Hypocrisy

Governor Mark Sanford (S.C.)

Senator John Ensign (R, Nevada)

Senator John Edwards (D, N.C., Candidate for President)

Representative Vito Fosella (R, New York)

Governor David Paterson (N.Y.)

Governor Eliot Spitzer (N.Y.)

Senator David Vitter (R, Louisiana)

(and these are just politicians.  and these are just recent.  

and this is just a quick pass, there are more)

It is abudantly clear that heterosexual men do not have respect for the sanctity of marriage, nor do they believe in and abide by the one-man one-woman rule.  

Yes.  I'm generalizing.  What's good for the goose, ya know?

I just want it known, right here, and right now, that we should demand a series of citizens petitions, changing the marriage laws--we could called it the Defense of Marriage Act...catchy name, eh?--to prohibit straight men (0r maybe just elected officials) from getting married.  The point, we are reminded again and again, is about stability for children, the sanctity of one man-one woman, and the laws of God.  

So which way is it going to be, boys?

We're waiting.

Opinion? Meet Fact.

I don't know about you, but when I was in 8th grade, we had to study the Constitution. Everyone murmured ominously about it from 6th grade on.."When you're in 8th grade, you have to take the Constitution Test, and if you don't pass, you don't graduate!"

I don't have any idea if that was true (the graduation part). The test and the topic? Those were true. We visited the state capitol, we learned about the history of the constitution, we had to memorize the preamble, and had to know all about the bill of rights. Did you have to do that? Do they still do that?

Because I'm tellin' you right now...it sure doesn't seem like it.

I'm not talking today about what I favor or don't favor. I'm not talking about what I think is right, or who I think should be in office. I'm not saying what laws I think should be changed. You know why? Because it doesn't really matter what my personal feelings are on the relative importance of the battle for equal marriage and the statements of its advocates and foes. I totally get it that my positions on health care or the war in the Middle East don't move mountains. It's of no particular importance that I disagree with pro-life advocates and the NRA. I have opinions, there's no doubt about that. But I don't generally lose sleep at night over the arguments of those whose position is different than my own. As they say, it's a free country.

BUT. And I mean BUT...The one thing that drives me right out of my skull is when people in power--in the government, in the media, in organizations--fail to understand basic 8th grade constitutional law or argue their positions based on information that is simply inaccurate, or as we like to call it in today's semantically correct world, misinformation. When I was a kid, back in the age of the dinosaurs, we called those things lies. And we called the people who said them...you guessed it...liars.

Now we're oh so kind. We give people--even when they're politicians--the benefit of the doubt. We say "Oh, well, they must not have understood." or "She's entitled to her opinion" or, best yet, "Oh, I'm sure that's not exactly what she meant".

Me? I'm into "keeping them honest". That's my thing.

In order to keep people honest, it appears that a lot of Americans need a few lessons. So, as a public service (and for no other reason, mind you), I'm stepping in.

News flash. Opinion and fact are two different things (hey! kinda like church and state! what a coincidence!). I know, there are many of us who never learned that distinction. But I'm tellin' ya, it's true. Yes, I acknowledge that everyone is entitled to my their own opinion. It's just that I happen to think it's important that argument be based on facts, especially if you plan on using it to deprive other people of their rights. Is that too much to ask?

Now this, I lose sleep over. Or perhaps more to the point, it makes me effin' crazy.

This morning, when I was doing my regular little skim around the internet, and I found this editorial, I was pretty okay. At first. I mean, it was pretty well written, and I agree with the opinion being stated. No big deal. I moved on. But I had a few extra minutes, and I decided to scroll down and read some of the reader comments (since I'm a reader comment kinda gal). And I saw this one. Number 16 on the reader comment list, from a certain S.P. in St. Louis, Missouri, a heterosexual who is, thank god, an avid writer of not only reader comments, but of letters to congress on issues s/he feels are important. On this particular morning, Mr. or Ms. S.P. saw fit to share with us the answer s/he received from his/her (I know that's annoying, but geez, there's no way to know, and I'm grateful, so I figure respect is the least I can do, at least until we come up with gender neutral pronouns, which I hope happens, like, tomorrow) senator, Claire McCaskill (D-Mo). Which, coincidentally (not really), was the point where steam started coming out of my ears.

