A Warning to The LGTB Community from The LGTB Community
It is easy to celebrate political victories. After all, they are generally years in the making; and sometimes they come after many a defeat, pushback and setback. Those who focus on the glamour of politics -the only game in town- often miss the forest from the trees. After all the celebrating, comes the harsh reality:”it (really) aint over till the fat lady sings”.
I wrote a column in support of same-sex marriage and was beaten up like few other times since I have been writing on these blogs. The public attacks were mild (and few) when compared to what I experienced privately. And I do understand where my friends and relatives were coming from. It’s years of religious indoctrination. It’s years of acculturation, politicization, socialization and acceptance. It’s years of not questioning your fundamental values.
Being born on an island in the Caribbean Sea is somewhat romantic (sure) but there are downsides. The desire to simplify near everything -near every endeavor- eventually permeates the thinking patterns of islanders; so much so that complex issues -including same sex marriage- won’t be easily digested just because some legislature passed a law. Most of those who support the key state senator (Rev. Ruben Diaz/D/Bronx) opposed to same-sex marriage, are from the islands or from Latin American countries steeped in Christian fundamentalism.
Island folks know that homosexuality exists, and in general they do tolerate its existence to a point; but for centuries European-whites dominated the religious discourse via colonialism: with an anti-homosexual ideology. These are simple facts. So it is somewhat strange to now find folks who appear not to understand why all the pushback on same-sex marriage.
Being beaten up comes with the blogging-territory. Those who are familiar with my blogging history won’t be shocked by this revelation. The fact that I openly stated not to personally understand homosexuality is what caused some anger from those who arrogantly believe they know everything about everything. Only David “Mole” Michaelson from the Daily Gotham blog appeared sensitive enough to at least attempt to clarify some things in a semi-scientific way. Of course, being that he is a scientist by profession helps David in this regard; plus he and his wife are just decent human beings: period.
There is a supercilious strain in LGBT quarters which doesn’t allow for making friends. It doesn’t help their cause to be arrogant when others outside the LGBT culture ask questions. Not everyone is “homophobic”. Some people are genuinely trying to educate themselves around LGBT issues.
Back in the seventies/eighties, there was a scientist who identified the possibility of certain differences in the brain size(s) of “gay” men when compared to “straight” men and vice-versa. It appears that there were some fluctuations in the sizes of either the right or left frontal-lobe(s). This led to an uproar from LGBT types who resented being studied scientifically to ascertain whatever differences exist; since it appears that many were fearful of the implications. And yet, to many who aren’t part of the LGBT culture, the fact that certain sexual choices, behaviors or orientations, do not lead to “the perpetuation of the species” is naturally troubling. And why not?
The same-sex marriage issue isn’t over by a long shot. There are over forty states with laws on the books against it. And then there is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). As I said in my coming-out column, the finale will be when Antonin Scalia and other conservatives on the Supreme Court get their hands on the issue.
I couldn’t find the justification for denying same-sex marriage in my analysis of the US Constitution, but I am no lawyer. I am not a trained legal mind. I could be wrong on this. From a political angle, it was fascinating to see the way marriage-equality forces fought to get this issue resolved in their favor. In NY and in a few other states supporters were relentless and passionate; but here comes the tough part: making it federal law whereby it is legally accepted nationwide.
I have never taken the religious angle to arrive at my decision to support this initiative. I simply let the US constitution become my compass. In a democracy folks can agitate either way for a position on an issue. Marriage is no basic human right. Eventually this fallacy will be exposed and the LGBT crowd will be naked. Marriage is simply a socio-cultural arrangement with secular, political, economic and religious undertones. The arrangements that facilitate marriage are similar to those that facilitate economic activity for example. They can be changed. They can be modified. Things can be re-arranged. Marriage itself can be re-defined. It is all about setting up ground rules for relationship-building. The push for total acceptance for the various LGBT lifestyles is what drives this “same-sex marriage” initiative, not some fundamental or basic right. It is inevitable that reactionary forces will eventually pushback on the pro-same-sex-marriage forces: then what?
What happens if right-wing types go for an amendment to the constitution, making it illegal to have same-sex marriages anywhere in the USA? At the moment, their chances of pulling this off are probably higher than the chances of another state soon emulating what the NYS legislature just did.
In my estimation (and I could be wrong here), the present Supreme Court will probably vote against same-sex marriage by a six to three factor; and if his happens in the next two or three years, it would be a major setback to the LGBT crowd. It is advisable for supporters of this initiative to come off their high-horses and develop relationships and friendships with folks trying to be understanding and compassionate; instead of isolating them with their militancy and hubris. Too much about LGBT issues are shrouded in semi-secrecy. Maybe it is time for US society to shine an examining light on what was once a sub-cultural wave. After all; it has been heading up to the mainstream for quite some time now.
