Dear Governor Schwarzenegger: Marry Me
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger Arnold,
I want to get married.
Not to you, since you already have a wonderful wife and family — and I’m not the home-wrecking sort, unlike other celebrities I could name. No, I want to marry my partner of five years. That’s why I’m writing. I need your help.
Right now, we can’t get married. Unlike movies you may have seen, the obstacle in our case is not a generations-old family feud, nor a mystical curse, nor a war that has torn this great country apart. What stands between us and the altar is bureaucracy.
I know you love freedom and hate bureaucracy, so I thought you’d want to know.
Some backstory, since we’ve never met. Like you, I come from the film industry. I’m a screenwriter. I wrote Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Big Fish, along with some other movies you unfortunately didn’t star in. (This can be rectified.) My partner Mike is an MBA. He’s clever. He balances the checkbook. Like you and Maria, we complement each other.
Right now, we’re registered domestic partners. California currently has pretty good domestic partnership laws. You signed them, so thanks for that. As Californians, Mike and I have benefits basic human rights that we wouldn’t have in any state other than Massachusetts. We’ve also spent a couple of thousand dollars to draft up wills, trusts and powers-of-attorney to get us a little closer to marriage-equivalence.
But we’re not married.
Do you remember when Britney Spears married that guy in Vegas earlier this year, only to have it quickly annulled? Well, for that day or two, she and whatever-his-name had vastly more rights than Mike or I have ever had. They could file joint taxes. They could adopt children. They could inherit each other’s property. (Probably a better deal for him.) In the eyes of the law, they were more legitimate than Mike and I could ever be.
And the Britney coincidences continue: she’s about to have a baby; we just had one. Her new husband, Kevin Federline, was an unwed father; I am an unwed father.
That’s the uncomfortable truth, Governor, that has me writing to you today. I’m an unwed father. And I don’t want to be.
Sometimes, being unmarried is merely aggravating. For instance, I recently got into heated words with a representative from my health insurance company, who told me I would have to adopt my own daughter. Never mind that my name is on her birth certificate. “With gay people,” she explained, “we have to have official adoption papers.” (Fortunately, her supervisor corrected the misinformation.)
Sometimes, being unmarried is more troubling. It’s no shock that there are some places in this great country we probably don’t want to travel as a family, and that’s not going to magically change overnight. But even in Los Angeles, everyday life is subtly different for us. To wit: when your kids were little, did you carry copies of their birth certificate in the diaper bag, just in case some overzealous official questioned whether these were “really” your kids?
Look, I’m a realist. Letting Mike and I get married won’t suddenly make everything better. There will still be bigots and assholes, and women who cluck their disapproval at the grocery store. However, affirming the right for us to marry would take away one official sanction against gay people. People will still discriminate, but they won’t feel like they have the state backing them up.
And here’s where you come in.
By the narrowest of margins, the California legislature has just passed AB 849, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. It says civil marriage is defined as the union of two people, without specifying gender. Now it’s up to the Governor to decide whether to sign it into law, or veto it.
That’s you, Governor Schwarzenegger. And that’s why I’m writing.
In your movies, you always play the hero. Do it again. Sign the bill.
I know you’re worried about the political implications. Personally, I think you’d get a big boost for standing up for what you believe, damn the conventional wisdom. But in case you need to fall back on your Hollywood career, know that I’m offering to write Terminator 4 for you. Hell, I’ll write Jingle All the Way 2. That’s how important this is.
I’m also urging all my friends and readers who live in California to take two minutes and call the Governor’s office: (916) 445-2841. I did. It’s absolutely painless, like voting for American Idol. And there are local numbers, too, for much of the state:
Fresno: 559-445-5295
Los Angeles: 213-897-0322
Riverside: 951-680-6860
San Diego: 619-525-4641
San Francisco: 415-703-2218
Your spokespeople have said that you prefer to leave the decision up to the courts. I doubt it. You’re a man of action. Take action. Sign the bill and marry me.
Sincerely,
– John August
Update: (9/30/05)
Governor Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill. Arnold, you broke my heart. But at least you stood up for the current domestic partnership laws, and promised to fight any backsliding.
Articles
September 7th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Nicely put. Hope he signs it. Almost as much as I hope you don’t have to write Jingle All The Way 2.
September 7th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
It’s awfull that gay couples can’t legally get married. Conservative politicians go off on rants about the sanctity of marrige while people get married then divorced and married again in the space of a year.
On a side note, I wish you would write Terminator 4. I have a deep affection for 1 and 2 so watching 3 (on a rented DVD of course) was one of the worst cinematic experiences I can remember.
September 7th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Beautifully written. I hope you get your wish. Although, based on his recent statment it doesn’t seem he’ll be your Last Ammendment Hero today (sorry, I had to). Is there any chance they legislature has the votes to overturn the veto?
September 7th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
One thing I can’t put up with and that’s bureaucracy and the media (they fall into the same field in my eyes). I have destroyed countless amounts of televisions in fits of anger and how sleazy the media gets. Always wanting to put it there way. Here in Australia, it’s out of hand, everything bad that happens is blamed on the Government and they are scrutinized with ever penny they got. Everything that happens is not the government’s decision; it’s the Media’s decision on what gets done and what doesn’t. I’m going to murder another television soon if I hear the words “Tax Payers dollars” again.
It isn’t that bad in America, the media tries to give a half bake of support towards the government, otherwise its treason. Some of the reports here should get hung for treason; it’s all their good at. It’s like the current New Orleans tragedy and boy would I hate to be Mr. Bush at the moment, having so much to juggle. He’s got all of his men saving lives, yet people are complaining about the living situation in a sports stadium, which I would call better then being dead.
The world is caving in around as. Before we know it, we will be living in a Utopia and dodging blades, taking pill supplements. With all the liability concerns that are taking over the world, its mere impossible to earn an honest cent. We are always being more and more confined into one area. It’s all a weird make life suck cult.
The good news is that the Government is against gay marriage and the media is against the Government, so occasionally if your for what the government is for, it’s a good thing. Maybe I have seen Outfoxed one, to many times.
Veered a tad off-topic, sorry. I hope that Mr. Schwarzenegger takes a look at this one, I’m sure someone will refer it onto him, as it came from you and as it is so well written.
September 7th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Thank you, John.
September 7th, 2005 at 7:24 pm
I don’t know…John could put together a script for Jingle All the Way 2 that might be half decent.
September 7th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
there isn’t much I can do down here in Oklahoma (but thank god they haven’t censored or blocked internet access yet so I can read cool blogs such as yours John) rock on man
September 7th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
He was concerned about productions leaving the state to come to Canada. Now here is another reason to visit our fair land to the North!
September 8th, 2005 at 6:05 am
Sorry for the bad news, but it’s not looking good right now John…
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would veto a bill to legalize same-sex marriage “out of respect for the will of the people,” drawing heated criticism from gay rights supporters and cheers from conservative groups. The bill, narrowly passed by lawmakers in the past week, would make California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through its legislature. In Massachusetts, recognition of gay marriages came through a court ruling. But Schwarzenegger said Wednesday the legislation would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago that prevents California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.
September 8th, 2005 at 6:13 am
John,
I really hope this happens for you and Mike. Just know that even in Pat Robertson’s backyard, there are plenty of folks behind you!
Hell, I’ll even offer to co-write Commando 2 if it gets Arnold’s pen moving.
Alan (Norfolk, VA)
September 8th, 2005 at 6:17 am
John,
It is truly ridiculous that we as human beings would try to keep people who love each other & want to spend the rest of their lives together from getting married. But you’re never going to get the support you want from the governator.
Arnold wants to be president some day & he won’t get the republican nomination if he signs the bill into law. (& don’t talk about the president having to be a natural born citizen. He and Maria have had people for years trying to get that changed to any citizen & they’ve got bills on it right now in both the house & senate.)
You’ll have to get the necessary votes to override the veto, which will be a very tough battle.
But I hope you do get the votes & wish you good luck.
September 8th, 2005 at 6:57 am
I think you’re absolutely right about marriage. Having had every single member of my family (except me) married at least twice, it seems that all the hoopla about its sanctity is just whitewash. If there’s at least some benifit to it, I think it should be allowed to anyone.
And though there’s no real personal stake in it for me since I’m not gay, the thought of a John August-written T4 or JATW 2 is more than enough to get me on board. Any help you need from Texas just holler.
September 8th, 2005 at 7:34 am
“Out of respect for the will of the people,”, is how Schwarzenegger justified his decision.
Films like Blade Runner, Terminator and Equilibrium have got their view of the future so drastically long. The future won’t be full of seductive robots, destructive humanoids or repressed gun-fanatics. It’ll be full of people too busy to do anything else but laugh at how primitive those “hilarious” Twenty-First Century nerds were.
One day John, One day…
September 8th, 2005 at 8:18 am
I hope you get what you and many other’s want John, good luck!
Beautifully written, witty yet serious letter, wonder if there’ll be anything on the new’s about it (why would/wouldn’t there?)
Tom/London.
September 8th, 2005 at 9:30 am
To kindly bring some debate into this thread, why do people need to have a sanctified government marriage at all? Other than monetary reasons, which strike me as one of the weaker reasons for marriage, why is an antiquated religious ceremony even part of our lives?
Peter Jackson and Fran are together simply through their mutual love – religion doesn’t have a part. As for the stigma of “two men and a baby,” no government edict will change a social perception.
All of the medieval practices associated with sexuality, race and gender have vanished, why isn’t marriage gone as well? With over 50% of people getting divorced, it seems more like an excuse for a party than an actual bonding of two people. I asked a female friend of mine why have marriage at all and she said “because men have trouble committing.” If the sole reason for marriage is to tie a leash, then there are serious problems.
As for the gay community, the stigmas and discrimination is, I’ll propose, not driven by the lack of government sponsorship of gay marriage, but by the gay community itself. Driving through west LA, there are two kinds of “love” billboards – those for heterosexual love, which are nice and middle American, and those for gay love, which are two naked men groping. Same with Craig’slist – w4m and m4w are nice, regular posts with tame pictures while the m4m and w4w boards are close-ups of genitals and lists of sexual qualities.
Combined with the gay pride parades, which are hedonism festivals for all intents and purposes, how is anyone supposed to think that the gay community is ready for marriage and families? (Don’t think I agree, many gay couples are, of course, but it’s the perception that’s out there)
Even more confusing to me is the notion of “gay people are just like everyone else, only with a different sexual preference” when everything the gay community appears to stand for is out and out gratuitous sex. Of course there are monogamous gay men and women with outstanding morals, but they are not the face of the gay community.
Additionally, if gay people are just everyone else, why is this identifiably “gay man” a sub group within our society – flamboyant and fashionable, the gay man prides himself on not being like everyone else.
I mean, where does the lisp come from? And I’m genuinely curious, because, on one hand, people like John August simply want to be integrate into society and uphold the tenant of “gay is no different from anyone else” but, on the other, there’s the vast bulk of the gay community that strives to never be assimilated and proclaim “gay is special and different and will never integrate.” Even the notion of sexual “preference” and “choice” contradicts the cast-in-stone idea that homosexuality is a trait one is born with. Is it nature or a sexual preference?
I imagine the twain shall never meet. And that’s sad because people like John suffer for it. But, like I said, the gay community’s greatest problem is not with marriage but with itself. If it can’t decide on whether or not gay people are just like everyone else, how are the American voters supposed to welcome gay couples into their sacred club? Are they letting in like-minded monogamous men and women or are they opening the door to the gay pride parade? Not that Britney upholds the ideals of marriage, but in American culture, the desire for marriage is one even the progressive women of Sex and the City aspire to.
Anyway, sorry for the long post, but I feel this is the real issue at the bottom of “gay marriage.” Of course, I think marriage should be shelved anyway – a philosophical commitment holds a lot more weight than a ring – but it never will. And, unfortunately, people will continue to think marriage will solve certain problems in their lives which, of course, it will not. I’d say if two people love each other, that should be enough. If they feel there must be some quantifiable “proof” of love (marriage), then there’s a problem.
