't doing it right (or maybe he was?) but instead I just said that my family and I would be praying that one day he would wake up and see that judging people wasn't his job and that he would be able to accept all people just as Christ did. I think I actually heard his head explode all the way from northern Indiana at that one.

Here’s the irony of the whole marriage equality debate. I’m already married. We were married in a church in a very traditional ceremony right here in Indianapolis. The difference between our wedding and state sanctioned marriages? There were two grooms at the altar and no license. We had called it a commitment ceremony, but that changed once we heard the minister introduce us at church services the next morning as having been married in their sanctuary the previous day. We were stunned when the whole congregation cheered. They cheered for two queer men who had stood at the front of their church and declared in front of our families, our friend, and our God that we would be spend the rest of our lives together.

Here are a few things to consider if you're on the other side from me on this issue: A county clerk's office issues a marriage license, not a church. You don't have to be married in a church for it to be legal. Without going into all the other "arguments" what a marriage is at it's most base level is a legal contract between two consenting adults of legal age witnessed by two other adults of consenting age. A person can't marry a toaster or their dog because the first is an inanimate object and the second is an animal and neither is capable of signing a legal contract.

Faggot. Six letters, one really harsh word. But you know what? I would rather hear it than have someone be told they aren't allowed to use it. At least then I’ll know who I’m dealing with once it escapes their lips. Call it gay marriage if you want, it doesn't make it any different than what you and your spouse have. If allowing me and my husband to be legally married somehow threatens your "straight" marriage then I strongly suspect there are other issues at work that have nothing to do with two men or two women getting married.

October 30, 2004 - Central Christian Church

A Home in Indiana?

Today I was watching some of the Indiana Senate hearing on HJR-3. For those not familiar with HJR-3 (formerly HJR-6) it is a proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution that would prohibit marriage equality or anything resembling marriage for gay people. Indiana requires any changes to the state constitution to be ratified by two consecutive legislative sessions before going to a voter referendum. Here is the language that was passed in the prior legislature:

HJR-3 Language

“Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana.

“A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

(and here is where I had a whole bunch of dry facts about the legislative process - none of which I wanted to read through so I'm sure no one else did either)

A few weeks ago the Indiana House passed HJR-3 without the second sentence. Today the Senate committee heard testimony and voted to send it to the full Senate also without the second sentence and it will very likely come to a vote later this week. During all the testimony I read the live feed on Facebook and Twitter while trying to hold down the fear of what the passage of HJR-3‪‎ will mean to my family. I wonder if people realize that this is more than just legally defining marriage in this state, but is more about how Indiana will view my family. We are a happy little bunch, and I know we are loved by our family and friends here. But to live in the state I grew up in and returned home to so we could raise our daughter would become unthinkable and not possible any longer. There is a limit to what a stack of legal paperwork can do to protect us and it is a large stack. 

I'm not sure how things will turn out, but to hear several groups stand on research as to why a mother and a father are necessary for children to have any hopes of growing up well adjusted made we wonder how things got so twisted around. We speak about the legal protections afforded by marriage and they shout "but the bible defines marriage as one man, one woman!" They speak of stable traditional homes as the basis for child rearing and we ask "isn't that what we're doing now?" 

Seriously. The picture of values the conservative right is painting is one very similar to what we have with the only difference being there are two guys instead of a guy and a gal under this roof raising a child. We have dinner as a family every night. Robbie is on the school PTO. We both attend our daughters recitals. We wonder if our 50 year old septic system will hold up until the city finally comes through with city services. We vote and pay taxes. We worry if our daughter is doing well enough in school. And now we worry about this piece of legislation. 

This is what it boils down to: This is a legal matter not a religious one. Marriage licenses are issued by county clerks not by churches to two consenting adults. Not three or more. Not to an adult and a minor. Or animals. Or toasters. The last three are precluded from signing legal contracts - the first because they aren't old enough, the latter because they are either not a cognizant or sentient being. There is no clause saying you have to procreate or have a religious ceremony when you apply for one - both of which being arguments for denying marriage equality. If your church doesn't support same sex marriage then you can believe that your church won't be forced to perform any. In fact I can personally guarantee that we won't even set foot in your sanctuary. 

And here's a question for the conservative religious faction. If you really think that religion should be a reason for enacting laws then which religion should it be? Hebrew, Muslim, Buddhism, Scientology, or any of the other numerous religion? Christians can't even agree on the same interpretation of the Bible whether they be Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or Episcopalian. There is a very practical reason for separation of church and state - no one has ever been able to find a common ground among all of them. Okay maybe one thing - Love.