A few years ago when I opposed the initiative, I raised the question of inevitable limits. I recognized that there will always be restrictions to marriage -whether age, or gender (then), or state of mind; whatever- but that society will always find ways to justify and rationalize what they decide. Now that we are down this road, I still don’t see what will be the moral or logical basis for denying a man the right to marry his mother, father, brother, sister, daughter, son, nephew or niece; once they are sane, consenting and of legal age. I also see demands for polygamy finding a basis in law. Plus, I anticipate a problem when the same LGBT crowd which is so vociferous in their support of same-sex marriage now, will have to answer why they would deny a bi-sexual from marrying a man and a woman at the same time. Why can’t a bi-sexual “in pursuit of happiness” be allowed to have two spouses to match his or her sexual orientation(s)?
But what do I know; after all, the blog-terrorists who torment my existence on these here blogs (led by Howard “Gatemouth” Graubard of course), has cast all kinds of aspersions on my ability to think properly. They call me all sorts of names. They have continually said that I am a fool, an ass, stupid, ignorant; you name it, and the like. BUT they sure read my columns don’t they?
Stay tuned-in folks.
There is a supercilious strain in LGBT quarters which doesn’t allow for making friends. It doesn’t help their cause to be arrogant when others outside the LGBT culture ask questions. Not everyone is “homophobic”. Some people are genuinely trying to educate themselves around LGBT issues.
Back in the seventies/eighties, there was a scientist who identified the possibility of certain differences in the brain size(s) of “gay” men when compared to “straight” men and vice-versa. It appears that there were some fluctuations in the sizes of either the right or left frontal-lobe(s). This led to an uproar from LGBT types who resented being studied scientifically to ascertain whatever differences exist; since it appears that many were fearful of the implications. And yet, to many who aren’t part of the LGBT culture, the fact that certain sexual choices, behaviors or orientations, do not lead to “the perpetuation of the species” is naturally troubling. And why not?
The same-sex marriage issue isn’t over by a long shot. There are over forty states with laws on the books against it. And then there is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). As I said in my coming-out column, the finale will be when Antonin Scalia and other conservatives on the Supreme Court get their hands on the issue.
I couldn’t find the justification for denying same-sex marriage in my analysis of the US Constitution, but I am no lawyer. I am not a trained legal mind. I could be wrong on this. From a political angle, it was fascinating to see the way marriage-equality forces fought to get this issue resolved in their favor. In NY and in a few other states supporters were relentless and passionate; but here comes the tough part: making it federal law whereby it is legally accepted nationwide.
I have never taken the religious angle to arrive at my decision to support this initiative. I simply let the US constitution become my compass. In a democracy folks can agitate either way for a position on an issue. Marriage is no basic human right. Eventually this fallacy will be exposed and the LGBT crowd will be naked. Marriage is simply a socio-cultural arrangement with secular, political, economic and religious undertones. The arrangements that facilitate marriage are similar to those that facilitate economic activity for example. They can be changed. They can be modified. Things can be re-arranged. Marriage itself can be re-defined. It is all about setting up ground rules for relationship-building. The push for total acceptance for the various LGBT lifestyles is what drives this “same-sex marriage” initiative, not some fundamental or basic right. It is inevitable that reactionary forces will eventually pushback on the pro-same-sex-marriage forces: then what?
What happens if right-wing types go for an amendment to the constitution, making it illegal to have same-sex marriages anywhere in the USA? At the moment, their chances of pulling this off are probably higher than the chances of another state soon emulating what the NYS legislature just did.
In my estimation (and I could be wrong here), the present Supreme Court will probably vote against same-sex marriage by a six to three factor; and if his happens in the next two or three years, it would be a major setback to the LGBT crowd. It is advisable for supporters of this initiative to come off their high-horses and develop relationships and friendships with folks trying to be understanding and compassionate; instead of isolating them with their militancy and hubris. Too much about LGBT issues are shrouded in semi-secrecy. Maybe it is time for US society to shine an examining light on what was once a sub-cultural wave. After all; it has been heading up to the mainstream for quite some time now.
A few years ago when I opposed the initiative, I raised the question of inevitable limits. I recognized that there will always be restrictions to marriage -whether age, or gender (then), or state of mind; whatever- but that society will always find ways to justify and rationalize what they decide. Now that we are down this road, I still don’t see what will be the moral or logical basis for denying a man the right to marry his mother, father, brother, sister, daughter, son, nephew or niece; once they are sane, consenting and of legal age. I also see demands for polygamy finding a basis in law. Plus, I anticipate a problem when the same LGBT crowd which is so vociferous in their support of same-sex marriage now, will have to answer why they would deny a bi-sexual from marrying a man and a woman at the same time. Why can’t a bi-sexual “in pursuit of happiness” be allowed to have two spouses to match his or her sexual orientation(s)?
But what do I know; after all, the blog-terrorists who torment my existence on these here blogs (led by Howard “Gatemouth” Graubard of course), has cast all kinds of aspersions on my ability to think properly. They call me all sorts of names. They have continually said that I am a fool, an ass, stupid, ignorant; you name it, and the like. BUT they sure read my columns don’t they?
Stay tuned-in folks.
Comments