You can read the comment for yourself via the link above, so I won't copy Senator McCaskill's letter in full (S.P. did, in fact, post the entire letter). I will just highlight the portion that produced the majority of the aforementioned steam.

"Our nation’s founding fathers had the remarkable sensibility and foresight to protect religious freedom, and as your Senator and a practicing Christian, I will remain committed to upholding every American’s right to freely practice and express their faith as they so choose. Our government has no business forcing a religious faith to conduct or recognize any marriage."

Um...perhaps it would be good to stay on topic? As in...what does civil marriage have to do with every American's right to "freely practice and express their faith"?

Right! Nothing!! Absolutely nothing! Zero, nada, zip.

Wow. You're good. You could be on a game show.

But far more importantly than that (this is the $500 level question, get ready)...don't you think that our elected officials, who have sworn under oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America, should know that?

It reminds me of the reason that children and the "mentally incompetent" are not allowed to sign contracts nor, in many cases, take an oath. It is assumed that they lack "legal capacity", meaning that they simply cannot fully understand the nature and consequences of their actions. So here's what we're saying: when, as a society, we decide that someone doesn't fully understand the implications of an agreement, we do not allow them to make such an agreement. I'm thinking that should pertain to our elected leaders. If you don't understand fully what the constitution says, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to take an oath to protect and defend it. This Senator McCaskill? She doesn't get it.

But that is not all. Oh, no, that is not all.

Because there's a lot more in there.

First off, how about the sentence,

"Our government has no business forcing a religious faith to conduct or recognize any marriage"

Where does any U.S. Senator get this information? How did she come to believe that any religious faith would be forced to conduct a marriage between two people of the same sex? (psst...I'm taking bets that it was her pastor). Shouldn't we expect our elected officials to educate themselves on the facts? Geez, she has a staff--they could look it up for her.

I personally know of countless numbers of rabbis who will not agree to marry interfaith couples, because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. I know for a fact that many clergy will not agree to marry couples who do not agree to attend a class or a series of counseling sessions. There are certainly Catholic priests who refuse to marry someone who has been divorced. It is simply a FACT that clergy are not required to marry ANYONE.

Like I said, Senator McCaskill has a staff. They could have looked it up for her. But since they obviously didn't, I'm doing it. Here ya go.

This article clarifies how it works in Massachusetts:
http://www.boston.com...

California clarified it here (Answer #20):
http://www.eqca.org...

Vermont clarified it here:
http://religionclause.blogspot.com...

Connecticut, Maine & New Hampshire (and Vermont) are clarified here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com...

And here's an article about how it works in Iowa (and a pretty interesting one about this whole issue to boot).

So that's settled.

And we don't even have to go that far to address that "protect religious freedom" thing. There are numerous religious denominations that strongly support and are happy to perform same sex marriages. The constitution's "wall of separation between church and state" blatantly forbids the government from favoring one religion over another--that is the essence of freedom of religion. So...prioritizing the beliefs of religious faiths that oppose same sex marriages over equally valid religious faiths that support it, is clearly in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Simple. Done.

Perhaps people--including senators--ought to read and research a little bit more and listen to their pastors a little bit less?

As for me, I'm off to look for a sponsor for a new bill that I want introduced at the state and federal levels. Here's my idea:

I'm thinking that elected officials should have to pass the 8th grade Constitution Test. It can be multiple choice, because otherwise, they might get too scared (or we might not be able to find anybody to serve), and we don't want to be mean.

If they don't pass, they don't graduate.

Wanna sign the petition?

I'm not really so into Isaac Newton

Okay, so the folk music piece just isn't dying.

