At the local rally (in
March) for equal rights, I met a heterosexual man who wandered onto the courthouse lawn. We’ll call him Colt. We’ve become fast friends with texts about
random thoughts and abstract realities.
Like me, he doesn’t fear that permanent harm will come from stepping
into the other guy’s position and seeing the world through an antagonist’s eyes. Many people do, and so humans have this
devolution of empathy that runs rampant, circling our planet. (For that reason, I’ve just finished the 5-Act
script for Planet Puster’s Purple Problem
which will explain everything and illuminate erroneous ideologies so that we
can get on with our specie's evolution. If you
want to participate in the grand production of this animation, I need help with everything except
the script—and maybe a bit of help with the script—so, just let me know where you
(and a friend?) want to jump in.)
This past Friday,
Colt invited me to a party to celebrate a gay man’s 60th birthday. They've
been friends since adolescents or some few years after. There were a collection of impressive resumes
and genuine wit at this dinner party. Many of them have been friends for
three or more decades. Two of the
straight couples invited their gay adult child, one brought a boy and one sent a
girl with her girlfriend.
Colt and I met the boy on the night of the rally about the time I was handing him a 2girls card. The young man had overheard enough of our conversation to follow the impetus in his legs and ask for more of Colt’s predictions. I was on my way out when this red head—let’s call him Tré— interrupted us, so I excused myself and forgot to hand him a 2girls card.
A few months later, at this party, Tré and I
are blocking the aisle to the food and fridge because we are in a heated debate
about gay rights. His mom (who I think
is an attorney) was listening to our socio-political volleys.
“We should have the
right to marry, even if we chose not to exercise it,” Tré says.
“But do we want
this right simply because we can’t have it? It’s not working for so many, why
do we want to enter into something that binds us to laws and costly regulations?”
Trevor continues
his point and I continue to say things that appear to startle his
mom. I’m playing devil’s advocate, but
my ramblings are beginning to convince me that this institution is a pit filled with quick sand.
“With marriage, we
save money,” Tré says.
“Until we give it
to divorce lawyers.”
“We should be able
to have insurance and other securities.”
I applaud this
position, remembering a few speakers at the rally who shared their stories about
medical needs and adopted children. And
then, I confessed that I’ve not known those conundrums, and am not sure that the
prime reason (for gays to marry) should be for medical benefits.
“We should have the
right to marry, even if we chose not to exercise it,” Tré reminds.
“It wasn’t a
marriage certificate that perpetuated any of my former relationships. Every morning when I woke up, I was there
because I chose to be there. More, I knew that my partner chose to be there. For me, that was worth more than a court’s
decree,” I said with resounding idealism.
The truth is, I'm done with this subject. I wish it was
already recorded in the history books with a chapter title, “When Humans Were
Still Selfish.” One of the other party goers—an attorney who swings for our team—popped into the conversation and
said, “It’s only a matter of time.” She
added, “In a few years, it will be like the McCarthy era—politicians who opposed
gay marriage will be back peddling and explaining ‘what they said isn’t what
they meant.’” I toasted, taking a gulp of celebratory spirits.
Tré—a
lawyer or advocate in the making—wasn’t finished with the devil’s advocate in
me. I was pushing down my second Amstel
Light. He must have felt that he’d have
me pinned within a few more ounces. He threw
the subject of ‘parenting’ out where it hovered in the air above the communal butcher
block.
“Wouldn’t it be
better for a child to have two loving fathers, than parents who fight and don’t
care about the child?”
Here, the pseudo-Freudian
in me tried to not focus on the word “fathers,” as I would have thought the default
stereotype would go to mothers. It occurred to me that Tré was
revealing his role in parenting with a male partner. I wanted to stay focused, so I addressed the meat
of what he was saying.
“Gays aren’t
inherently better people. Today, the ones
who choose parenting are grateful. In a
few generations, gays will take parenting for granted.”