September 8th, 2005 at 9:50 am
JJ,
I think you raise some interesting points, but I don’t think it’s limited to just the gay community. I think any group that either is considered or considers themselves “outside the norm” takes the stand of, “Fine, you don’t want me in your club, I’ll make my own that’s so different you couldn’t get in if you tried!”
It’s a human, social thing rather than specific to one group. Take any “minority” and apply the same rules. Look at Kanye West’s comments recently.
In this case you’re right, it’s not the laws that need to change, it’s people.
September 8th, 2005 at 10:20 am
For the information of all: Let’s bombard these politicians with calls. I just called the Governor’s office and got an actual person who was rather rude. I’m going to assume this is at least in part due to the fact that they are getting a lot of calls about AB 849. They ought to be sick of the phone ringing by the time we’re done with them.
September 8th, 2005 at 10:37 am
Thanks for all the (largely positive) comments.
Do I think Arnold will veto the measure? Probably. But the fact that more and more people are standing up and saying that it’s wrong and short-sighted for him to do so is encouraging.
JJ, you’re of course entitled to your opinions, and thank you for writing them out so fully. I don’t think marriage can be, or should be, everyone’s goal. But I think it should be everyone’s right.
September 8th, 2005 at 10:51 am
Dara wrote: “I just called the Governor’s office and got an actual person who was rather rude.”
Same here (for the LA office), so I sent them an e-mail for good measure (http://www.govmail.ca.gov/).
September 8th, 2005 at 10:58 am
I’m a straight person who finds the whole idea of marriage kind of queasy-making. However, as long as it’s available for some, it should be made available to all. There’s more than one way to shift a paradigm!
I’ve called, I’ve posted to my blog and to blogging.la. And for the record, the person I spoke to in L.A. was quite polite.
Thank you, John, for bringing this to my attention in such a lovely, funny, immediate way.
September 8th, 2005 at 11:04 am
You can always come to Canada to get married. You know, the country just “a little above” the U.S.A.
See you soon.
September 8th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Will Voters Terminate Arnold?
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared under siege today (Thursday) as the Los Angeles Times reported that his fellow Republicans have effectively blocked his effort to halt runaway production in the state, arguing that his proposed tax breaks amount to a giveaway to Hollywood, and as other reports indicated that his Democratic supporters are deserting him over his announced decision to veto a measure passed by the California legislature that would permit gay marriage in the state. Meanwhile, the Field Poll indicated on Wednesday that a majority of California voters would not vote for the former movie star if he ran for reelection.
September 8th, 2005 at 11:48 am
I’ll be the lone dissenting voice, here. As noted above by M.C., there was a ballot initiative approved by the public directly that said the state would not recognize gay marriage. If this law is passed, it will, in fact, contradict the will of the people. It pretty much undermines democracy. What the state senate is saying is, “You people aren’t smart enough to make your own laws, so we’ll do it for you.” Didn’t we fight a war about that a few hundred years ago?
Don’t get me wrong (though some of you will anyway). I’m on John’s side. Anybody should be able to marry anybody. But the government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. If you do approve of gay marriage, and you think public sentiment has changed, get another initiative on the ballot. If the public votes for gay marriage, fine, so be it. But don’t try to duck around the public by appealing to their representatives, when they voted directly five years ago.
September 8th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Matt,
Of course the problem with “let the majority decide” is that the minority inevitably suffers. If you’d left it to the voters to decide, the South wouldn’t allow blacks to vote, go to school, or inter-marry.
What Schwarzenegger has said — which runs directly contrary to the standard Republican line — is that he wants the courts to decide. Which is chickenshit, in my humble opinion. That’s saying, “I know it’s wrong, but I don’t want to stick my neck out and do anything about it.”
September 8th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Very well put John.
It’s unbelievable that we live in one of the most advanced societies on earth, where we preach acceptance to the masses and the world at large, yet our Governor can’t see past his own bias to do the right thing. Perhaps he’s spending too much time in his luxury smoking tent to realize (or understand) the needs and wants of the rest of us living in this state.
September 8th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
I find it embarrassingly hypocritical of Gov. Schwarzenegger to invoke ‘the will of the people’ with reference to Prop. 22, when the only reason he got elected in the first place, WAS BY IGNORING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE in throwing out Gov. Davis, who’d just been elected.
Gov. Schwarzenegger is a bigot–it’s as simple as that. Just like most of the right, and just like JJ above and his 7th grade analysis of the issue.
And it’s ‘tenet’, redneck, not ‘tenant’.
And yeah, JJ, you’re right, heterosexual people aren’t libidinous and ‘out’ with their sexuality at all. You won’t find any straight porn on the internet, for example, that’s for sure.
Saying it’s hypocritical for gay people to want to be included when they ‘act differently’–that’s a middle school response. That’s how little kids deal with each other in school, man. ‘Ew, he’s different. We need to shun him.’ You think like a child.
First of all, gay people are born gay. We know that now. But even if they’re not, how they behave, who they choose to fall in love with and co-habitate with is none of your business. It doesn’t have any bearing or impact on you or your life, or the lives of your kids or your family. No one is ‘recruiting’ you or your kids to be gay.
Gay people can’t get married for the same reason that black people couldn’t vote before the Civil Rights Act. Fear, ignorance, and bigotry. You can’t argue against it. The most important ‘tenet’ of our Constitution is that all men are created equal, and are entitled to the same rights, protections and privileges under the law. Forbidding gay people from marrying is a violation of that law.
But the fearful, ignorant, bigoted right wing wants to subjugate ‘the fags’, so they mince words and try to color and shade the issue as a ‘violation of the sanctity of marriage’ and an ‘attack on families’. Unlike you, JJ, reasonable, clear-thinking people know better.
Ben LA
September 8th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Just wanted to say “well said!” and “here, here.” Also, I kinda just wanted to be on the record as being in support of gay marriage. (Actually, I’m in support of marriage for anyone.)
Thing is, despite how it may seem with the outspoken, in-you-face people all around us, too many people are just afraid to go ON THE RECORD, regardless of their position. People are afraid to say what they believe, to let it be known where they stand.
Stating your beliefs doesn’t have to mean arguing. We are allowed to disagree. But we people shouldn’t feel that we all have to swallow our tongues just to keep the peace.
…I will also add this military analogy I picked up somewhere: Any position not worth fighting for is not worth holding on to.
RED
September 8th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
i think what jj “kindly” brought into the thread was a keen and laughable ignorance symptomatic of someone who has drawn conclusions about an entire community by looking at billboards in weho and caricatures on his television set (“where does the lisp come from?” – wtf?).
jj, you seem curious and confused about the whole “gay phenomena”. well there isn’t one, anymore than there’s a “straight phenomena”. the kind of blatant sexuality you’ve noted on billboards in weho can be found on any other billboard in a “straight town” and in any straight magazine. here’s a revelation: monogamous men and women aren’t the face of het culture, either – it seems straight people like to fuck just as much as gays.
anyway i hope arnold lets the bill pass. it’s the right thing to do and it’s the necessary thing to do. i don’t believe a veto means he’s acting on the will of the people in california at all, and i don’t think he believes that either.
September 8th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
It’s funny that the general dispproval of Arnold may actually help this case. He may start thinking no one’s going to allow his political career to continue (definitely no re-election in the cards), so he might as well do some good before he goes and sign the bill.
It’s interesting that doing the right thing could come out of an “I’m screwed anyway” attitude. Shame it has to though.
At any rate, I have my fingers crossed for you John!
September 8th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Wow! That touched a nerve. I find it extremely funny to be attacked for incorrect spelling as a reason to write off my whole argument – talk about bias! “Redneck”? So much for anti-bigotry.
The points I was trying to make was to explain why democrats are voting against gay marriage. California, among other overwhelmingly liberal states that voted for Kerry, shot down the gay marriage bills back in 04. Why is that happening?
Maybe you missed my caveats where I said I personally do not believe all gay people are defined by the stereotypes. My point was the perceived notion gays, men especially, have in the media. Who are the most prominent gay men? How are “token gay friends” in sitcoms portrayed? What perception do pride parades and gay lifestyles give?
As for the issue of porn in the gay lifestyle versus the heterosexual lifestyle, it would be a huge stretch to argue that the gay community did not spawn from a hedonistic, moral relativistic foundation. Sexual liberation is the backbone of the gay counter culture movement where as marriage is the foundation of the Judeo/Christian history of our country. Like I said, check out Craigslist if you have any doubt about the kind of relationships people are looking for – people seeking gay relationships show naked pictures while hetero-seeking people do not. Of course straight people want sex and porn is huge. But the culture of gay relationships is built far more around sex. Once again, I’m not judging, I’m just point out the way two sides are perceived and why gay marriage gets shot down time and time again in overwhelmingly liberal states.
And “gay people are born gay” is not true either. The phrase “sexual preference” contradicts that notion. Additionally, childhood abuse is a well-understood catalyst for sexuality in adulthood as well as a variety of other factors. Once again, I don’t really care, but as an evolutionist, it’s impossible to believe homosexuality can survive through natural selection. If it’s not a genetic trait, then it’s a genetic abnormality which should then be able to be identified scientifically, but it hasn’t been. Ultimately, I believe it’s a sexual preference, like the gay community says, which is fine, no one is arguing for laws against homosexuality.
As for this being a civil rights issue, it is nothing of the sort. Every person in the county has the right to marry, do they not? The issue is changing the rules for a practice whose fundamental purpose is to breed more children and enlarge the society through stable families. (I think gay couples can raise children equally as well as straight couples – people are people and they raise children with whatever love and attention they give.)
But the government is in the practice of condoning practices in the best interests of the future of its country and the creation of children – homosexuality is not one of them, neither is polygamy or pedophilia. You may say it’s a stretch to jump to polygamy and pedophilia, but the same arguments apply: natural desires of humans, freedom of choice, etc. Polygamists and pedophiles can’t change who they are, so why should they be discriminated against as well? And with some democrats supporting NAMBLA (the pedophilia advocacy group), is it a terrible stretch of the imagination to go from gay marriage to removing laws against relationships with children and multiple spouses? As it is, moral relativism is the rule by which all laws are judged.
One final time, I don’t personally have any prejudice, pre-conceived notions or the like – give them rings for all I care! I’m only trying to explain why gay marriage loses in popular votes every time it comes up. The American public is judeo/christian in nature and as long as the gay community appears as secular/moral relativist, they’ll keep the doors closed.
September 8th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
I know this is a serious subject, but I’ll have to admit I laughed until I peed a little bit.
You’re funny! I think you and Michael Moore may have been separated at birth.
Anyway, that’s all beside the point. You’re preaching to the choir with me, but I just thought I’d drop you a note to say it’s nice to be in good company! We may not be able to change the world this week, but when we do, I’m keeping tabs on who to invite to the party.
Jeff
September 8th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
The voice on my shoulder really wanted me to say something mad to you JJ. And that was the one with the halo.
I realize people have differing opinions, but differences like this worry me, for the many reasons already covered by others, but also because John not receiving marital rights equal to heterosexual couples, due only to preferences and stereotypes held by a majority, could easily become me, or even you JJ, not receiving rights for the same ridiculous unacceptable reasons.
September 8th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
I think folks are arguing at cross purposes here. Unless I have grossly misunderstood JJ’s comments, the point was not to say that the gay community is undeserving of equal rights or that it is inherently immoral, but rather to point out the perception of that community that is held by the American majority. No one has said that the gay community is inferior or less deserving of respect. I will say, however, that the lack of respect shown to JJ by those who disagree with his opinions is an excellent illustration of one of the largest problems in this country: we do not listen to each other. Americans do not say “I disagree with you, and these are my reasons,” we say “you’re wrong and a bad, stupid person.” Must be an awfully dull world out there, with everything in black and white.
So here’s what I think: gay marriage is important, and ought to be granted. That said, it would seem that no small number of Americans aren’t comfortable with the idea yet, and their votes count as much as mine. So start with them. Why are they uncomfortable, and what can be done to alleviate that discomfort? Go back and reread JJ’s posts–I think he made some good points about the perceptions that middle America has and what might be done to change them. If the cause really means anything to us, we need to be willing to work for it, not just ask for it.
