a work of fiction by Robin Reardon
FOREWORD
The only thing wrong with being gay is how some people treat you when they find out.
This blog entry is the tenth and final in a series of monthly installments that present the rationale behind Thinking Straight. The series is written from the point of view of a gay man—which I am not—so I've labeled it as a fictional open letter to humanity, addressed to anyone who will read it and consider its points. My hope is that it will further understanding and acceptance.
The installments have been presented in logical order (Part I and the full list of installments was posted in April), and I encourage readers to start at the beginning and proceed through.
X. ACCEPTANCE: A Few Suggestions
Religion
Recently I read Irshad Manji’s book, The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith. It’s also an open letter, and Manji makes a compelling case for worshiping strategically rather than tactically. Among many other astoundingly insightful points, she says that one of the biggest hurdles for Muslims is the tendency to apply the Qur’an as though the reader still lived centuries ago, in a desert civilization, without much of the science or social infrastructure to which we have access today. She makes her case much more academically than I do, quoting experts and researchers and providing footnotes and a bibliography. But she and I are saying the same thing when it comes to religious practice today: Shift has happened. Adjust your tactics.
Manji is a devout Muslim. She is a lesbian. And she lives behind bullet-proof glass.
Marriage
Recently I heard someone say something like this: “It’s like you’re telling me that if I think marriage is something special between one man and one woman, I’m a bigot!”
Well, I don’t need to call this man a bigot; he just did it himself. If you think that something as fundamental to the human condition as marriage should be reserved only for a “special” group, doesn’t that kind of define bigot? He should look it up. And to anyone who yells about the sanctity of marriage, I say, “If marriage is sacred, you’d better outlaw divorce.”
In the past several years, a number of changes have happened around the issue of same-sex marriage. I wish this progress could follow a rational process, but it doesn’t seem to do that. Personally, I think that getting unioned, while it’s not the same as getting married, is a step in the right direction. Do I mean we should give up? By no means. But trying to force reason into people who are not rational, who are still doing thoughtlessly what their lizard brains tell them to do, people who are saying totally asinine things like, “If we allow same-sex marriage we’ll run out of kids,” won’t get us anywhere.
This doesn’t mean I won’t argue with them, and it doesn’t mean I’m not for full rights to all citizens. As far as I’ve heard—and believe me, I’ve listened carefully to lots of arguments against my right to marry a male partner, because I was hoping to construct counter arguments—there is no, and I mean NO rational reason to deny me that right. I did hear one fellow call into an NPR talk show (“On Point”) and declare that he didn’t see why he had to allow any group of people to get more civil rights (my jaw fell at this point) than anyone else just because they chose to have sex in a certain way. Two callers later, a woman told about the horrendous treatment her lesbian sister had suffered all her life. She asked, in essence, “Why would my sister have chosen this kind of treatment?” She’s right. So this guy’s argument is irrational, too.
The only argument that holds any water at all is the religious one (but only for religious people who are literalists), and that’s not rational, either; it’s faith-based. The last time I checked, in these United States a citizen in good standing (that is, not imprisoned for some horrid felony) did not have to follow the tenets or doctrine of any religion in order to receive full citizen’s rights. And, in fact, even people in prison for committing horrid felonies are allowed to marry. So, really, no religion should have anything to say about whether I can be married in the eyes of the law.
What if two atheists want to marry? Will any church or synagogue or mosque bless that union, and would the betrothed couple want that anyway? No. Do they have another option? Sure. City Hall. And if a Justice of the Peace officiates without some ordained individual present, are they married? You bet they are. Is it sanctified? No. Does it need to be? Not in the eyes of the U.S. law.
What if two Catholics want to marry, and they go through Pre-Cana and get all the way through the entire wedding mass, are they married? Not in the eyes of the U.S. law, they aren’t. Not until they get that legal license that the church can’t provide.
So what is this “sanctity of marriage” crap? Marriage is “sanctified” only if it’s blessed by some religious official. By some ordained representative of God whose authority is recognized by the betrothed. But that’s not what we’re asking for. We aren’t demanding that the Catholic church, or any other religious institution, sanctify our marriages. It would be nice, and we may believe it should happen, but that’s not what we’re asking for.
If only this were a rational process.
I know that the logic of this approach will not make much difference to lots of people who will continue to hold up a card that reads something like this: “Don’t let homosexuals destroy the sanctity of Marriage!” Just because they aren’t ready to see reason doesn’t make them right, however. And the card they’re holding up actually has another card behind it. They can’t see it, because they’re too busy confabulating. It says: “There’s no need to think. I feel instinctively this is wrong.”
Where have we heard that before?
Mike Huckabee is famous for saying that the problem with gay marriage is that it would be redefining marriage. I want to say to him, “And your point is ...?” For one thing, I’d love for him to explain how he came by his definition, when the Bible itself tells of supposedly righteous men who had multiple wives. And for another, what in tarnation is so awful about the idea of redefining marriage now? Why the hell not? What piece of sky is going to fall if we do?
