Remembering Loving v. Virginia

June 12^th marked the anniversary of a landmark legal case known as Loving v. Virginia.

The plaintiffs, a black woman named Mildred Loving and her white husband Richard Perry Loving were arrested in 1958 when they returned to their Virginia home after being married in the District of Columbia. Because Virginia law prevented interracial couples from being married, they were arrested, pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to a year in prison. However, the trial judge suspended the sentence for 25 years, as long as the Lovings left the state of Virginia and didn’t come back for 25 years.

The Trial judge, Leon Bazile issued the following statement:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

The Lovings moved to Washington D.C. where they began a series of lawsuits claiming that Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which caused their marriage to be considered a criminal act, was a direct violation of the 14^th amendment to the Constitution. Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned their convictions and declared the Racial Integrity Act unconstitutional. The opinion of the court stated:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

It is interesting to note, however, that while this decision declared that laws which prevented interracial couples from getting married was unconstitutional, it still took around 30 years for some states (such as Alabama) to take those laws off the books.

When doing research on this topic – it surprised me (in a way) to read what people had been saying at the times about interracial marriages – like the quote from Leon Bazile above. They started to sound very similar to what some people are saying about gay marriage.

Ok. I understand it. Kind of. When you feel very strongly about a subject, you are going to find whatever you can to justify it – especially if it conflicts with your other beliefs. Some people do turn to philosophy or religion. For example – you think prejudice is wrong. However, you don’t like gay people. So, you have two options. Either change the way you think, or find a way to make it acceptable. Now, many people think the Bible says homosexual behavior is immoral. Therefore, it’s ok to be prejudiced against gay people. After all, if God says it’s ok, it’s not prejudice, right?

There used to be a lot more people who thought that interracial marriages were disgraceful, immoral, and an abomination. Interracial couples were often the target of violent attacks, pranks, name calling, etc… They justified their hated by saying God didn’t want people of different races getting together. They said it wasn’t natural. They said it was abomination against God’s will.

At some point in history, we all went through a paradigm shift. It started with interracial couples standing up for themselves. It started with a few brave individuals who would speak out against the injustice of it all. And today, when we look back at those brave souls, we consider them visionaries – we consider them heroes.

Because their paradigm shifted before other people’s? Maybe. Or, maybe it was because they said something about it.

The Year In The Rear-View Mirror (2006)

In some ways, 2006 was a great year… In other ways, it kind of sucked.

We saw Britney Spears Crotch shot by the paparazzi … We heard what Mel Gibson thinks of the Jews … We heard what Michael Richards (who played Kramer on Seinfield) thought about hecklers. No wonder the Jib Jab people think we’ve gone Nucking Futs!

Sigh. Thank god 2006 is over! But, you have to admit - we’ve been through a lot this past year…

It is easy to point the finger at some of worst cases of blatant intolerance - such as James Dobson’s attack on Mary Cheney or Ann Coulter’s many many many anti-gay statements or Don Imus’ and Chris Matthews homophobic review of Brokeback Mountain… But, the truth is that we still live in a time when public “fag-bashing” is still, somewhat, socially acceptable.

Several celebrities came out of the closet this year… Neil Patrick Harris, Lance Bass, and T.R. Knight, for example. Oprah Winfrey, on the other hand, came out as heterosexual.

Two of the most (shockingly) successful movies this year included Brokeback Mountain and Transamerica. The NBC comedy Will and Grace aired their final episode.

Gay Marriage was, off and on, a hot topic - especially in areas like New Jersey.

Chicago (where I live) was host to the Gay Games… and I got to be a part of that.

The 25th Anniversary of AIDS occurred this year as well, and it was published that gays were not the origin of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS.)

Yes - this is just a small reminder of a few of the events that took place over the past year … it serves to remind us not only how far the gay community (in general) has come … but also serve as a reminder about how far we still have to go.

Mourning The Loss Of One Of Our Own…

This past Monday, 39 year old Tyrone Garner died of meningitis. He was a shy guy, according to those who knew him - but his story is one of inspiration, and his contribution to the gay rights movement were immeasurable.