Feel free to disagree with me.
September 8th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
JJ… You poor misinformed and deluded man. I will try to clear up some of your wildly inaccurate and, frankly, bigoted and insulting assumptions as politely as I can, since you seem determined to think that we (queers, homos, fags, dykes.. take your pick, I know one of them popped into your head) are somehow nothing but a bunch of lawless heathens intent on nothing but hedonistic, lustful wantonness at it’s most sybaritic.
Let’s address some of the issues that you’ve brought up on a point by point basis, shall we? I’ll speak clearly, I want you to be able to follow along…
Really? I visit the w4w listing quite frequently, there’s not really a whole lot of “porn” shots. In actuality, most of the “porn” photos that you refer to are posted by STRAIGHT MEN posing as women, in some sick delusion that they will get a lesbian (any lesbian) to happily send them (possibly) scantily clad pictures of said lesbian, which the men then proceed to use as material for their sad masturbatory fantasies. Basically, it’s just a “tame” as the w4m ads.
Let’s move on to the “Casual encounters” listing which you so conveniently “forgot” to cite in your wrong headed inditement of gay morality. There’s a veritable plethora of penile photos on display. The majority of them from “straight” men looking to have a “NSA” encounters with whatever woman is willing to entertain them and the head they think with. Go ahead, take a look, really, it won’t hurt your delicate occipital orbs. Although, I confess, I do hope that it punctures your smug judgemental attitude.
Now, let’s move on to the porn industry as whole. Ironically, the San Fernando Valley is THE epicenter of the porn industry. Most of the porn in the WORLD is straight, or panders to the lame (read girl on girl…as if)sexual fantasies of, oh yeah, STRAIGHT men. The porn industry generate nearly half as much money as Hollywood does. There was a AIDS scare in that industry that shut down production for two months late last year. Did the Guv or the legislature step in and mandate condom use? NOPE. Know why? Because it would negatively affect the porn industry.
How’s your “we’re not as degenerate as you” argument working for ya now?
What democrat? Where? Show me. THERE ARE NONE. Point out ONE Democrat who has come out and said “I support NAMBLA.” I defy you to do so. You can’t do it. It didn’t happen. This is just more GOP hogwash that was used during the Clinton administration. For a more indepth examiniation of this very subject: http://slate.msn.com/id/29453/
Yes, Kerry was endorsed by NAMBLA. Bush was endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans. (What’s THAT about, anyway?) So what? Candidates can not control who endorses them. Kerry didn’t seek their endorsement just as Bush didn’t seek the LCR’s endorsement.
Just to be clear, MOST GAY PEOPLE DO NOT SUPPORT NAMBLA. From Wikipedia: In 1994 the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a “Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA” saying GLAAD “deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association’s (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD.” Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: “NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization.”
Furthermore pederasts are NOT typically gay. From the Pittsburg Post gazette: a listing of the “typical” pedophile. http://www.post-gazette.com/newslinks/19991102profile.asp
Some characteristics of the typical pedophile or serial child sex abuser:
X Usually an adult male
X Often appear to be hard-working, family men
X Tend to be better educated and more religious that the average person
X Find ways to be alone with children; for instance, music teachers or coaches often are in a position to give individual attention to students. In one case, a pedophile teacher volunteered to direct the school’s computer center, because the door was always locked to prevent theft
X Tends to be well-liked by parents and children; a pedophile teacher is often one of the most popular teachers in school
X Actively seeks children who are quiet, needy, or have problems at home
X Often photographs the victim
X Often collects child pornography
X Usually accomplishes molestation by gradual seduction, not coercion
X Also lavish attention on children they don’t abuse, to build a sense of trust by parents and other students
Excuse me, are YOU gay? If not, how do you know what is true for another person? As a lesbian who was engaged to a man (pick your chin up off the floor) prior to discovering that I was gay, I can honestly, and from a personal perspective, tell you I WAS BORN THIS WAY. Think about this… WHY would anyone choose to be gay? The food is not better, the clothes don’t feel any more luxurious, the stars don’t twinkle brighter. (OK, the sex is better but then again, if you were BORN THIS WAY, then that only stands to reason right?) Why would anyone choose to live a life that is full of danger and discrminiation? There are people who have been beaten to death, JUST for being gay. We are discrminated against in a thousand different ways every single day. Things you take for granted, like being able to kiss your lover good bye at the airport, we might get killed for doing. You can walk down the street in any city, town, or hamlet in this country and hold you lover’s hand. If John were to try that he’d run the risk of getting beaten, if not killed. If I were to do it with my girfriend, we would then become the unwilling starrring attraction in some straight guy’s head. How is that fair? How is that a good “choice”? WHY would a person make that choice?
Finally, you claim; “I don’t personally have any prejudice, pre-conceived notions or the like” but both of your posts are full of bigotry and discrimination. Frankly, “give them rings for all I care!” smacks too much of a “Let them eat cake!” attitude for me to believe your claim of not having any prejudices. Pry open your mind, you’ll discover that life is richer than you had imagined. Open your heart and you will discover that gay people are just people, not some lurking monster seeking to take you down some improbable slippery slope of your own fashioning.
September 8th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Today, marriage is a vestigial institution. Its original function had nothing whatsoever to do with love or emotional commitment or even with monogamy (as far as men were concerned). For the vast majority of its history, marriage has been concerned with ensuring the virginity of women at marriage and limiting their sexual freedom within it. The purpose for doing so, of course, was to ensure that a man’s property was left to his actual biological descendants. Thus marriage has in all cultures appeared around the same time as private property rights.
Of course there are legal incidents of marriage that are unavailable to gay couples. This is manifestly unjust. But JJ and others are quite justified to argue for its abandonment as a LEGAL institution altogether.
September 8th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
No wait, I’m misdescribing what JJ wrote. Ignore my reference to JJ.>
September 8th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
I’d love to help you and Mike, John, as well as all of the other homosexual couples, but seeing as I’m not old enough to vote, and I live on the East Coast, I don’t know what I can do for you. Good luck, though.
September 8th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
JR, I know JJ said:
Maybe you missed my caveats where I said I personally do not believe all gay people are defined by the stereotypes.
-My point was the perceived notion gays, men especially, have in the media.
But he also said these things (among others), which were not written as perceived notions by anyone but JJ:
As for the gay community, the stigmas and discrimination is, I’ll propose, not driven by the lack of government sponsorship of gay marriage, but by the gay community itself.
Additionally, if gay people are just everyone else, why is this identifiably “gay manâ€? a sub group within our society – flamboyant and fashionable…
I mean, where does the lisp come from?
But, like I said, the gay community’s greatest problem is not with marriage but with itself.
-But the government is in the practice of condoning practices in the best interests of the future of its country and the creation of children – homosexuality is not one of them, neither is polygamy or pedophilia.
How is it, btw, homosexuality not being against the law, that legalizing gay marriage would somehow put the future of the country and its baby machine in jeopardy? I don’t get how the marriage of couples who are, were, and always will be homosexual somehow equals less babies.
I’m really not angry with JJ, just astounded.
September 8th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
“In actuality, most of the “pornâ€? photos that you refer to are posted by STRAIGHT MEN posing as women, in some sick delusion that they will get a lesbian (any lesbian) to happily send them (possibly) scantily clad pictures of said lesbian”
Ummm, miss highhorse writergurl, if you want the truth, THAT’S EXACTLY THE KIND OF CRAP GAY MEN PUT ON W4M ADS, IN THEIR PATHETIC, DELUSIONAL ATTEMPT TO GET STRAIGHT MEN TO DO THE SAME THING.
September 8th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
Yeah, JJ, man, you’re just digging yourself deeper.
Saying homosexuality can’t be passed on genetically because gay people can’t, or won’t, or don’t reproduce, is factually wrong. First of all, gay people reproduce all the time.
Second, homosexuality a recessive trait, which means it doesn’t manifest itself in the same way as facial appearance or height.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessive_gene
As for whining about being called an ignorant bigot, you shouldn’t feel any more insulted than the ‘hedonistic, lisping homosexuals’, in whose culture and biology you’re so thoroughly versed.
If you want people to stop calling you a bigot, don’t be one.
As for America being based in the Judeo/Christian tradition, so every American should follow suit, the Constitution says the church and the state are to remain separate. Gay marriage is a matter of CIVIL rights. Doesn’t matter if your religion objects to homosexuality and gay marriage. Religion is immaterial here.
And just because the majority of people in America aren’t gay, it doesn’t mean we should make laws to subjugate the people who are.
Not only are you a bigot, JJ, you’re a raving one. Bringing up pedophilia and NAMBLA and ‘the majority of Americans’ shit–it’s all just Pat Robertson, crusty, ignorant, hateful, bigoted ditto-head garbage. It’s useless to this discussion. Even the Republicans know that, so you’re not making any sense to anyone with a level head.
John August, for example, is laughing at you.
And whoever the dork is that said the problem with America is that we don’t listen to eachother–man, that’s not the problem. No, the problem with the gay marriage issue is that the arguments against it are illegitimate. It’s the Republican’s who won’t listen, not the Democrats.
Democrats try to explain, like I have, that homosexuality is not a choice, and that people are born with it. This is the consensus of science now. If you have to look it up, Time Magazine devoted an issue to it a few years ago.
Republicans say, “Well how does it get passed on genetically then?” Democrats explain that it’s a recessive trait, and what that means.
Republicans say, “Well, if we allow gay marriage, then what’s to stop us from letting pedophiles marry children, and letting crazy people marry trees?” Democrats say, with waning patience, that homosexuality is not analagous to pedophilia because pedophilia is rape–it’s not consensual. Sex abuse is damaging to a child’s mental and social development. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults, and there’s nothing inherently damaging or dangerous about it, physically or mentally.”
“The best analogy is, it’s like being left handed. There’s nothing wrong with it, it can’t hurt you in and of itself, it’s just the way your brain is wired.”
Republicans say, smugly, “Ah-hem, uh, I don’t know if you heard, but there’s this disease called AIDS…”
Democrats, explain, with building rage over having to dignify these bigoted, ignorant, hateful assumptions, that AIDS is not a gay disease. Today, the biggest increases in HIV/AIDS cases are among heterosexual IV drug users, in fact. The reason the disease spread through the gay community in the late 70′s and 80′s, is because Patient Zero was probably gay. And as homosexuals were relegated to the fringes of society and weren’t allowed to have healthy, responsible, ‘normal’ relationships, they resorted to public bathrooms and bath houses, due to the ignorance, bigotry and hatred. That behavior allowed the disease to flourish.
Coupled with Ronald Reagan’s inaction, the disease developed into an epidemic, and decimated a generation.
The problem is that Republicans won’t allow gay marriage because they’re concerned that their children will be recruited into homosexuality; that if we accept homosexuality as ‘normal’, we’ll be living in one giant, everlasting gay carnival with semen flowing freely in the streets; that if we allow gay marriage, then we have to allow pedophiles to marry children, and we have to allow crazy people to marry trees, and where does it end!?!?
That’s the problem. I’ve not heard one single remotely convincing argument, from anyone, anywhere, as to why we shouldn’t allow gay people to marry. JJ, people are opposed to gay marriage for one reason, and one reason only. Bigotry.
And, then after we scold them for being so stupid, Republicans object to being called bigots, and call us Democrats ‘elitists’ in return, as if we should be ashamed of being educated and informed.
It’s sad. It just bums me out. All of this. JJ, you’re a wreck, man. I’m positive your screenplay(s) suck, too. I’m SO positive.
Ben LA
September 8th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
It cheered me up to imagine Mr. Man reading that. Please God somehow he’ll change his mind and make a choice for justice.
September 8th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
John,
Are there any other referendums passed by the electorate that you think the California legislature should overturn?
How about Proposition 215?
September 8th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Hi John.
I called. I voted. I encouraged others to do so on my blog. Thank you for the post, and I hope the thing gets overturned in the court if he vetos it. But I do wish he’d have a backbone under all that muscle and sign the damn thing.
