Having not one but two Supreme Court cases discussing issues around same-sex marriage or “gay marriage”, it seemed like a good time to have this chat. I don’t tend to get on my soapbox a lot, but when I do it’s because I really feel the need to say something. [Cases this week: Hollingsworth v Perry and United States v Windsor]
With my 3-1/2yo ds loving running around the house in a skirt – and even asking to wear it out – of course there’s always a question of, “Is this just dress up?” After all, doesn’t skirt-wearing and doll-playing automatically turn a boy gay? Er, no. And even if it did, SO EFFING WHAT?
Boys and girls like to play dress up. It’s utterly insane that girls can dress in “boy” clothes and people call them “tomboys”, while boys who dress in “girl” clothes are automatically labeled as “gay”. Is it because the clothes suggest femininity and any sign of femininity by a male connotes homosexuality? (Try telling that to the strapping lads of Scotland in their lovely kilts!) And since when is “gay” a bad thing? WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING GAY?
Oh right, there’s NOTHING wrong with being gay. (or bi, or trans, for that matter)
Sure, there are people who have religious arguments against anyone who’s not heterosexual, but these arguments fall apart as you start to work into the basis of their theological structure. If one believes that a specific higher power is infallible and doesn’t make mistakes, then the variety in our society – including in sexual orientation – isn’t a mistake, either. Diversity is not a negative.
It’s completely unclear to me how one person being (or not being) gay harms someone who isn’t gay – especially when these individuals may never come into any contact with each other. Why should the idea of two gay people marrying in California be such a bugaboo for people who live in Utah? The truth is, this whole notion of “eroding traditional marriage” is nothing but complete and utter crap. It’s just a crap argument, period. My marriage to dh isn’t harmed or even remotely affected by gay residents of any state, including our own trailblazing Massachusetts, getting married to each other.
What bothers me so incredibly much about these court cases that have to be run past the Supremes is that you have people essentially arguing that it’s okay to create two classes of citizens: one that can have all the rights that are bestowed to married people and one that cannot. You have a new variant on the “separate but equal” concept espoused in the 1896 case of Plessy v Ferguson (which was overturned in 1954’s Brown v Board of Education). The basic premise of the Plessy decision was a complete fallacy: separate but equal may be separate but it’s never equal.
I heard a snippet tonight on NPR’s “All Things Considered”, where a protestor outside the Supreme Court talked about why gay marriage is a sign that our society is going in the wrong direction. It’s not what The Founders would have wanted, and it’s not what they intended. She’s absolutely right about the last point – the men who founded this country would be shocked by the idea of gay marriage. They’d probably also be having massive heart attacks about having a non-white President and having had female cabinet secretaries, since the documents on which they built our country and the society they designed accepted slavery as a perfectly normal way of life. Women weren’t allowed to vote until the 1900’s. Before we hold up the late 1700’s as a perfect example of how our society was constructed, perhaps we should make sure reflects the values our society has grown and evolved to accept.
And so, I eventually wrap around to the issue at hand: What if one of my kids is gay? What then? What do I do? What do I say?
For me, it’s a pretty easy answer. There are a few things I’d do right off the bat:
1) I would remind them that I love them.
2) I would remind them that I support them.
3) I would give them hugs.
4) I would congratulate and thank them for telling me.
That’s it. There’s no inner conflict for me.
There’s nothing wrong with being gay, just like there’s nothing wrong with not being gay. If I want my kids to be able to grow up in a world that’s even better than the one I was born into, it’s up to me (and dh) to give them the support they need to thrive and succeed. Being accepting of who they are – and reminding them that our love comes unconditionally – is part and parcel of being the kind of parents we want to be.
This isn’t rocket science. Hate isn’t cool. Ignorance isn’t cool. Separate but equal is nothing more than separate and unequal. Our society can only progress toward enlightenment through embracing our diversity. For me, that starts with embracing my kids.
So, regardless of what they may one day say – “Mom, I’m gay!”, “Mom, I’m bi!”, “Mom, I’m trans!”, or even…”Mom, I’m straight!” – I will love my kids and support them. Unconditionally.
And Ab and I support your view 100 percent.
Times have changed, certainly from the late 1700s as you point out. Homosexuality has existed from time immemorial, sometimes reviled while other times accepted. Once you bring faith into though, then that’s a whole ‘nuther ball game. For example, given his profession, your FIL may have opinions that differ from yours on religious grounds and/or personal ones; on the other hand, he may even agree with you. Marriage has changed from biblical times too when polygamy was acceptable and was only outlawed in this country in the 1800s.
BTW, Ab listened to the whole hearing and found parts of it quite interesting.
As far as I’m aware, both DH & I are on one side of the argument, with my MIL & FIL on the other side. As much as ds wants to wear a dress to Easter (like his sister), we won’t let that happen ONLY because we don’t want to get into a fight over it with them. There’s enough family drama without that boiling over.
I appreciate that you two are supportive of my view; times have changed. Three hundred years ago, we KNEW that slavery was ok. One hundred years ago we KNEW that only white males deserved the right to vote. Fifty years ago, we KNEW that women couldn’t do the same work as men. What irks me most is people hiding behind the skirts of blind faith in religion as a way to avoid the evolution of societal norms as we explore what it means to be human.
Perhaps it’s that I’m too reason-based to deal with faith as a rational source for guidance. The books on which these faiths are based often have so many contradictions that it seems hardly worth investing any hope that they have a solution. Note all the hullabaloo about Pope Francis washing the feet of two women on Good Friday. Catholics are UP IN ARMS about how he violated *the law*. Well, if he’s the Pope, and the Pope is infallible, then – by transitive property – what he did was JUST FINE.
I so appreciate your viewpoint. Who cares? I will love them regardless and make sure that they love others regardless too.