On September 17, 1998 Tyrone Garner went to the home of John Lawrence, where the two men began to have sexual relations in the privacy of Lawrence’s own home. For obvious reasons, this seemed to upset Robert Eubanks, Garner’s partner at the time. Eubanks must have decided to teach his lover a little lesson because he responds to this by calling 911 and telling the dispatcher that a crazed gunman was loose in John Lawrence’s house. The police quickly respond and find no crazed gunmen, but two men engaged in private, consensual sexual relations. Lawrence and Garner were arrested for Homosexual Conduct. (In Texas, it was a misdemeanor crime to participate in gay sex.) The two spent several hours in jail before posting the two hundred dollars bond.

The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund approached Garner and Lawrence and offered their support. Lawrence wanted to fight the charges, but Garner was reluctant, stating he didn’t think they could win. He told the Houston Chronicle, “I didn’t enjoy being outed with my mugshot on TV. It was degrading to me.”

The two men pleaded No Contest to the charges, and took their case to the state level where it lost again. In 2002, their case landed them before the United States Supreme Court. By now, Garner had decided to fight these charges at all cost.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Lawrence and Garner, finding that Texas’ Sodomy Law violated the US Constitution’s privacy guarantee. The decision also struck down similar laws in thirteen other states.

The Sodomy Laws that criminalized homosexual behavior had long been used to criminalize homosexuals in order to deny them civil rights, were often used in custody cases, were used in denying housing or employment. Essentially, it prevented many people from seeking legal redress simply because the homosexual was considered a criminal. The decision of the US Supreme Court pretty much put a sudden stop to this.

This also started paving the way for future gay rights work - such as the fight for same-sex marriage.

Garner was never the political type - but his contribution to the world proves that even the smallest amongst us can affect the world in great ways.

Since 1998, life hasn’t been particularly easy for Garner, battling not only his legal rights, but also lengthy illnesses such as the meningitis that ultimately took his life. To Garner, I bid thee good night. May the angels hold you tightly and keep you safe, and warm, and loved.

Gay Games Comes To Chicago

When I first heard that the Gay Games were going to be in Chicago this year, my first thought was: “Run! Hide! The city is gonna become a zoo!”

In All honesty, I had no idea what to expect. Chicago is no stranger to really big gay events, considering it’s hosted the International Mr. Leather (IML) Competition since it began in 1979. While neither our Pride Fest nor our North Halsted Merchants Association’s Market Days match the scope of either the Gay Games or IML, they’re both local achievements the local gay community is actually pretty proud of.

I first learned about the Gay Games in 1994, when several people I knew went to New York to compete. None of them won any of the events they competed in - but they all came back saying that that didn’t matter - what mattered was that they were there, they competed, made new friends, had a lot of fun, and they’re likely to remember those experiences for the rest of their lives.

Now that the Games have arrived, I have mixed feelings. After watching the Opening Ceremonies last night at Soldier Field, I was reminded about the spirit of the games. Hearing several of the presenters talking about how Dr. Tom Waddell started the Games in the 80s, his vision to bring together gay people from around the world. But, there were also constant reminders of politics.

Other than brief references to the current state of gay politics (such as the gay marriage issue) there was also some talk about the politics of the games themselves. For example, Dr. Tom Waddell first called the event The Gay Olympics, however in 1982, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) filed a lawsuit which forced them to change the name to the Gay Games. The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) has, since the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, exclusive rights to the word “Olympics.”

Many people believe this decision was homophobic in nature - considering that when the lawsuit was filed, the USOC didn’t seem to have a big problem with either the Nebraska Rat Olympics or the Police Olympics. Then, there’s also the Special Olympics where people with disabilities are encouraged to compete.

This year’s Gay Games are not without their controversey as well. The Games were originally slated to occur in Montreal (Canada) but after some disagreements between the city of Montreal and the Federation of Gay Games (FGG) their sanctions were pulled and the Games were moved here to Chicago.

Montreal was rather upset by this decision, and decided to play hardball. If they weren’t going to be allowed to host the Gay Games, they’d do their own thing that weekend, screw the FGG, the more people in Montreal, the less numbers will be in Chicago, and …

Thankfully before long, people began to realize that the only people who were going to suffer because of this was likely to be the athletes, and that’s not the true meaning of sportsmanship - so they formed the Outgames to be held later this year.