No matter what you might think of Alan Dershowitz personally, no one can deny that he has one of the keenest legal minds alive today. In 2003 he wrote the article, To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business. His solution is that the civil union would be what everyone gets, and those who then choose to have their union sanctified by their house of worship, provided that house of worship agrees, can have a marriage. The word “marriage” would become the label for a sanctified civil union.
While I see the logic—the rationality—in this approach, I kind of doubt very many hetero couples who don’t choose to be married in a church or by a religious officiant would be willing to call themselves “unioned” instead of “married.” Mr. D. may have a good point, but it ain’t gonna happen.
So why will I personally put up—for now, let me stress—with a “civil union” instead of a “marriage?”
One is that the longer we go with few or no rights for gays, the more people will suffer. If we at least get our proverbial foot in the door, we’ll be able to get domestic partnership benefits and adoption rights to people who deserve it, and we’ll do that sooner than later. Also, if we have “unioned” gays all over the place, we’ll be eating away at all those lies about the terrible things that will happen to “real” marriage and “real” families. We’ll be able to PROVE that they are lies. And this will make getting to full marriage rights less of a struggle.
The other reason is that I’ll take tolerance over hatred. For now. But I don’t want to be tolerated. I tolerate tolerance, because I expect it to end. My goal is acceptance. I expect it.
Look, I’m part Irish. Maybe a quarter. Not long ago I was in bumper-to-bumper traffic behind a car on the bumper of which was a sticker that read, “God made the Irish #1!” Not only did reading this not make the one-quarter of me that’s Irish feel good, but it also made the hackles on the back of my neck rise. My fists and my jaw clenched. What’s the rest of me? Chopped liver? Why would someone put this on their car?
I’m not going to take the time to try and answer why they would do it, though you can believe I have some opinions. But I will venture an opinion about the effects. Bottom line: the extremely limited number of people who will feel good about reading that (or displaying it) is a grain of sand on a very long beach full of people who will feel insulted by it. So what purpose does it serve? Not much that’s good. It makes anyone who already sees the Irish as a bunch of ignorant, barbaric potato diggers feel validated in their opinion, and it makes many who might have stood up for Irish dignity feel embarrassed. And it might push a few in the latter category into the first.
Similar things would happen if I put a bumper sticker on my car that reads, “We’re here, we’re queer. Get used to it!” Do I believe the sentiment to be valid? You bet your ass I do. Do I think it furthers my objective to put it on my car? Depends; what’s my objective, when it comes to gay rights? My objective is in the title of this tome. Acceptance. So the answer is no, that bumper sticker actually jeopardizes my objective, because the situation is that there are still more people who don’t want to accept me fully than there are people who do. And based on that situation, the tactic of slapping the majority of people in the face is not going to convince any of them to accept me, and it might push away some who were getting close. It’s a great battle cry at a gay rally, but I don’t recommend displaying it as a public banner among the general population of lizards.
Back to marriage. We’ve all heard the red herring that if we allow same-sex marriage, all bets would be off and there would be nothing to stop a mother and a son from marrying. Or a man and his—I don’t know, lizard?
God, but I wish people would think. Even a teeny tiny bit of thought would have prevented these idiots from making fools of themselves. There’s nothing about allowing all citizens in good standing the right to marry that would negate the existing laws that apply to ALL citizens who want to marry. Depending on the state, marriage applicants must get blood tests, wait some amount of time after applying before the license is granted, and answer questions about their potential familial relationship. Why? Two reasons: to prevent the spread of STDs; and to prevent inbreeding. These laws were established at a time (dare I say in a Situation?) when it was assumed that if two people were going to get married, they were unavoidably (barring the displeasure of the Creator) going to have children. So if the law won’t even let first cousins marry, what do you think it would say to a mother and son? Or to a mother and daughter, for that matter? That’s right, the law would be patently ridiculous, in terms of its intent, in this latter case, because no children would ensue, but it’s still the law.
So what about heterosexual couples in our situation as it is today? How many couples do you know who decided not to have children? If they were firsts cousins, they still wouldn’t have been issued a marriage license. So allowing unrelated gay people to marry is not the same as asking for these laws to be revoked. We’re asking for our civil rights to be acknowledged. Period.
I hate it when I hear someone say that gay marriages can’t produce children so they can’t be marriages. Does this mean heterosexual people who can’t conceive should be denied marriage? Some of them are young enough to have families and want to adopt; no marriage for them? What about the sixty-five-year-old widow, well past menopause, who wants to marry again? Should she be denied the right? Or are you just picking on gays because your lizard brain is afraid of us? Because there’s no rational reason to support the position of denying me legal marriage rights.