It started in the most unlikely of places. With this article.  It is the most invigorating, reassuring, and genuinely honest piece I've read about the march toward equal marriage, and its most recent branch-in-the-road, the Prop 8 decision in California.  There is no way I could have possibly said it better than Mr. Morford, even though it is exactly what I would want to say if I was gonna say something.  Be sure to read it, k?

(Come to think of it, I kinda did say it.  You probably don't know this, but my family was part of a Showtime movie about equal marriage several years back, when Massachusetts made it legal. Okay, so it wasn't really my idea and a little tiny bit against my will, but I was in it anyway.  If you saw it, you may remember my "It's not about us" mini-rant at the end.  That's what I was trying to say. He still said it better.)

 

I mean, I like the videos that have come out, all the ads that illustrate so cleverly how absurd it is that people should get to vote on other people's marriages.  It's a "duh" that for some reason, they don't seem to get in the wonderful if arrogant state of my birth.  But then again, there's quite a bit they don't get, including the idea that it should be kind of hard to change a constitution (at least if it's supposed to mean anything), the idea that California really should be two states, and the idea that being gay, male, rich, and living la vida loca in Los Angeles means that anything you want should pretty much happen automatically (surprise!)  On the other hand, they do get that you shouldn't put heavy or valuable things up on high shelves, especially above where people sit, something that still startles me in Boston, especially in those Italian restaurants in the North End (what's with the North thing, anyway?  North End, North Beach..??), even though there aren't usually earthquakes here.  There could be.  There have been.  Oh.  Wait.  I forgot.  That would be proactive.  Never mind.

But anyways, back to folk music.

As I was reading the article above, I was most struck by three little words:  "You've already lost". And of course, because, well, I'm me, a song started playing in my head.  For those of you that don't know, I have an internal soundtrack.  Actually, I think it's kinda cool.  Sometimes it's faint, and I can barely make it out.  Sometimes it's oblique, and I have to follow a trail of breadcrumbs to find the actual song.  And sometimes it's like I'm standing right next to the speakers in the Winterland Ballroom (if you don't know the reference, you should, this is history we're talkin' about).  

Today was one of the Winterland ones.  Maybe (probably) because it was Dylan. 

And then I got sad.  Really quickly.  Because once this happens, I'm walkin' around everywhere, singing the song, humming the song (I'll have to tell you a funny story about that subconscious humming sometime, or maybe I'll let Phoebe tell you), doodling the words, all kinds of stuff...but mostly singing.   Phoebe said (as she usually does when I sing something incessantly) "Is that one of your songs from chorus?"  And I said "No, this is a song I have known my whole life."  

Here's the thing.  When a song comes on this strong, I not only walk around singing it, but I want so much to sit around and sing it with others (singing in community carries its own amazing power, as I hope you know).  I close my eyes and transport myself to a rally where we are all singing this song together.  Now.  Because of this issue.  Because of this vote.  Because of this article.  I'm wishing that right this very moment.

And that's when I hear the voices (the ones that are a matched set with the rolled eyes).  The ones that say I'm "crunchy" or old or a throwback.  The ones that say "I don't know that song", which just makes me feel like we have failed, I have failed.  Best of all, the ones that say "I'm not really into Dylan."  That's where I fall over.

Not really into Dylan?  What does that mean?  Does it mean they don't like his singing voice?  Join the crowd.  Does it mean they think it's for old people, like their parents or maybe (gulp) their grandparents?  Does it mean that they don't want to be associated in any way with the word "hippie"  (which, btw, I keep seeing young people spell "hippy", which irritates me to no end aside from the fact that being hippy is a whole 'nother thing altogether and also makes me feel like we've missed the boat in history class)?   Does it mean they're too cool for folk music, because all people who like folk music are like the characters in A Mighty Wind?  What does it mean?

Because here's the thing, and if I sound preachy, I gotta say that I just don't care.  Dylan is a genius.  Dylan is an integral part of our history, not only music history, but political history, sociocultural history.  You don't have to like his music, you don't have to buy his recordings, you don't have to go to his concerts, you can be creeped out by how he looks or talks or sings. But he has changed the world, and you should at least know that.  