Some of this talk about politics is going to be expected, however I strongly feel that the more talk about politics, the less emphasis is going to be placed on what the Gay Games are all about -

What Is Destroying The Sanctity of Marriage (Part 2)

When I posted the first What Is Destroying The Sanctity of Marriage post, I got a little off focus. I tend to do that from time to time. The point I thought I was making was how I am sick and tired of hearing how gay people are taking the blame for destroying the sanctity of marriage because they want the same privileges as heterosexuals.

In fact, I am sick and tired of hearing people blame homosexuals for nearly everything. I’m sorry, Rev. Phelps - gay people aren’t to blame for the war in Iraq or the solders who lost their lives fighting for such a great country. I’m sorry, Rev. Robertson - gay people aren’t to blame for horrible disasters like Hurricane Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans.

Let’s face it - we live in a country where traditional values, such as taking the responsibility for our own actions has flown so far out the window we can’t even see it anymore. What would Edna Garrett, June Cleaver, or even Clair Huxtable have to say about the world we live in today? Do we, as a society, even remember who these three Fabulous women were? ‘Cause you know all three of them would be able to find a lesson for us to learn through all of this!

I did not mean to make it sound like I was blaming Divorce for being the biggest thing destroying the sanctity of marriage, although I do (as Pete, who commented on my first post, said) believe it is one of the largest symptoms of the true problem.

I was trying to use divorce to point out, as Pete did (and did a better job of it than I did) was that the actions, attitudes, and lack of responsibility of those who get divorced do a much better job of destroying the sanctity of marriage than some gay dude who wants to be able to put his life-partner on his health insurance.

Ultimately, I think there are a number of factors that have lead to the paradigm shift of what we now think of as traditional marriage values. It’s not just the Divorce rate … it’s also that we refuse to take responsibility for our actions … commitment just doesn’t mean anything anymore … people are getting married not because they’re in love, but because society tells them anyone unmarried by age 30 must have something wrong with them or Mommy’s begging for grandchildren or (I could go on and on with this) … or even because in this day and age, marriage is a legislative process - we’ve passed so many laws and policies (tax breaks, partner benefits, etc.) that marriage - in and of itself - itsn’t what it used to be.

And homosexuals don’t even register on that map. How could they?

Scratching The Surface On The Gay Marriage Debate

Something has really bothered me about all the gay marriage debating going on … Something … I'm just not sure what. Yes, there are a number of things that bother me (legal discrimination, religious intolerance, etc…) but there's been that one thing hovering just under the surface… It's like the pieces of the puzzle just aren't quite adding up.

In part, what I would like to know is why this is an issue? There are so many people out there who feel so strongly about their stance on gay marriage - I just want to know where that is coming from.

There are those that say that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Um … ok. I don't think this is true, but I can see how people could think this. I know my vision of God may be different than yours … and that's ok, because we have this nice thing called Freedom of Religion here in the US … and the things God wants from me is that I try to be the best person I can be, that I stand accountable for my actions, that I treat everyone with kindness and respect.

I'm starting to see this is a moot point anyway. First off, we're talking about legalizing gay marriage according to the Laws of the Nation (or State) - and not the laws of Churches. So, technically, God doesn't have much authority here. The gay marriage debate is about legal issues - not if the State or Nation is going to force your Church to start marrying same-sex couples. Once same-sex couples are allowed to get married, I expect a lot of Churches out there aren't going to start performing these ceremonies, and that's their decision to make.

The other reason I see this as a moot point is that those who make this claim are blaming someone else (aka God) for their own decisions. Rarely do I hear these people taking credit for anything. "God wants me to do this." or "Jesus wants me to do that." or "The Bible says…" and never, "I think this or that." If I wanted to know what God thought about something, I'd ask Him, not you.

Another issue that I have with the gay marriage debate is that there's little debating - just people stating This is the way it is, and then moving onto another topic. This is not a debate. A debate is, according to Marriam-Websters:

: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

A debate requires, by its definition, discussion. One side presents its point of view - the other side presents their side of view - and they discuss the differences. That's the key - discussion. I see few posts containing any intelligent discussions on the topic … like this one or this one.

There are those too who claim one of the important issues is that of procreation. Again - this is a moot point. Maybe, historically speaking, marriage and procreation were once related, but those days are far from over. If this were a serious reason people could not get married, infertile couples wouldn't be allowed to get married … marriages that did not produce children would be nullified …

If we were so concerned about marriage and procreation - why not stop with just gay marriage, but attack some other related issues as well. What about all those children born out of wedlock? Should we force them to get married? (Ok, maybe not. There's a lot of guys who've had children with several women, and that could lead to polygamy - so never-mind.) Why not jump on TV shows like Maury Povich that, if not glorify the situation, at least revel in it?

What about all those kids in Foster Care, Orphanages, or are otherwise awaiting adoption? Gay and lesbian couples still have difficulties adopting children, in part because they can't get married. And yet, part of the reason they can't get married is because people try to equate the issue that they can't raise children. Or, maybe they're afraid of what gay people will teach children?
Speaking of children - I would think that if we were really all that concerned about children, we'd spend more time focusing on teaching our children ourselves, and less about forcing others to teach our kids what we think they should be taught. Again - we're talking about responsibility, hunh? 

So … I ask you … am I missing something here?

What Is Destroying The Sanctity of Marriage?

How many times have we heard that legalizing gay marriages would destroy the sanctity of marriage? There are those out there who speak those words over and over, like it was some mantra. I have yet been offered an explanation about why this would be. I can't even come up with a single way that allowing gay marriage would have any impact at all on heterosexuals.

So I pose this question: If anything is destroying the Sanctity of Marriage - what would that be?

The first thing that comes to my mind is divorce. What better way to destroy marriage values than to promote divorce?

According to the Center for Divorce Reform, half of all marriages will end in divorce if the current trends continue. Whatever the current statistic is varies from report to report, so it may be impossible to determine exactly what the current divorce rate is.

The Barna Group (who'se main goal is to partner with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States) has released some interesting information as well. One of their findings is that one third of adults "Calls it Quits" - and that number is the same for both Christians and non-Christians.

It's also interesting to point out that CNN also reported on Nov 12, 1999 that the Divorce Rates are highest in the "Bible Belt" states. They also published that Nevada had the absolute highest divorce rate, but Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma rounded out the rest of the top five. To explain this, several ideas were raised, such as that younger people are getting married in these states, household incomes are lower, or that certain factors common in Protestantism may also contribute.

Nevada being the divorce capitol (or so it seems) may be so for a couple of reasons. First, because it's so easy to get married there - and fun! Where else can you be married by an Elvis impersonator or by a Roswell-looking alien guy? But, in Nevada, its also easier to get a divorce. Stay for a short time to get your local residency, file a few papers and pay a small fee - and BAM! You're not married anymore.

When someone like Britney Spears gets married in Vegas to some high school chum just because they think it'd be fun to get married - only to turn around the next day and file for divorce - how is that not mocking the sanctity of marriage? Why did I not see a single person complaining that Britney was contributing to the decline of marriage values?

But its hard not to notice that today's society also has a much more relaxed attitude toward divorce than in earlier times. A couple has grown apart … a couple wants to spend more energy on career and less on family … it's no big deal - couples get divorced all the time! How many times have we laughed when Ivanna Trump said (about divorce) "Don't get mad. Get EVERYTHING!"

So then what are the biggest reasons people are getting divorced? After doing a few Google searches, I have found a lot of conflicting data. But, that isn't to say that there aren't certain trends. (One report may say that adultery is the leading cause of divorce while the next says the leading cause is irresponsible attitudes on the part of either spouse. I even found one page that says adultery doesn't cause divorce. Other top factors (depending on who you listen to) may include physical or emotional abuse, addictive personalities (alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc.), family stress, career concerns, or medical concerns (mental health, physical well-being, terminal illnesses, etc.)

I am starting to understand that this is a moot point, anyway. Can I blame my job for my divorce if my career is more important to me than my spouse? Can I blame my nagging mother in-law or my screaming kids if my family life is just too stressful? If my spouse gets some terminal illness or starts having a mental breakdown, it's not my fault we filed for divorce? Yeah, I know traditional marriage vows include the phrase "in sickness and in health" but I thought that just meant the common cold … Right? Or, it says "for better or worse" but it didn't say I had to deal with in-laws, his gambling problems, or how he leaves the toilet seat up or farts in bed … right?