And as for those who insist that gay marriage, loving gay families, will somehow jeopardize “real” marriages, “real” families… how in God’s name would that happen? We support those families! We pay for their health care and their schooling! Talk about not thinking… Is it the lizard brain or the male mantra? It doesn’t matter. It’s wrong.
Lizard brains can be convinced by our human brains to chill with the paranoia. But it takes time, patience, persistence, and supporting the organizations who keep pushing forward gradually.
Civil Rights
This will be quick.
I’ve heard a number of prominent black individuals in the civil rights arena rant against gay people calling our insistence upon full citizens’ rights (such as the right to marry or not to be discriminated against in the housing or the job market) our civil rights. I have yet to hear any one of these nay-sayers make sense.
Are “black rights” civil rights? Absolutely. Are “gay rights” civil rights? Absolutely. Are “women’s rights” civil rights? Absolutely. My point is that not one of these interest groups holds exclusive rights to the concept of civil rights. Not one. Not even the “black rights” group. I won’t deny they have a cause; I fact, I support it whole-heartedly, and the fight ain’t over. But I sure as hell won’t let anyone deny mine. I want my civil rights, too. Everyone should.
Define civil rights: legal privileges and liberties granted by a given government to citizens in good standing. Withholding full citizens’ rights from the citizens of any demographic—black, female, Hispanic, Asian, gay—is a violation of civil rights.
End of debate.
Choice
Anyone reading this letter who still believes that homosexuality is a choice has understood nothing. One’s sexuality is an orientation. It’s part of who you are. And it’s not something you can change.
That said, a lifestyle is a choice. Am I advocating that gays choose a straight lifestyle? Why would I do that when the only thing wrong with being gay is how some people treat you when they find out?
So what am I talking about?
I mentioned earlier that, to varying degrees of success, some gay people have chosen to live a straight lifestyle. Do I recommend it? No; I don’t recommend living a lie. Can I tell someone else not to do that? No. But I do recommend they think rationally before they decide to do something that will force them to lie to everyone they know for the rest of their lives, including themselves. I recommend they use my Strategy I-Beam.
What’s the objective, if a gay person is trying to live straight? This isn’t a question I can answer for anyone; it makes no sense to me. It could be “To live the life my parents expect of me.” It could be “To live the life I’ve expected of myself so powerfully that I can’t imagine living any other way.” Or “To have the respect and admiration of society without having to work any harder for it than a heterosexual.” Or “I just don’t have the guts to be gay.” There are lots of possibilities.
But in the most important aspect of this question, they’re all in the same situation; and while many aspects of their lives will change, this one won’t. They’re gay. It’s an orientation. And if they want to live a life that denies it, they’re going to have to make a lot of plans based on dishonesty, and accept a lot of unpleasant realities. They have to plan to marry someone they might be able to love but whom they will never be able to feel fully passionate about. They have to plan to lie to their children, their families, their employers and co-workers—to everyone. They will have to deny themselves the expression of a huge, critical, foundational cornerstone of their identity.
I’m not saying this can’t be done. I’m saying that from what I’ve seen, its success is spotty at best. Think “Ted Haggard” and you’ll get it. If anyone wanted to deny his orientation, it was Evangelical pastor Ted Haggard. He was running so hard away from what he was, refusing to look back at it at all, that he was seen by almost everyone around him as running toward something they saw as beautiful and holy, and they followed him in droves, not realizing he was living a lie. The reality is that he was running away from something. Himself. Who’s the “almost” in “almost everyone?” His male prostitute.
So what about tactics? Well, you could try becoming the pastor of a fundamentalist Christian mega-church. Or you could become the CEO of a major corporation whose board of directors wouldn’t tolerate a gay man (or, most likely, any woman) in that position. Or you could become a lawyer who peruses the Web for clues leading to people who are trying desperately to deny their homosexuality by claiming to have become “ex-gay” (most of these cases are religion-based, by the way) so you can pounce on them like an ambulance chaser and wave their claim as though it were the flag of the promised land, driving away your doubts about yourself in the process. You’d sue any organization that claimed “ex-gay” couldn’t be done. (I have someone in mind, by they way, who has done this.)
As for people who’ve “changed,” they’ve changed their lifestyle, not their orientation. They can’t reprogram their hypothalamus. They can’t change the color of their eyes or the day they were born on, though they can lie about both. And if they’re left-handed, they can learn to use their right hand, but they’ll still be left-handed inside; their brain won’t change significantly.
If you repeat anything loud enough and fast enough, your brain won’t have time to perceive what’s really going on. Make it a mantra: “I must lie about who I am. I must lie about who I am. I must lie…”
Please. If you’re gay, choose truth, and expect acceptance. I’m not pretending it’s easy, but the more of us who are out, the quicker the homophobes’ lizard brains will get used to us.
And, the better it will be for everyone.
And, the sooner they will see that the only thing wrong with being gay is how they used to treat us when they found out.