September 8th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
I would like to point out that there has been no success in finding a gene responsible for homosexuality. Doesn’t mean it isn’t possible, just that that has not as yet been proven. And based on the Mendelian model, a gay man would be incapable of fathering a straight child with a lesbian as all available genes for that trait would be the recessive homosexual gene. I know of no evidence to support that.
Frankly, I don’t see why it matters. If the root of homosexuality is in early childhood experiences–and not necessarily negative ones, either–that wouldn’t make the sexual preference less valid. It also wouldn’t make it a choice. Our personalities and brains are shaped by our experiences in thousands of ways–why the push to claim a genetic cause for sexuality?
Just curious.
September 8th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Man, the fire! Ben, that was awesome to attack my screenwriting ability based on your belief that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. Classic, man, classic.
First, as for the recessive gene issue, I, of course, am not a geneticist, and love to hear as much about science as possible. No one really knows why anyone is gay. Of my gay friends, one can absolutely trace it back to a traumatic event (not abuse), another is simply a “free love” lifestyle choice and another was simply always that way. Interesting topic, but irrelevant why gay marriage dies in the ballot box.
I’ll agree with Ben on a number of points – the AIDS issue and that Pat Robertson is a complete too. But when I say “the majority of Americans” I’m speaking simply in terms of voting patterns. This belief held by people like yourself that the “democrats are the majority” is flat out wrong – every state that has voted on gay marriage rejected it:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/ballot.samesex.marriage/
Even hyper-liberal Oregon voted it down 57 to 43. That’s huge! Why? What’s happening? My whole point was to try and boil down some of the reasons why the gay marriage movement is failing in even the bluest of the states.
But, man, why the hate? And why the assumptions? First of all, I’m not a Republican. I vote more Republican than Democrat, but I’m an atheist, pro-choice, pro-420legal, anti-gun, anti-tobacco, pro-sep church/state. More than anything, I’m pro clarity and these arguments that anti-gay marriage equates to bigotry is, simply, why the left keeps losing elections – you can’t call 57% of Oregon evil, Pat Robertson-loving bigots and hope to ever win their trust – the issues are deeper than simple fear.
Also, when did I ever say I hated homosexuals? I’ve had a number of gay friends over the years. One of my best highschool friends was a transvestite for a while and follows a bisexual lifestyle now (FYI, we’re partying in NY next week). All those names you called me and beliefs you assumed I take part in are just flat-out unfounded if you read my post – I’M ANALYZING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, NOT SPEAKING MY OWN OPINIONS. Yeesh, people, get some critical reading skills!
As for sex, men are men and are completely sexually ravenous, straight or gay. The point I was making is how the AMERICAN PUBLIC PERCEIVES GAY MEN and why. Craig’s list is an interesting social example of where the gay community (notice I didn’t say all homosexuals) is built around sex. The m4m board has a warning – “must be 18 years old…explicitly sexual content.” Is there a non-explicit m4m board? No, there isn’t. The only place for gay men to meet on CL is for casual encounters (just like the straight casual encounters section). But there is no place to find your “traditional” kinds of relationships.
And the reason there isn’t a traditional relationship section is not because homosexuality = hedonism, but because the most vocal people of the gay community are counter culture, sexual gratifying men. Am I wrong about that? I think most gay activists would take pride in that fact. Middle America, however, does not approve when a gay pride parade strolls down Main street. Once again, I don’t give an F, but that’s what America perceives.
The reason I bring all this up is because I’ve had friends who are gay but have a serious problem find monogamous relationships in the gay community. A good friend from college was in tears because of this very issue – a shy, removed gay man who simply wanted a monogamous relationship and didn’t know where to go. His boyfriend got involved in the gay rave scene and began cheating on him, (not because he was gay, of course, but because he was a complete tool). Same as any other relationship – bad things happen – but my friend had no place to turn to find a better relationship than “Looking 4 Hung and Thick Man Cocks to Milk” (the most current post on CL m4m).
The impression I get from my gay friends who want the monogamous relationships is that there isn’t a place for them in the gay community. Like I said a dozen times and I’ll say again – John August should be allowed to get married if he really wants to. My point is the gay community is doing people like him a disservice by presenting an image that goes totally against what the American public needs to see in order to vote to allow gay marriage. I believe homosexuals are the same. The gay community, however, does not present that image. Call me a level 60 Demon Bigot if you like, but the vast majority of Americans who vote on these issues think “hedonistic gay pride parades” before they think “loving parents John and Mike at home with their daughter.” Hell, call 57+% of Americans idiots too, but blame falls on the gay community for the image they’ve created.
September 8th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
writergurl-
You stand out as an outlandish voice in this conversation. Learn how to constructively debate or don’t post. Or continue to embarrass yourself.
You have (some) valid points, take time to articulate them without blasting other humans.
What’s comical is that you claim to “clear up some of [his] assumptions” and then YOU go on to assume that he’s thinking about gays as “queers, homos, fags, dykes.” IN THE SAME SENTENCE!!!!!
You’re unbelievable; you venture the closest to intolerance in this conversation.
-Tim
September 8th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
Gary, then those gay men are just as pathetic as the straight men. I can’t speak to it as I have no experience with it. I DO have experience with the straight men posting in w4w. So, this just goes to prove that there are boorish, pathetic men who are BOTH straight and gay. I don’t recall claiming otherwise.
Tim, yeah, I’m intolerant of those who discriminate against me for no reason. Sue me.
September 8th, 2005 at 8:30 pm
JR,
If everyone accepts that gay people are born gay, then it strengthens the case that disriminating against them is unfair, in the same way that discriminating against black people is unfair, because they didn’t choose to be black.
But it’s all quite sad that nature vs. nurture is part of the discourse on the subject. For some reason, Republicans think if gay people ‘choose’ to be gay, then that gives Republicans have a license to stomp on gay people. So Democrats respond by saying gay people don’t choose to be gay, in an effort to win the argument and make the gay rights movement analagous to the civil rights movement. Which is true, it’s the same fight, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is a choice or not because we’re not supposed to have second class citizens in America.
Ben LA
September 8th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
Whoa, whoa, whoa, people! We’re totally missing the boat here!
Will Kristanna Loken return in T4?
September 8th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
JJ,
Slavery existed for 400 years in the US before it was finally, completely repealed, only forty years ago. Was the pro-slavery majority ‘wrong’ about slavery back then, just because they were the majority?
Just because a majority of people think a certain way about an issue, doesn’t make them correct. Not a single one of these people can make a cogent argument against gay marriage. Because all you have to do is show them the Bill of Rights.
Everyone thought the earth was the center of the galaxy until Copernicus came along. Galileo was imprisoned just for believing it. The majority was wrong back then, and they’re wrong now.
The fact that so many states vote against gay marriage means that the country is still steeped in bigotry, fear, ignorance and hatred.
This ‘ gay public image’ you keep blathering about–what does that mean? What ‘image’? You’re generalizing and ascribing things to gay people that either don’t exist in the first place, or don’t represent them at all. Craigslist? Billboards in WeHo? WTF, man, you don’t talk, you puke, you’re not making any sense.
As if gay people have some sort of membership union, and they all meet once a month to discuss how the media portrays them? So, since their ‘Q score’ is down, they need to make some collective adjustments to their ‘brand’?
Gay people aren’t any more uniform or collective than straight people. They are us and we are them. There’s no differences in the way they live and behave, other than the differences you assign to them, by your ignorant stereotyping.
As if it’s on gay people to ‘shape up’ and ‘earn’ their civil rights.
FU.
ben la
September 8th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
Ha – you weren’t a racist country either til Hurricane Katrina blew the lid on that (excuse the pun). You do indeed have second class citizens and they are among a list that probably goes down to eighth or ninth class and gay people are down the bottom. So you can complain all you want, but in a country that produces some of the most hardcore pornography available, yet has the largest contingent of strict moralists in the world, the majority is against gay people. What gets proven time and time again is that the most verbal of activists are always in the minority. They make the most noise but when it’s all said and done, they realise they were outnumbered 5 to 1.
September 8th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Wonderful, impassioned, articulate arguement, John. I hope that Arnold reads your letter and feels great shame for putting the politics of fear ahead of the protection of the human rights of tens of thousands of Californians. He let us all down today.
September 9th, 2005 at 12:13 am
“Gay people can’t get married for the same reason that black people couldn’t vote before the Civil Rights Act. Fear, ignorance, and bigotry. You can’t argue against it. The most important ‘tenet’ of our Constitution is that all men are created equal, and are entitled to the same rights, protections and privileges under the law. Forbidding gay people from marrying is a violation of that law.”
Bigotry from… I thought 80 percent of Republicans voted for that bill as opposed to 60 from Dems. Jus’ sayin’.
I hope I don’t get called a ‘bigot’ for being a Republican. They’re not synonyms/euphemisms. I have a gay friend and I’ve heard a few songs from Rent. I KNOW I’m no bigot. :)
September 9th, 2005 at 12:22 am
Ben, you’re argument about nature vs nuture makes zero sense. You’re actually arguing that you believe you’re born gay because it’s the only argument that aligns you with other minorities. That’s about as stupid as saying you don’t believe in global warming because your company pollutes the ozone and believing in global warming would hurt your business.
September 9th, 2005 at 8:06 am
“Things you take for granted, like being able to kiss your lover good bye at the airport, we might get killed for doing. You can walk down the street in any city, town, or hamlet in this country and hold you lover’s hand. If John were to try that he’d run the risk of getting beaten, if not killed.”
Killed? How about eaten alive or butchered into pieces and sold on a meat market or, even better, have his skin peeled off and made into a Anti-Fag flag? Is that really less realistic? Come on, don’t make yourself ridiculous! Your post had some good arguments in it and you turn it all into some kind of pathetic, bathos-ridden hate anthem. Yeah, I admit, I’m “straight” (stupid term) and I don’t like watching two men hold hands or kiss or fumble with each other. As a matter of fact, I think it’s disgusting. So? Would I walk over to John and his partner and beat the shit out of ‘em? Just because I think it’s disgusting? And would any other reasonable (“straight” or whatever) person do that? Of course there are people who would. They exist. But to think the world consits primarily of murdering, gay-hating bastards is a pretty dumb and plain depressing view. If you really expect me to believe that, then you’d have to accept the fact that when it’s dark outside and the lights are out, an evil gay organisation roams the city streets with the only intention of sneaking into straight people’s homes and kidnapping their newborns: “Martha, put her in the oven! They won’t get her alive!”
September 9th, 2005 at 8:28 am
Just to address the really important issues:
Um, yeah. I actually know Kristanna. She was in D.C., my short-lived WB series. Coolest chick you’re ever going to meet.
September 9th, 2005 at 9:15 am
I just have a few questions.
I can’t quite grasp that people are born gay. It’s not a physical trait like the color of your skin. It’s not a geological thing like being born into the wrong tribe in Rwanda. It’s not a sociological thing like being born into a poor family. People are born in these situations and are descriminated for things they cannot control. I am a Christian. I chose to be a Christian. I am descriminated against for taking a stand for what I believe. How is being gay any different? Don’t you have to choose at some point to go down that road? I hate that gay’s are descriminated against, just like I hate that Christians are descriminated against. Certainly the descrimination against gay’s is on a much larger scale. But it seems to me that you choosing to be gay puts you in a place where you can be more proud because you made the choice to be there.
I am a father. My son just turned 2 years old. As my wife and I raise my son, I begin to understand the need for both a father and mother. When my son wants to play, he comes to me. When my son gets hurt, he runs to his mom. Can a gay couple provide for a child the same way as having both a mother and father would? Probably a lot of gay partnerships are in more healthy situations than a lot of man/woman marriages. But I’d be interested to know how gay people feel about providing for a child outside of the mother/father relationship.
September 9th, 2005 at 9:28 am
“…the only reason he got elected in the first place, WAS BY IGNORING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE in throwing out Gov. Davis, who’d just been elected.” Ben, you do realize it wasn’t a military coup, right? The ability to recall has been in the California constitution for years (in honesty, I don’t know how long). It’s there so the public can hold the governor accountable between elections. If the people had supported Davis, he would have one the recall anyway, but he didn’t.
“Of course the problem with ‘let the majority decide’ is that the minority inevitably suffers.” John, I don’t think it’s “inevitable,” simply possible.
Also, you’re right that the standard Republican line is that things like this should be up to the voters, not the courts. I firmly believe that, and I’m disappointed Schwarzenegger would say otherwise. But you should also note that Schwarzenegger does not hew the party line on many counts, so that’s not really a very good argument in this particular case.
“Slavery existed for 400 years in the US before it was finally, completely repealed, only forty years ago. Was the pro-slavery majority ‘wrong’ about slavery back then, just because they were the majority?
Just because a majority of people think a certain way about an issue, doesn’t make them correct.” This is a very good argument against democracy, Ben. Maybe we should have an oligarchy, and be ruled by a small group of Philospher Kings. Personally, though, I think we should take the above arguments about the unreasonableness of disallowing gay marraige, and take them to the people, and convince them that it should be allowed.
In all honesty, I think if there was another proposition that said “Gay people can marry” in California, it would win in a walk. But I think we should have that election.
September 9th, 2005 at 9:43 am
Wow, Kristanna Loken in a John August-penned T4! Now I’m in heaven!!
September 9th, 2005 at 10:02 am
I’m a married father too, Hudson. But my son comes to me both for playing and for comforting when he gets hurt. He also calls for me (not my wife) if he has a bad dream in the middle of the night. Some men are able to fulfill both roles. Some men fit better in the comforting role than others. Your own situation isn’t really an argument against same sex parenting.
People are born gay. It happens all the time. Actually, I shouldn’t limit that to people. ANIMALS (including humans) are born gay all the time. Dozens of other animal species exhibit homosexual behavior. I don’t think that any of those other animals just “choose” to forego mating with the opportunity of procreating because they just “decide” to be homosexual.
For JR: Mendelian genetics is incredibly simplified. According to Mendelian genetics, there shouldn’t be any hazel eyes. And my son shouldn’t have green eyes. As for there being no known gene that causes homosexuality… as far as I know, no one has nailed down a specific gene that causes hairy toe knuckles either. That doesn’t mean it isn’t an inherited trait.
Ilya: you’ve apparently never heard of “hate crimes.” I assure you they do happen, and yes, gay people are sometimes killed just for being gay. Of course a reasonable person wouldn’t do that. But people who commit hate crimes generally aren’t reasonable people. And how do you think they know who to go after for “being gay?” I assume you understand that there are places where it would be unsafe for a white woman to walk around at night by herself. And places where it’d be unsafe for a black man to walk around by himself. So why do you find it hard to believe that there are places where it’d be dangerous for a gay couple to hold hands?
September 9th, 2005 at 10:07 am
outstanding job. we often forget the personal in discussions of these matters. by keeping this on a personal basis we are forced to confront the personal damage we do to real people. of course, our governor has already proven that he is all muscle and no strength.
September 9th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Listen, John, when you’re plotting T4 (you know they’ll give you the job if you want it), you should seriously think about making Kristanna Loken’s T-X a lesbian. Why? a) Lesbians are hot. b) You could do a whole gay marriage and/or craigslist subplot. c) Lesbians are hot! Do it, John! And keep up the good fight.
September 9th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
One word for you Mr. Governator… “JUNIOR”
September 9th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
“In your movies, you always play the hero.”
Let’s not forget the last villain he played — Mr. Freeze in “Batman and Robin.” He has apparently retained some of that character’s powers and intends to use them on this bill. Pretty cold, Governor.
First “B & R,” now AB 849. Neither will go down as his greatest moment.
September 9th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
John -
Great letter, very funny and moving! But it’s sort of wasted on this website; I would like to see it in a much larger scale, like dominating a page in a major newspaper.
I like your clever but understated use of strike-thru to emphasise the key point: basic human rights. Because gay marriage is about human rights, not about bestowing benefits on people or indulging some subset of humans.
Slaves in America weren’t allowed to marry which meant, among other things, that their children could never be legitimate. Marriage confers status; slaves were not even permitted that status. But slavery is distant history. I think part of the problem is that people nowadays have generally lost sight of the fact that marriage is in fact a basic human right. There’s this huge tendency to associate marriage with religion and morals, mostly. Mention ‘human rights’ and people’ll think Amnesty International and bearded men wasting away in prisons in foreign lands.
Gay marriage was allowed here in Iceland some years ago. I would never in a thousand years have forseen what an impact this legislation would make. It changed the social climate very perceptably. The law benefitted everybody, not only gays. There was this sense of resolution, of matters solved and laid to rest. To everyone’s relief, basically.
The Church of Iceland (Evangelical Lutheran, a state church 95% of the population belongs to) defines marriage as a union of man and woman. But typically the church managed to fudge matters, it leaves the whole thing up to individual ministers. They perform gay marriage ceremonies – or rather marriage-equivalent ceremonies – if they want to. If they don’t want to they don’t have to.
When this gay-marriage bill was introduced 10 years ago I was all for it in a cheerful ‘Hey, gay people want to get married? Why not!” way. I didn’t see the big picture. But then, I can’t say I had ever in my life paid a moment’s thought to gay people or to homosexuality. Now that I have the Before and After comparison I sort of get the big picture.
Homosexuality has never been illegal in Iceland. But gay people were targets. Even I knew that. This was certainly not condoned but I think the general feeling was that it was inevitable, gay people havin the cheek to be openly gay. Homophobia was accepted as being natural and understandable. Homophobia is when people find the idea of sex / intimacy between people of the same sex distasteful.
I think that this homophobia thing has always been vastly overestimated, that far too much importance was attached to it. Essentially I think people really don’t care. People find gay sex distasteful but they also find a lot of straight sex distasteful. I find some things distasteful; practically everyone finds something distasteful but noone is loosing sleep over it.
Targeting gay people is bullying behavior, basically. Like schoolyard bullying. It’s all about identifying individuals who are vulnerable in some way and then set about tormenting them with the aid of a bunch of follower-type bullies.
Gay people were vulnerable because they were caught in this demi-monde existence. Gay relationships were legal but not officially sanctioned or legitmitized. Allow gay marriage and bullies will back off and find other prey. This has been the experience in Iceland.
I’m not a California resident so there’s not much point in me making phonecalls to the governer’s office.
Arnold Schwarzenegger strikes me as being more American than most Americans. I’m sorry to sound so incredibly pessimistic and sour but I don’t think this guy is going to do anything for gay people. I think that Arnold’s prime concern is to secure his own position and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t want to be known as somebody who is friendly to gays. He won’t allow gay marriage because there’s nothing in it for him.
Anyways, your letter made me laugh out loud. Thanks and congrats on your little girl.
September 10th, 2005 at 3:33 am
JJ,
You specifically mentioned the following example
‘Peter Jackson and Fran are together simply through their mutual love – religion doesn’t have a part.’
That’s true. Largely, of course, because in New Zealand such relationships have the same legal standing as marriage…
And, I can assure you, society hasn’t come crashing to it’s knees over here because of it.
September 10th, 2005 at 11:55 am
You know, there was a reason that this country was not founded as a full fledged democracy, but instead as a democratic republic. And that is because the framers of the constitution believed in several different aspects of human nature, some believed that men(people) are inherently good, some believed that mane(people) are inherently evil. To ensure that the majority didn’t always overrun the minority they enabled certain parts into the constitution. Just one example of one of these safeguards is the electoral college, which gives the states with a smaller population a little more weight in the decision of the election of president(look it up).
Back to my point though, we do not live in a democratic society per se, California IS the most democratic of all the states in that it does allow for direct democratic decisions to be made by way of initiatives. This does not however relieve the republic duties of our representatives from legislating as the see fit. Nor does it provide for a majority rule(or mob rule) society. The basis that the minorities voice and interests will be taken for action is still a part of the California governmental structure. It appears to me that the legislative body passed a bill and now it is(or was) in the hands of the governor to decide and he appears to be choosing to kill it.
I think it is sad that the governator chose to take the popular road on this issue. One day, all men and women will be treated the same, regardless of any ideological, sexual, or other “preference.” Its too bad that day won’t be coming in the near future, but what appears to be the distant future.
September 10th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
“If you do approve of gay marriage, and you think public sentiment has changed, get another initiative on the ballot.”
Public sentiment is irrelevant. Anyone’s opinion is irrelevant. Marriage for all isn’t something to be voted upon.
This isn’t an issue about how anyone “defines” a family. This isn’t an issue about what any particular religion does/doesn’t sanction.
This issue is about how past injustices and current prejudices and current prejudices are prohibiting all U.S. citizens from being equal through the manifestation of fear and bigotry.
Clearly there is an important religious and spiritual aspect of marriage. This is not what is being debated. What is being debated are the almost 1,100 legal and financial benefits that come with a civil marriage certificat – which all married citizens are provided.
The United States Constitution Article. IV. Section. 2. Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
If a Right, Priviledge or Immunity is offered, it is offered to all citizens. Any other argument is a red herring and likely covering up unvoiced bigotry.
Sadly, what most opponents of marriage for all don’t recognize is that it cheapens and dilutes American citizenship.
September 10th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
To totally leave behind the moral/social aspects of this conversation, I did hear an interesting argument against gay marriage based on a scholarly/philosophical angle.
The argument (which I’m sure I’ll butcher) says, basically, because the dictionary definition of marriage is “between a man and a woman” and that’s the way it’s always been for the last 10,000 years, then changing the definition is simply rewriting history (and will require every dictionary to change its definition). Marriage, by definition, IS the practice of a male/female nuptial. So if homosexuals want to join in a similar pact, it should be called something else, simply for historical clarity.
Oh, and gay marriage exists through whatever religious figure wants to perform the ceremony. Seems that saying “straight marriage gets better financial privileges” can easily be remedied. But it seems what is really at stake is the dictionary definition, not the tax breaks.
Interestingly, lots of changes in definitions have happened for political reasons in the last few years. The biggest one I can think of is the definition of “torture.” It used to mean having your fingernails pulled out, genitals electrified and bodyparts systematically severed. After Abu Grab/gitmo, torture now means having underwear put on your head, listening to loud music, being barked at by a dog and playing human jenga.
Definitions change, naturally, but it seems that to the Holocaust survivors and victims and anyone who experienced real torture, this redefining for political points really demeans their suffering. When people hear of Jews being tortured, are they now supposed to imagine air conditioning on too high and Torah flushing? If only they were so lucky!
Likewise, changing the dictionary definition of marriage simply denies the historical context that it has always meant. It IS male/female in nature.
I said before I think John August should be allowed to get married. But thinking about it through the perspective of historical preservation, I don’t agree any longer. A new word should be created which is identical to marriage but specifically implies homosexuality. This has nothing to do with constitutional rights because, simply, BY DEFINITION marriage is male/female. Likewise, the issue has absolutely nothing in common with equal voting rights, slavery or any of the other arguments people brought up because the definitions of freedom, voting and the like are not race specific. Marriage, however, is gender specific by definition.
Anyone else have an opinion? Overall, thinking about the whole picture, gay couples can live any way they want, adopt who they want, go through the religious services if they want, do whatever they want because, really, allowing gays to marry will change NOTHING in their lives (unlike every other civil rights issue). The only issue at play is the forcing of every dictionary in the world to change the definition. For me, that’s where I draw the line. It’s not historically correct and seems somewhat ridiculous.
September 10th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Our society – especially our “elected” leaders – are too entangled in petty b.s. like votes. and opinion poles. and T4. think big people: blue marble on the edge of the universe! let marry and be mery.
September 10th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
Yeah JJ, because change is bad. Tradition is best. SO what would you actually suggest for this alternative to the word marriage? And I doubt that the word is really the biggest issue, however, it has more to do with life partners having the same family rights as traditionally married partners. Which at the moment they do not, so how is that right and defensible?
September 10th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Ilya, I expect you to believe the facts. Gay people are assualted and, yes, Virginia, killed, killed dead, just for being gay. Sadly, I am NOT being the paranoid idiot you accuse me of being. Equally sad is your denial of this very real threat. Denying that hate crimes DO occur is tantamount to denying that rape and domestic violence occur too. Your “gay gang” suggestion is deliberately preposterous, unfortunately, my imagined scenario is not. Don’t just take MY word for it. Here’s a few articles from reputable internet sources that, if you are really seeking the truth of the matter and not merely being snarky to me, you can use to enlighten yourself on the actual perils of being gay. If you don’t wish to use MY info, google the names yourself. Go ahead. Sadly, it’s all true and not a figment of my (admittedly) vivid imagination.
MATTHEW SHEPARD From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard Shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, 21-year-old Matthew Shepard met Aaron James McKinney and Russell Arthur Henderson in a bar. After he confided to them that he was gay, they deceived him into leaving with them in their car. He was robbed, severely beaten, tied to a fence and left to die. McKinney and Henderson also found out his address, intending to burgle his home. Shepard was discovered 18 hours later, alive and unconscious.
Shepard suffered from a fracture from the back of his head to the front of his right ear. He also had catastrophic brain stem damage, which affected his body’s ability to regulate heartbeat, body temperature, and other vital signs. There were also about a dozen small lacerations around his head, face and neck. His injuries were deemed too severe for doctors to operate. Shepard never regained consciousness and remained on full life support. He died at 12:53 a.m. on October 12 at Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado.
The blood on Shepard’s face had been partly washed away by tears, indicating that he had been conscious for some time after the beating. He had been pistol-whipped 18 times with a .357-caliber revolver.
BILLY JACK GAITHER From PBS’s Frontline series: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/billyjack/ On February 19, 1999, Billy Jack Gaither, a thirty-nine-year-old gay man who worked at the Russell Athletics apparel company near Sylacauga, Alabama, was brutally beaten to death. His throat was cut, and his body was bludgeoned with an ax handle before being thrown on top of a pile of tires and set on fire. In the weeks following the killing, two men came forward to police as the killers: Steven Mullins and Charles Monroe Butler. Butler, the younger of the two, came forward to police first. He described the night of the murder in great detail: how he had never heard of Billy Jack Gaither prior to the night of the killing; how his friend Steve Mullins found him at a bar playing pool and asked him to take a ride into the woods with himself and Billy Jack; how Billy Jack started “talking queer stuff” that set off a violent reaction in Butler; and then how he stood by as Mullins beat Billy Jack to death. In June of 1999, Steven Mullins pled guilty to capital murder; Butler stood trial and was found guilty of the same charge by a jury. In August of 1999, both Mullins and Butler were sentenced to life in prison without parole.
SCOTT AMEDURE From wikipeddia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Amedure Scott Amedure was murdered by Jonathan Schmitz in 1995 after appearing on The Jenny Jones Show and revealing a homosexual crush on his close friend Schmitz, who is straight.
ALLEN SCHINDLER From a site about the Holocaust and hate crimes in general: http://auschwitz.dk/Allen.htm On October 27, 1992, Petty Officer Allen R. Schindler, Jr., 22, was brutally beaten to death in a public restroom in Sasebo, Japan, by two of his shipmates, Terry Helvey and Charles Vins. They beat and stomped Schindler to death because Schindler was gay. Their attack was so vicious that they destroyed every organ in Schindler’s body. Allen Schindler’s mother, Mrs. Dorothy Hadjys-Holman, could identify her son only by the remains of the tattoos on his arms. The medical examiner compared Schindler’s injuries to those sustained by victims of a fatal airplane crash or a high- speed automobile accident – all but two of Schindler’s ribs had been broken, his penis bore cut marks and his liver contained holes that allowed the pathologist to see straight through it …
BARRY WINCHELL An article from Rolling Stone republished here: http://www.davidclemens.com/gaymilitary/rolstobarry.htm Pvt. Barry Winchell, a twenty-one-year-old from Kansas City, Missouri, was one of those earnest young men. He enlisted in 1997 and within a few months joined Delta Company, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne, trained to fire heavy weapons like the .50-caliber machine gun and the 40 mm grenade launcher. He was by all accounts a good soldier, with ambition and skill and the beginnings of a life plan.
In the early hours of July 5th, 1999, Winchell was murdered on the third-floor landing of his barracks, bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat by a fellow soldier. The initial account of the murder was straightforward. The Army called his death the result of “an altercation between soldiers:” In fact, it was that, Barry Winchell had been in a fistfight with his assailant the day before the attack, and on that Fourth of July night, with staff sergeants nowhere in sight, the soldiers had all gotten very drunk at the barracks.
But the Army did not report at first that Winchell was actually sound asleep in his cot when he was attacked. Nor did the Army reveal that he had been the target of steady harassment by other soldiers for months, that he had been ostracized and isolated, taunted even by his superiors, because he was believed to be gay. Finally, the Army did nothing to suggest the close and complicated relationship that Winchell had with his roommate, whose own sexual uncertainty contributed to the tormented atmosphere in the barracks and whose Louisville Slugger ended up in the killer’s hands on the fatal night.
I’m sure there are others who have been beaten, or killed who have not recieved the media attention of these cases. No, I can’t point them out to you, but take a moment, stop hating people you don’t understand, and truly take a moment to THINK about this… if it happens to these guys, why wouldn’t it happen to other men or women?
How horrid to have lost all those lives. And for what? Being gay? That charateristic, alone, should not mean a death sentence. Tragically, in each of these cases, it did.
I know a woman (No, she is not a “friend” of mine, she’s a very casual acquaintance, we’ve meet at some party, bar, soiree sometime, somewhere, since I know her name and recognize her face. But, we are not friends.) who was beaten in Midtown Atlanta. Did she do anything to deserve it? Obviously, I don’t think so, but let’s look at the facts of that night and I’ll let you decide… According to the local gay newspaper, she left a gay bar, by herself, and was walking towards her car. That’s all. Nothing else. No kissing, no hand holding, no getting some “strange” in the back of a vehicle. NOTHING ELSE. After her attckers fled the scene, she drug herself back towards the bar, hurt, battered and bleeding. Once she got close to the bar, a bouncer saw her, ran to help her and yelled for someone to call 911. She had to be taken, by ambulance, to the trauma ward for treatment of her wounds. Yes, she’s physically fine, now, but I doubt her wounds are just physical. How could they be? Had she not been able to make it back to the bar, maybe, just maybe, she would also be one of the media cases I referenced above.
I hope you made the humane decision in deciding that this woman, hell, no one deserves to be beaten and/or killed just for being gay. If you haven’t then, may God have mercy on your soul, you’ll need it much more than a queer like me. Writergurl
September 10th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
A new word. Great idea. Talk about forward thinking.
Here’s my suggestion, to be immidiately placed in “every dictionary in the world”: marriage between two men should be called “sparkle”; marriage between two women should be called “flannel”.
September 10th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
I believe in gay marriage – especially if both chicks are HOT!
September 11th, 2005 at 12:37 am
I love you more than ever, John. You’ll always have full support from me, no matter what, and it’s about time the powers that be realised that the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender community is here to stay.
September 11th, 2005 at 7:15 am
Applause, standing ovation, ear-splitting cheers. Mr. August, everything you seem to write is magic, you are a credit to humanity via the power of your words. If I were a Californian, I’d be marching in the streets – I’d be the skinny scriptease with the great big “Less War, More Weddings” banner. But I’m in Toronto, where we’re past all that (in principle, in the eyes of the law). And, while I know it’s not the same, and basic human rights and diginities must be afforded all everywhere no mater how long and ridiculous the fight… you’re always welcome and legally-entitled to marry up here, over the 49th parallel. Run-away production, or one heck of an international family-oriented celebration? Is it really necessary to judge? Best wishes for what I hope is your pending Happily Ever After.
September 11th, 2005 at 9:43 am
Sparkle is good but flannel I think we can do a little better…(I’m just joking, people)
As for equal rights, I’m honestly not sure what is supposed to change if gay marriage goes forward. It seems the the change is only in name and in tax laws. It’s not like the emancipation of slaves or right-to-vote or any other “basic human rights.” What is really going to change?
And if the changes are only taxes and definition, would you be happy with simply a change in tax laws and not in dictionary definition?
September 11th, 2005 at 10:39 am
No, it’s extremely true. I’ve been interested in the issue of etiology of male homosexuality for a long time. In fact, I did my senior thesis at Princeton on the topic, perhaps because of this simple fact: it seemed absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to me that anything could possibly make me want to sleep with another man.
Impossible.
Given the seeming rigidity of my heterosexuality, how could it not also hold that male homosexuality is just as rigid?
Yes, I said “rigid” and male homosexu…ah, whatever.
Anyway, around the time I was working on my thesis, a researcher named Simon LeVay discovered something pretty fascinating. Cells in an area of the brain (well, specifically in the interior nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus) were larger in heterosexual men than in women. In homosexual men, the cells were closer in size to those found in women.
My personal theory at the time, and one I still suspect is the likliest explanation, is that male homosexuality (and thus, by definition, male heterosexuality as well…) is the result of two factors occuring together.
A specific environmental stimulus that occurs in utero, and
A genetic predeliction to respond in a certain way to that stimulus.
Point is…not only is male orientation entirely biological in nature, but so is gender behavior (a chat for another time, but Marlo Thomas was dead wrong…Billy doesn’t want a doll, he wants a gun, so give the kid a break).
Having said all that, I think a lot of commenters in here should give JJ a break. Beating him over the head with angry words isn’t really going to solve anything or convince anyone, is it?
Last but not least, my challenge for the crowd. What do we do about polygamy? There are those who are in committed, loving three-person relationships. They also want the right to be married. So do some people in five-person relationships.
How does the expansion of the strict definition of marriage come to bear on these people? I’m not making this up as an ad absurdum, by the by. A brief stroll through the web turns up a number of sites advocating marriage for multiperson relationships and family units based on the same reasoning many of you have listed.
Personally, I’m conflicted on gay marriage. I say that knowing full well that my ambivalence makes me about as popular as Idi Amin at most cocktail parties in L.A., but it’s the truth. I’m seriously conflicted. On the one hand, I cannot think of a single reason why someone like John shouldn’t be able to marry the human being he loves.
On the other hand, not everyone’s like John.
Frankly, I find casual heterosexual marriages to be abhorrent. My reticence may have to do with the fact that most people debase the institution of marriage, and I’m afraid that opening the barn door even further than easy divorce already did will lead to polyamorists getting married…and then I’m not sure the institution will have any meaning at all.
I guess my stance is this: smart, faithful, reasonable, stable people should be allowed to get married, and it should be extremely difficult for these folks to get unmarried.
The rest of the riffraff, be they gay, straight, bi, lesbian, polyamorous, etc., should keep getting drunk and screwing each other in bars.
I know, I know…hardly realistic. Just like my long-held belief that only smart people should vote.
But please, riffraff, if you’re not willing to stop getting married in Vegas drivethroughs to waitresses you just met or some geezer with cash, at least stop having kids, wouldja?
September 11th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Hudson: I’m not gay, but I’ve had this conversation with my father, who’s religious.
You say being gay is a choice. If that’s true, then it’s also true that being heterosexual is a choice.
So you tell me…does your equipment work for either sex? ‘Cause mine doesn’t. It only works for the women. I am(sorry, boys) a bit repulsed at the thought of sex with guys.
I was born heterosexual. Just like a lot of people are born gay(not all of them, mind you–there are significant studies that say that sexual abuse can alter a child’s sexuality but that doesn’t negate the fact that many are born gay).
September 11th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
JJ:
I think my earlier post was kind of confusing because I used the word ‘marriage’ very indiscriminately. I should be a bit more clear because words are important. After all, marriage is what John August is talking about. He wants to get married.
In Iceland we don’t have ‘gay marriage’, we have what’s called ‘registered partnership’ for gay people. It is identical to marriage in the sense that people in registered partnership have the same civil rights & responsibilities as married people. Officially speaking it isn’t marriage but everyone calls it marriage anyway.
‘We’re getting married’ sounds nice; ‘we’re planning on becoming registered partners’ sounds pretty dire.
About the word ‘marriage’ and dictionary definitions:
In Iceland 99% of people get married in church. Civil marriage ceremonies are sort of frowned upon. Get married by some public official and you’ll seriously disappoint your parents. Your granny will probably think you aren’t properly married at all. It’s not exactly a religious thing with people, it’s more cultural. I mention this because it’s important to my explanation.
When the parliament passed the registered partnership laws the church responded by encouraging its ministers to bless homosexual unions, in other words to perform wedding ceremonies or something akin to it. I guess the church figured that it was not in its interest to ignore gay people at a very important time in their lives, namely when they’re getting hitched (for a lack of a better word).
This church ceremony doesn’t have fixed form and it doesn’t have a name. It’s not an official church ritual actually (weddings are official church rituals). But that’s not stopping people from calling it wedding because it looks and feels like a wedding.
Gay couples get registered, or whatever it’s called, in a civil ceremony and then they have their church ceremonies. Some gay people are perfectly happy with this arrangement, others are not. They want to be married in the eyes of the church.
So there is pressure on the church. What seems to be happening is that church people will hammer out an agreement and come up with an official church ritual for gay people to make it possible for them to have real church weddings and skip the civil business altogether. It’s taken the church 10 years to work this out.
So the church is NOT going to change its old institution, marriage. It wants to create a new institution, one that’s equivalent to marriage. The church is also proposing a new term to replace the phrase ‘registered partnership’(‘hjonaband’ is the Icelandic for marriage; they are proposing ‘festarband’ for gay marriage).
Except of course that registered partnership, or festarband, is only recognized by a handful of countries (and the US is not one of them). So it’s not really equivalent to marriage.
September 11th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Excellent post, Anna. Fascinating to hear what’s happening in Iceland. “Festarband” sounds like what I was proposing should be implemented here and, really, sounds like an excellent compromise.
In your post, you describe the church as singular. Is there only one church of Iceland? And what is the denomination?
Also, how would you say this has changed the gay community? Would you say the “registered partnership” has made their lives vastly better in any quantifiable way or is it more an issue of social perceptions?
For those who posted about my statement of “gay people are not born gay,” I was responding to the argument put forward that ALL gay people are born gay which is obviously not true. In my experience, I’d say that more people arrived at homosexuality through abuse/trauma and “lifestyle choices” than from inherent genetic predisposition, but I don’t really know. Also, everything Craig Mazin is absolutely fascinating and could very well be true.
And anyone else who wants to respond, I’m still curious what noticeable improvements in life will change with the passing of gay marriage.
September 11th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
JJ…
Your life won’t change if gay people can get married. Any couple’s marriage (of any gender combination) doesn’t affect YOUR life unless you are one of that couple.
Speaking just from my viewpoint here… I don’t give two red pennies IF it’s called “marriage” or civil union. What I DO care about is the legal and fiscal benefits accorded to those who marry, at the MOMENT of marraige.
Ok, let’s try this on for size…
Suppose, that I, as a lesbian, go to Vegas and for some reason, (unfathomable to me but let’s just go with the suspension of belief thing here) meet a MAN and while drunk, stoned or somehow otherwise impaired marry him. Further, let’s suppose that on the way back to the hotel from the Chapel of Lurve, we get into a horrific accident, and he is gravely injured. As his WIFE, I am accorded the FULL priviledges of that vaunted position. I can visit him in the hospital upon my whim, make decisions about his medical care, and ultimately (should he die) inherit all his estate. Never mind that I didn’t know him yesterday. Or that his parents might object to this brand new “wife”. As his wife, I now have unbreakable legal rights.
Now, let’s say that I’m in Vegas with my girlfriend of 15 years. We CAN NOT get married. But, the same accident occurs as we are returning from gazing longingly at the Chapel of Lurve. I can, because of my “non married” status be denied visitation, any kind of contact, AND be kicked out of OUR HOME (if she should die) as I am not her spouse. I can also be barred from the funeral. All of this, dependent upon the whim of her parents, who are her legal “next of kin”. In short, I have ZERO status as her partner.
Now, I ask you, all of you, how’d you like to be treated like that? Yeah, that’s what I thought…
Yes, I can go to attorneys and have various legal papers drawn up. BUT. I can’t see, for the life of me, how that is even remotely fair. Especially given that those “papers” can be challenged in court. While a marriage (properly performed) can NOT be challenged by your mother in law, even if she thinks you’re the Anti-Christ who ripped her “baby” from her loving family.
As for concerns about the “slippery slope”, that’s the same old tired argument that’s been trotted out since discussions about “allowing” Blacks to marry Whites, allowing women and Blacks to vote and intergrating Blacks into the school system as well as the military. It doesn’t hold water now, it never has, and it never will.
September 11th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
First off, that last sentence is hysterical. And true! :)
I do believe that all gay men are born gay. Masculine sexuality is extremely focused and directed; other than the choice of partner gender, homosexual men and heterosexual men display the same level of sex drive, interest in sex, sexual behavior patterns, etc.
The sociological difference is that the heterosexual male sex drive (which is predicated on Trivers’ theory that every time a man has sex his increases his chance of continuing his genetic line) is qualified and restricted by the heterosexual female sex drive, which is predicated far more on choosiness (same reason…females do NOT increase their chance of genetic continuation every time they have sex…indeed, pregnancy is both a physical risk to the woman as well as an opportunity cost, for she can only be pregnant from one man at one time and for 10 months).
You may know many homosexual men who have suffered from abuse. I suspect the causal relationship is precisely opposite the one you see. Homosexual boys are more often disdained by parents and peers. The resulting emotional weakness may make homosexual boys an attractive target, therefore, for abusers. Furthermore, the rejection that the male homosexual often encounters may lead to a life in the closet. Restricted sexuality can also lead to abuse of younger gay males…my theory here being that if a closeted gay man is seeking an easy target for satisfaction, he may have a better chance of getting a young, impressionable or naive homosexual male in a compromising situation than a young heterosexual male.
In short, I can think of many more reasons why male homosexuality leads to abuse, but NO reasons why abuse would lead to male homosexuality.
Or, to put it crudely, you could beat me hard enough to make me have sex with a man, but I doubt you could beat me hard enough to make we WANT to have sex with men, share my life with a man, and romantically love a man.
Lastly, I’ve never understood the notion of “lifestyle choice”. Can you describe the male homosexual “lifestyle”? Do you mean…life activity other than homosexual acts? So…what? Interior decorating? Listening to New Order? :) What does that mean? And if there is a homosexual lifestyle choice, is there a heterosexual lifestyle choice?
If so…I don’t FEEL like I’ve made a choice. What I recall is that around the age of 11, I suddenly became extremely interested in boobs and vaginas.
Still am. :) Couldn’t tell you why, though. :)
September 11th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Um, why do people even engage JJ? It’s not as if he says anything interesting.
September 11th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Craig: LOL, yeah, I think I missed a word somewhere in there. No doubt a Freudian slip!
Mick: you’re right, I have no idea…
Back to Craig, I think the most damaging abuse happens before sexuality is really activated in a child (prepubescent). What you describe about male homosexual pedophiles connecting to young gay boys is only true after puberty. But quite often abuse happens much earlier and is really damaging because of it.
Additionally, most psychology (from the little I know) says that boys and girls growing up identify how to have relationships from watching their parents. If abuse takes place, then their perception on future relationships is drastically changed. Same with any events in upbringing where “approval” is the major desired response from the parent (because of neglect and physical abuse). And when “approval” is sexualized, major psychological changes take place.
My friend who I mentioned became gay through trauma has an interesting history entirely unrelated to abuse. What happened is when he was young an older girl tried to have sex with him. The problem was she was deformed down below do to an accident she had as a child. My friend freaked out, tried to break it off but the girl tried to rape him. Anyway, the next day she accused him of attempted rape, the scandal broke in the papers, and he was repeatedly beat up in school. Naturally, my friend had to move to a new state. When he wanted a relationship, he turned to men because it was safe. (the whole story is from his side, of course)
Another friend of mine I grew up with was, no question, straight. Hot for women at 11, porn on the net, the whole bit. Hit about 17 or so, he starts dropping tabs and, out of nowhere, saying he’s bisexual. He got involved with a crazy rave scene, had fun for a few years and finally grew out of that phase. He now has a steady girlfriend and the drugs and bisexuality are behind him.
Also, an interesting point is the rampant homosexuality in prisons. Straight before and straight after, inside inmates trade Lucky Strikes for bobos.
Even stranger is that during college EVERY GIRL I KNEW was “bisexual when drunk.” Get ‘em liquored up and they start making out and hooking up like it’s a Jay-Z video.
Additionally, homosexuality and pedophilia were wide-spread and generally accepted in ancient Greece and feudal Japan (as far as I know). What percentage of those men were truly gay? Hard to say, but I’ll put this forward: men like sex regardless of where it’s coming from. A woman is best, but if the situation dictates something different and socially accepted (even endorsed in Socrates’ example), so be it.
And take Larry Flint: lost his virginity to a chicken. Is he attracted to fowl? It’s possible, but most likely he’s just a perv.
Anyway, I guess my point is humans are complex and sexuality even more so. The way we look for security through relationships is influenced by a multitude of factors, only one of which is our inherent sexual predisposition.
As for my previous question, I’m still curious what dramatic quality of life improvement will take place with the passage of gay marriage.
And, of course, everything Craig Mazin is absolutely fascinating, stupendous, OMG, OMG, Scary Movie 4!
September 11th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
JJ:
I’m keeping all of my comments strictly to male homosexuality, because that’s where the research currently is. I won’t argue with you about the fluidity of female sexuality.
However, while your anecdotal information is interesting, it’s not compelling, nor should it form the bedrock of any critical thinker’s beliefs.
There is indisputable scientific evidence that shows not only a biological basis for all male sexuality, but homo- and hetero-sexuality.
It may be tempting for homosexual men, who are perhaps ashamed that they are somehow inherently “deviant”, to seek “excuses” for their sexuality. Nonetheless, the following are facts:
This alone should give one pause when entertaining thoughts that sexual abuse causes homosexuality.
As for prison…this is a different situation. The male sexual drive is, as I’m sure you know, an actual biophysical drive. If you deprive heterosexual men of all opportunities to be sexual with women, they may indeed turn to men. Of note is that in prison populations, the homosexuality is of a different kind. Weaker men are specifically feminized and made to be “women” in order to simulate heterosexuality.
Add to this fact that many of the men in prison are sexually violent individuals, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.
I would never argue that sexuality is simple. Lord knows that it’s enormously complex. However, the only actual facts we have at our disposal indicate in the most convincing way that sexuality is deeply biological in nature.
I’ll give you the last word.
September 11th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
Okay: When I was young, before I even knew that homosexuality was POSSIBLE, I kissed a girl. How could it have been a choice if I didn’t even know it existed? All I knew was that I wanted to kiss her, and so I did. The first time I heard the word “homosexual” was several years later when my mother told me about her gay cousin. I don’t pretend to be gay for attention like some girls do, I think that’s stupid as hell. I was never sexually abused, no boy ever “turned me gay.” My life has been mercifully trauma-free. There has been no “trigger” that I can remember. I’m just gay.
September 12th, 2005 at 1:53 am
JJ… are you deliberately being obtuse? I explained to you quite clearly that your “straight” life would NOT change. Then I took pains to illustrate that at present, (without the possiblity of marriage) our realtionships are legally, despite our hiring lawyers etc., second class. Lifting this rudiculous ban would make our realtionship have as much legal and fiscal strength as your “straight” realtionships.
How can you not understand THAT? I didn’t stutter.
Perhaps the question you mean to ask is: Me! How’s it going affect me, me, me????
Answer: It’s NOT.
There, that clear enough for you? Or do you need someone “straight”, whom you wish to curry favor with, to tell you this? Try reading the responses. Geez.
September 12th, 2005 at 1:56 am
Oopp… make that “ridiculous”. :)
September 12th, 2005 at 8:54 am
Why, thanks JJ,
Well, this has been educational for me too because a lot of of these things I didn’t know before. I needed to go to the Church’s website to find out about their gay-policy.
To answer your questions:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland totally dominates the scene but there are a number of other denominations. I think the Roman Catholic Church is the second largest. The EL Church is by far the oldest (since 1550), it’s conservative and very much of a national heritage institution. It’s more like a cluster of institutions and a big landowner. It’s state affiliated now but with an entirely different and seperate structure and doesn’t answer to secular authorities. What the ELChurch thinks is a matter of concern to practically everyone in the country, what other denominations think matters only to a handful of souls, comparatively speaking. You don’t have a comparable central church in the US so I thought I’d explain this. I think the ELChurch is in a position now where it’s kind of forced to deal with the issue of gay marriage (I suspect they would much prefer not to). Other denominations can get away with ignoring the whole thing.
I don’t really feel qualified to speak for gay people.
All I can say is that people marry or enter into registered partnerships because they want to commit to a monogamous relationship for life (a lot of the time it doesn’t work out that way but that’s another story).The two institutions are almost identical, marriage and rp. This is what gay people wanted, they wanted to be able to ‘settle down’ in an officially sanctioned relationship. It took them about 25 years to bring other people around to the idea but they succeeded.
I don’t know how divorce rates compare between gay people and straight people. If gay divorce rates are higher I think one would hear about it.
Perhaps I should mention that when they introduced the registered partnership bill politicians left out adoption and a couple of minor things as well. A gay person can adopt his or her partner’s children but that’s it. They left it out because the idea of gays adopting children was the only thing that was really controversial at the time. That apart, gay people must have done a good job presenting their case because the bill was approved with only one vote against.
This winter they’ll amend the law to make rp equivalent to marriage on every count. Last month the PM announced that his party intends to present such a bill and most of the other political parties were quick to announce they’d support it (there are 5 in all). The Conservative Party decided not to come up with an announcement quite yet but I think it’s unlikly they’ll oppose it. There’s absolutely no political interest in retracing the steps that have been taken, much less in going back to how things were 10 years ago. I think there is a very strong pervading sense that the situation is dramatically better now than it was 10 years ago, for everyone.
I think it’s safe to say that only leaders of fundamentalist Christian groups are keeping up some sort of organized anti-gay speak. Only one of them is articulate and entertaining enough to be asked to participate in TV debates. But even he isn’t asking for the law to be changed, he’s basically promoting the idea that God abhors homosexuality and that gays can and should be cured. I’m sure a number of people feel this way but it’s not translating into any kind of action.
Perhaps this answers some of your questions, at least partially.
September 12th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
As for the argument that a marriage-equivalent be offered to homosexuals that is “seperate but equal” to marriage… well, I’d hope that I don’t need to do more than phrase it as “seperate but equal” to illustrate the problems with that idea.
September 13th, 2005 at 7:25 am
Hey John,
Just wanted you to know that if I passed you in the grocery store, I’d be clucking my approval (more like going WOOHOO!). My step-aunts are lucky in that they have two wonderful daughters are married and share all the same benefits my husband and I do because they live in Canada. If I still lived in California I’d be making calls on your behalf.
Congrats on your new baby.
Gia
September 13th, 2005 at 9:45 am
Filing joint income tax returns is not a benefit to higher income partners, as I’m guessing (I could be wrong) you and your partner are. Marriage will actually be a drawback to you and your partner (I’m guessing you both work) when it comes time to collect social security. I don’t dispute your point about adoption. But I don’t understand why you think your partner can’t inherit your property. On the question of heated telephone calls with the health insurance company, it seems to me that rain falls on both sides of the battlefield, gay and straight. Ditto on the question of overzealous officials. It’s too big a leap (I think) to say this concern falls more heavily on gays than straights. I’m actually pretty happy that officialdom is beginning to be more zealous than they have in the past. Kids are the future. Indeed, one could argue that governments have encouraged marriage as a way to favor folks who are nurturing the next generation to pay taxes (and my retirement benefits). Gay marriage does nothing for kids, and that’s why I can’t support it.
But it would be fun to watch gay divorces on daytime TV.
September 13th, 2005 at 10:13 am
I’m writing in for the sole purpose that I can’t let Dennis’ post be the last one in this thread. That would be way too depressing. I’d rather it end on something more hopeful.
I think the tides will turn in favor of gay marriage. One day our children will look back on all this and say “what was the big deal?” the way we now do about marriage between two people of different races. Whether they’ll turn tomorrow or turn in ten years… I don’t know. That depends, at least somewhat, on us. How much do the progressives among us care to help and cry out for our friends and family in need? I hope we can all care and speak out just a little more. And when the tide turns, our conservative peers will simply have to learn to surf… or drown in the waves.
September 13th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Hey Dennis,
I like to introduce you to the point. It’s standing over here. I think you missed it.
The legal protections and bureaucratic niceties are details that come along with civil marriage, but they’re not the reason for marriage. People get married because they want society (and the government) to acknowledge them as a unit, legally and more generally.
But since you brought up the details…
Filing joint tax returns might not benefit me, but it would benefit some same-sex couples, just as it benefits some (most?) straight married couples.
If the government — or an insurance company — forced you to adopt your biological child, I think you’d be outraged. Just my guess.
In terms of inheriting property, the surviving partner in a marriage doesn’t go through probabte. He or she gets the everything, without taxes. In order for unmarried people to do that, you have to set up trusts, which is a giant and expensive pain in the ass.
And in terms of divorce, the weird situation about current California domestic partnership that if Mike and I decided to split, we’d have to go through divorce court, even though we’re not married.
September 13th, 2005 at 11:01 am
If kids are indeed the future then some of the voices on this site are so far in the past it’s insulting.
Firstly to say being gay is a choice is like saying tomorrow i’m going to start being sexually attracted to horses. Its the way you are born and there is no two ways about it.
To say that gay people will not be accepted into the community until they act the same as everyone else is crazy. I thought we were in 2005 not 1940s Germany.
“Gay marriage does nothing for kids”, what? Im 100% sure there are 1000s of gay coulples out there that would be happy to take a child into their home and give it all the love and affection straight parents could. More so in many cases. Who cares if the kids grow up in unloving families or orphanages as long as they pay taxes at the end of it.
Being straight and living in the UK ive no idea how the system works in the US but I know for a fact that many people view marriage as a symbol of true love (if it pans out or not) it’s not about money. I know myself that when i get married it will be to show my friends, family, the world and most importantly the girl I love how much she means to me, how much i get when she snuffs it wont be in my thoughts.
Oh and stop kissing john’s ass aswell, how can you feel sorry for how he (a gay man) is treated but agree with how so called in your face gays are treated. Just because you like his site. shame on you! at least stand by you dated views.
I could go on a lot further but i think ive made enough points for now.
September 13th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Thanks for your courteous response, John. I don’t think I missed the point, indeed, I addressed every point you raised except for the “I want to” argument.
You and I just have to agree to disagree on why people want to get married. I do not agree with you that “most people get married because they want society (and the government) to acknowledge them as a unit, legally and more generally.” Pa and Ma Ingalls (credits: Little House on the Prairie), in my view, got married to raise a family. Maybe I’m wrong.
Joint tax returns benefit couples that include a non-working spouse. Most gays I know work, so I assume joint returns would benefit very, very few people. The “marriage penalty” was recently repealed which did nothing but put joint filers on a level playing field with unmarried couples.
I’m guessing you agree that marriage is a penalty to most social security retirees.
You guessed right, I agree it is an outrage that you’d have to adopt your biological child.
“In terms of inheriting property, the surviving partner in a marriage doesn’t go through probabte. He or she gets the everything, without taxes.” You’re right about no taxes, but you’re wrong about probate.
The weird situation in California that would require you to divorce is indeed weird.
We agree on a lot, but I think your points would be more persuasive if you didn’t pin the arguments on falacies.
September 13th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Falacies like that people get married to raise a family? Hm. So all those people who are married, but no kids, are what, folling themselves? Of those people raising kids, but aren’t married, must hate their children.
You talk so much about social security I can only imagine you’re about a year from getting it. We’ll never see it. Enjoy retirement on Fantasy Island Herr Dennis.
September 13th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
That s/b “fooling.” Oops.
September 13th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Hi John, nice letter… would you be willing to have it posted on my web page (DearArnold.org) ? Take a look and email me back.
I really liked this sentence: “In your movies, you always play the hero. Do it again. Sign the bill.”
September 13th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Derek, your argument isn’t improved by pretending I said “all people get married to raise a family.” Scroll back. That’s not what I said. In fact I do think most, not all, people marry to raise a family. Mr. August thinks most people get married so that society and the government will view them as a unit. I could be wrong and so could he.
I’m not social security age. See, by making that statement, I’m not admitting that a point you raised was valid. I’m not sure how my age would have a bearing on the subject. Perhaps you could expand. By the way, you didn’t answer any of my points, so it seems you admit my points ARE valid.
It’s beneath contempt for you to imply that I am a Nazi. Although Mr. August and I may disagree on this issue, I doubt that he thinks I’m a Nazi. I could be wrong.
September 13th, 2005 at 9:25 pm
Dennis, You know, your argument would be less bigoted if you also endorsed tell straight couple that THEY can’t get married unless they are already preganant. THAT way, you would have verifiable proof that marraige is solely for the creation of children, however shallow the gene pool might be.
Also, married people in ALL states get benefits such as citizenship rights for their spouses, survivor benfits for Social Security, Military Retiree benefits, transfer of copyright and patent protections (not as important to a screenwriter perhaps, but important to everyone else holding a copyright to anything. Rights to care for and make medical decisons for your “spouse”. (Yes, I know CA DP benefits do include that but this site is not limited to being read solely by Californians.)
So, tell me again, why is it OK for straight couples who never have children to enjoy these benefits and gay couples, who may want to have children (lots of lesbians are doing it) or even adopt children (especially those born with things like AIDS, and fetal alcohol syndrome) to be unilaterally denied the ABILITY to marry?
I’ll wait for ONE, just ONE reason why that’s ok. Frankly, I don’t think you can provide it.
September 14th, 2005 at 6:12 am
Writergurl, I haven’t anywhere argued against gay marriage. I said I didn’t support it. I pointed out that some of the claims of discrimination that Mr. August made were false.
70% of Americans agree with me. Maybe we are wrong. But I’m not a bigot. If you think that the discrimination that gays suffer is in any way comparable to the Jim Crow era for blacks (or like Derek, the holocaust for Jews), I’d recopmmend you do a little basic research.
September 14th, 2005 at 6:41 am
Wow, with rehtoric like that you should be in politics. It’s very easy to make statements, and then turn around and say, “I could be wrong.” “The world is flat, but I could be wrong.” “Murder is a good thing, but I could be wrong.” But I guess only “most” of your statements are like that.
Why bother answering points from a person who flip flops like that. And you should sign your real name Mr. Kerry.
September 14th, 2005 at 6:44 am
So if gay marriage was made legal today you wouldnt say a thing against it? Let me guess 70% of Americans agree with you and the other 30% are gays?
The dictionary describes a bigot as “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ”.
No one is saying that discrimination against gays is anywhere near the same magnitude of slavery or the holocaust but they stem from the same beliefs. That all people on this earth are not equal.
September 14th, 2005 at 9:50 am
I like gay people. I like writers. I like gay writers. I’m a gay writer.
In other news: People like John do more for the cause as a whole than any legislation ever could. Living life is the goal (and prize) itself!
September 14th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Scroll back just a bit, Scott. They’re calling me a Nazi and a bigot for pointing out a couple of factual errors in Mr August’s argument. For that I’m a Nazi and a bigot. No wonder your side is losing the argument.
September 14th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
And…scene.
I’m closing off comments, because nothing productive is going to get accomplished here. Thanks to all who posted, pro and con.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:55 am
[...] John August: Dear Governor Schwarzenegger… [...]