(When it comes to things like abuse, however, I do think divorce is par for the course. Abuse escalates … and is more of an issue of personal safety.)

In my opinion, the leading cause of divorce (and the main factor of what is destroying the sanctity of marriage) is our ability to blame something other than ourselves for our mistakes, and our inability to take full responsibility for our behaviors, thoughts, and actions.

No. That can't be it. So, who else can we blame? Oh, yeah - I know! Those damn homosexuals who want the same legal benefits that we married people got.

Commenting On Your Comments…

I've recieved several comments on my Defining Bigotry post that I'd like to comment on.

One person said:

Tolerance does not require the merger of SSM with marital status.

Your complaint amounts to the declaration that disagreement with you means the other guy is bigoted.

Another person said:

Part of it is that when people say “Gay people should not be allowed to get married”, they don’t consider it as saying anything negative about gay people.

First off, let me say that the Same Sex Marriage thing is not so much about religion as it is about legality. The aim is to give couples in same-sex partnerships the same rights as heterosexual partnerships have. Getting legally married entitles those involved to certain benefits: tax credits, the ability to visit your spouse in the hospital, for example; or how about owning a house together? Or, what happens if one partner dies, shouldn't the remaining partner be entitled to the same things as their heterosexual counterparts?

So - let me ask you this: What would you think if someone came up reveling in the fact that they were so much better than you? Would you feel insulted? Would you feel like you were any less of a person? Or, would you just think that person was an asshole and blow them off?

How is that any different than those who are entitled to the marriage benefits telling another group of people that they are not entitled to them. Why can't gay people be entitled to those benefits? Are they less of a person than you are?

Sure - nobody likes to think of themselves as a bad person - and most people feel entitled to their own beliefs. And I am all for that. What I have the problem with are those who feel that other people have to live up their own moral standards. Who are you to tell me what I need to think or how I need to feel? What if someone told you how to think and you happened to disagree with it?

As I have told my own mother - acceptance of the gay lifestyle doesn't mean that you have to start marching in the gay pride parade or announcing to the world your kid is gay by wearing the "I Love My Gay Son" Tee-shirt. However, part of acceptance is coming to the realization that nobody is better or worse than anyone else for whatever reason. In a way - acceptance is like neutrality. To accept something you don't have to love it. Hating it isn't an option - the key is being indifferent. Not caring eiher way because it doesn't really effect you. You're not better, or less - and neither are they because it is a non-issue.

Defining Bigotry

With all the political talk lately about gay marriage, it's been no surprise that there have been a lot of blog posts on the subject. I have seen one common thread with many of those who are opposed to gay marriage (or any other form of gay rights). How many times have I read something like the following:

I am do not want to be labeled as a bigot, but I think gay people are bad. I do not want to be labeled a bigot, but gay people should not be allowed to get married.

Now, granted … nobody wants to think of themselves as a bigot. But, do we really know what that word means?

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of others who are different than themselves; or one who is prejudiced against someone who does not share the same opinions as themselves. So, therefore - wouldn't making a statement like this be, in its very nature, a bigoted statement? And wouldn't the person saying this be a bigot?

I believe, very strongly in fact, that everyone is entitled to have their own opinions, no matter how bigoted they may be. However, saying you're not a bigot while making bigoted statements - to me, that's contradictory.

If I were to say that all people of a certain race were bad people, you would say I was a racist. If I said that all men were pigs, or that all women were overemotional buffoons, you'd call be a bigot. If I said that all old people were stubborn or that all young people were stupid, you'd say I was prejudiced. If I made a statement on all fat people or thin people, or if I said something about everyone who wears glasses, or if I said something about any group of people, I'm sure your response would be the same.

You'd probably tell me it would be wrong to lump everybody who fits a certain type or trait into the same group. All men are not alike. Nor are all women. Or, not all Blacks are the same, just as all Whites, Asians, or every other race. No matter what I use to classify people - the results are likely to be the same. You're still going to try telling me I can't lump everyone together.

So tell me one thing. Why's it OK to do it to gay people?