I felt a rock land
in the pit of his mother’s stomach. I’m
not sure why my statement had so much gravity, but she thanked me for the
conversation—while I was leaving the party—, and that caused a rock to land in the
pit of my stomach. Was she thanking me
for my rational point-of-view or offering a mother’s sweet hope to a cynic?
She’s been on my
mind all weekend. I keep hearing descriptions
of her own ceremony, and what this particular formality means to family members. I keep hearing "all
things should be equal," and how gays need to participate in the matrimonial
milestone. More, I keep hearing the murmurings of her desire. Who wouldn’t want to see Tré—this
beautiful idealist—hold hands before God and his family? I imagine that she waits to hear the other man say, “I
promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of
my life.” I would want that for Tré. What mother wouldn’t want to add this moment to her life's experiences...with each and every one of their children? She waited and listened, holding her fortitude until I came around— though, it took me a couple of days.
On this day, I thank
moms for the (random) sweet hope they instill in idealists…and cynics. Without you, we couldn’t perpetuate this necessary evolution or remember what this earth experiment is all about.
Ah I listened to the covervation but didn't interject myself. I see it as you are having a religious vs rational thought debate. Because for most marriage is a religious term to be joined together before god.
ReplyDeleteNot to get in that debate but if you are saying the government should have the right to tell anyone gay or straight if they should marry my answer would be no. Because it is a symbolic religious event. If you are asking if it is un just that people receive tax breaks because they are straight and can co habitate. I would say that isnt fair. For me the conversation is to wide to just say yes or no.
For the off chance of offending a new friend let me say this. I believe most people wake up every morning and are as you say selfish or at least self centered. I dont think they personally want to limit another's rights or way of life just that they are concerned with their own lives enough to care. After being in many long relationships my last being of ten years. And knowing that the average gay relationship will only last 3 to 4 years and the average lesbian relationship lasts 8 to 10. Do I think we should not be able to marry? No I think many religious groups would marry us. But it is more a discussion of how gays see the institution of marriage or it being recognized and that we should have equality in the legal system. Marriage to me is a union with my partner that means I am joined in the soul with her before god. That has nothing to do with government or legislation. Just as if the government abolished straight marriage it wouldn't make straight people less married. It is a religious act. Government doesn't rule there and religious shouldn't rule government.
I went to they same rally but I have my partner on my health insurance as partner it depends on the insurance provider if they want to allow it. Most national companies do. We are on both of our car insurance. We are both on lease. The only thing we dont get are tax breaks and if we had children and I would fight for that. I go for my friends and family that dont have jobs that have national insurance so they arent cover. I go for all the others that dont have those options but the discussion isnt just yes or no.
To my new friend- I love your fresh perspective. Marriage should be an oath before God, and the State should stay out of that sacrament all together. In the sane respect, the State should provide the SAME rights and protections to all citizens. You seem to be able to separate this issue, balancing the disparate parts. Bully for you and your partner!
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that you heard me say "people wake up selfish." Or maybe my position is selfish? I'm cool with dat. I was in a weird place, but I don't think that at all.
ReplyDeleteBuried, you write, "But it is more a discussion of how gays see the institution of marriage or it being recognized and that we should have equality in the legal system."
ReplyDeleteThat's sooo very true. Each of us is responsible for our own fortitude. This lead me back to The conversation with Tre. When were a few generations down the road, we'll take these rights (of passage) for granted. Then, an individual's integrity wil determine the benefit or burden of this matriculation.
Response from new friend- Most get offended because I have more of a libertarian point of view. But I look into a lot of the freakanomics of this and I see it like you are trying to make sense from tons of people's chaos over generations. It is like trying to cover a papercut when you are bleeding out from a chest wound.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone tries to have the best intention but in the end most people are so hurt that they feel they are being personally attacked. So a rational thought conversation is rarely had! LOL
Hey France- you want to jump into this?
ReplyDelete