I'm not so into Dylan?  It's like saying I'm not so into Einstein.  You can like him, you can not like him, but you should know what he did.  It's as simple as that. 

You will be happy to know that I am not, in this space, at this time, going to get into talking about Ferron, who is easily as much of a genius and a world-changer as Dylan (and it's not just me that thinks so).  Another day.  We should all know about her, too, if only as a lesson in how white heterosexual male privilege is alive and well and so fully imbued into our culture that we don't even know it or believe it when we see it.   Okay, right, I'll stop now.

The thing about folk music is that there are a few songs that are iconic.  Songs that we should all be able to sing at a moment's notice, simply because of their ageless ability to match world or political events over and over again.  Let's just say they come in handy.  

Then, when it's one of those times when one of the songs is the perfect fit,  you could show up and sing with me, which would just make me really happy.  

This is one of those times.  If you know it, sing along.

Here's What I Was Gonna Write

I was gonna write about the times we live in.

I was gonna write about freedom and equality and softball and poison ivy.

I was gonna write about the chasm between generations, about gratitude, shoulders, and selective and collective amnesia.

I was gonna write about the paradox of being a Californian in the days following the Supreme Court decision on Prop 8 while celebrating the fifth anniversary of equal marriage as a longtime resident of Massachusetts.

I was gonna write about folk music and about those who snort loudly and roll their eyes at its mention.  I was gonna write about the irreplaceable and holy relevance of folk music in times when change is afoot, and how the reflex of apparent dismissiveness leaves so many cold in the storm, unaware that there are well-worn blankets to wrap around themselves, ones that have the potential to offer powerful warmth and surprising familiarity.

I was gonna write about invisibility and separation and how some things are only noticed in their absence.  And I was gonna write about how that makes me sad.

I was gonna do links and pictures and stories and thoughts and feelings that pulls all of these things into a neat, or not so neat, narrative.  

I was gonna write solely in the present tense, as the most powerful people and the most brilliant writers in my life have assured me that this is the way to write, and I believe them.

I was gonna write it all in pieces, stretching it out across hours, or better yet, days, in the interest of meeting the challenge I have set for myself.

That's what I was gonna write.  Just so you know.

Outrage

I don't usually do this, post something on this blog solely to get it out there, to do everything within my power to get it into circulation. But this has to be seen. By everyone. A big thank you to my friend Nicole, who posted it on Facebook today. I might have missed it...




The film is not released yet--it is opening at the Tribeca Film Festival later this month. But when it is released, we all need to go see it. We need to go see it not only to educate ourselves and to equip us to be informed advocates, but to support the brave filmmaker who has taken this on and who will surely pay for his efforts.

Move over, Roger Moore.

Third Time's the Charm

You know what they say...as Iowa goes, so goes the nation!

Wanna waltz?

No, I haven't forgotten about the post I wrote on March 15, explaining how I don't get this (ad nauseum, no less). I so disagree with the emphasis on marriage as a "magic bullet"--like for example, I find this completely ridiculous:


Seems sorta akin to the claim that racism is dead and gone because we have elected a biracial man as President. It makes me shake my head, it's so silly.

At the same time, I am obviously strongly in favor of any and all civil rights victories, because as ridiculous as I find the exaggerated emphasis, I find the barriers to civil rights far more ridiculous.

And in Iowa? And unanimous? Who would thunk it? Another stereotype blown all to hell. I've been walking around singing songs from The Music Man all day. I'm just that kind of musical geek. (sorry if that blows some sort of image for you).

All in all, I can't help feeling touched for the leap in civil rights, for the mounting evidence in support of my (and others') theory at the time that the laws changed in Massachusetts that no matter what happens, time doesn't move backwards. Once things are out of the box, they never fit back in quite the same way again. I can see the dominoes beginning to fall. Great visual.

So, hooray for Iowa, hooray for common sense and civility, and hooray for the couples and families who I imagine might be feeling a little like this tonight: