Don’t tread on me!

Hurray for the New Jersey Supreme Court, which ruled that same-sex couples and their families are constitutionally entitled to the benefits and protections offered by marriage (although queer couples still don’t have access to over 1,000 federal marriage benefits). For the New York Times’ account of this historic move (don’t miss the audio slide show), go here.

The Times also posted a comments blog. (Unfortunately they don’t seem to be taking any more comments, but what’s there is plenty entertaining.) I loved reading these comments. I skimmed over the bigoted, stupid ones and was so heartened by the funny, thoughtful, heartfelt ones. It made me feel...actually...hopeful. And part of a fabulous community. To wit:

Joshua says: “I’m really tired of being treated as a second-rate American, especially because i’m totally first rate.”

Sarah Junker notes: “Interracial marriages were banned in some states up to as late as the 1980’s. I harken to this when I’m discouraged by the slow rate of social change in this country. It may take decades before state bans on homosexual marriages are viewed as morally outrageous and historically outdated, but the wall is falling one brick at a time.”

And my favorite, from Javier Galitó-Cava: “I have been with my partner for 12 years. I have helped him raise his bilogical son who just turned 23. My step-son is straight and a wonderful and well adjusted young man by the way. He never had any homosexual tendencies and, although he loves musical theatre, he is hopelessly straight. He doesn’t own one pair of Prada shoes and can leave the house without any product on his hair as if nothing was wrong.

“Maybe the statue of Liberty should have a new engraving, “Give me your tired, your poor, but keep your faggots and your other weirdoes, PLEASE!” Oh Javier, you are officially my new BFF.

From EAC_ Esq.: “Shame on all three branches of the federal government for passing and upholding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Never have I seen such a flagrant and embarrassing display of political pandering to the wealthy, conservative religious groups that helped buy the Oval Office for President Bush. I cannot fathom how such an act of legislated bigotry can withstand scrutiny in light of the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

Daniel Cole asks: “Is having children a prerequisite to marry? Did I miss the “I promise to have children” form straight couples have to sign? Do heterosexual couples who choose not to have children have fakey, weirdo marriages?...First it’s the gays, then it’s the household furniture. As much as I’d love to marry my couch, I don’t think it’s gonna happen. My couch can’t even make a proper signature. It’s alright, Couchy – I still love you. The “slippery slope” argument gets a lot of play, maybe because it’s so funny. Marrying my cat? It’s just funny. Marrying all three of my cats? Now that’s just wrong.

“There are many wonderful gay and straight couples, and I’d love to have them all over for dinner and cocktails.” Call me – I'm in!

And from someone named Mark: “Basic, fundamental rights accrue to each of us by the very fact of our being. They are not “granted” by the government. They are inherently ours from the moment of birth. If, as a society, we pretend that those of us in the majority have the right to deny such rights to any minority segment of that society, then we deny those rights to ourselves as well. The Bill of Rights, in addition to protecting each of us from “the government”, is also designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority - and vice versa.”

Don't people rock? Lest you think I’m letting total strangers hog today’s post, I wanted to add that I think it takes bravery to call one’s corporate employer, or spa, or cell phone company (all things that I or my Charming Girlfriend did today) and talk to a faceless customer service rep about one’s same-sex partner. These people might be big homophobes. They might be falling over themselves to be gay-friendly. We can't know. We just do it. Coming out is a continual process.

Finally, to see a totally adorable studio portrait of a young lesbian couple in 1967 (check out the beehive hair!), go here.

Separate but equal, my ass.

From today’s New York Times: “A state appeals court ruled Thursday that California's ban on gay marriage does not violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.”

My blood pressure just SKYROCKETED. But wait, there’s more.

“‘We conclude California's historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class,’ the court said.”

Just like the “historical definition of marriage" used to bar blacks and whites from tying the knot, huh? Just like the “historical definition of citizen with voting rights" didn’t used to include “person of color” or “woman.” Haven’t we realized that hiding behind historical precedent is notoriously wrongheaded? That a pernicious imbalance of power is fond of masquerading as the status quo?

So it’s not discrimination to withhold from me and my girlfriend the legal rights and protections enjoyed by, say, my brother and his wife? I’m really less worthy? Huh. Tell that to my mom.

Hearteningly, the strongly worded dissent argued that "the inescapable effect of the analysis the majority adopts is to diminish the humanity of the lesbians and gay men whose rights are defeated. The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

Last year, a Superior Court judge in San Francisco got this whole glittery gay disco ball rolling by saying the same thing, that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates a fundamental right and amounts to unconstitutional gender-based discrimination. (A judge in Hawaii said the same thing ten years ago. Remember?)

Polls show that a majority of young people agree. So it's only a matter of time before the dinosaurs die off. (If we manage to survive that long. Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? Better sell that beachfront property. And buy a hybrid, for the love of god!)

The entire raging gay marriage debate hinges on binary oppositions that are specious to begin with: male and female, hetero and homo. Sex and gender – not to mention religion, politics and law – are constructions, after all. It’s hard, though, not to get sucked into this sort of polarized thinking in our current red vs. blue color wars. And ultimately, even if gay marriage is a normative idea that doesn't disrupt false binary oppositions underpinning constructed identities, I still want one, thank you very much.

From my early days agitating with Queer Nation and the Lesbian Avengers (I bet there’s an FBI file with my name on it), I’ve believed that gay rights, like any civil rights, are won via the grass-roots: workplaces and kitchen tables (and, yes, living rooms – unbiased TV portrayals matter). The more people realize that they know and love queers, trannies and dog-crazy dykes, the more they will join the good fight. Hence the importance of coming out. Hence the political significance of walking down the street holding my lover’s hand, displaying her picture in my office, taking her home for the holidays. I categorically refuse to be a second-class citizen.



California Supreme Court, here we come.

Swoon.

I read today that Brad Pitt refuses to marry Angelina until everyone who wants to has the right to marry. That means queers, which means me – and my girlfriend. I’ve always wished that more of my hetero friends and loved ones would take this principled stand when it comes to the privilege of matrimony. Sure, a straight wedding is a happy event, and I was thrilled when my brother recently embarked on this commitment with his wonderful longtime girlfriend. Yet too often, I think, straight people’s embrace of marriage bespeaks at best a happy cluelessness about the legal rights denied to gay citizens, and at worst a smug, selfish conformity. I wanted my sister and brothers and friends, people who profess to care about equality and democracy – and me – to resist the hegemony in solidarity. Sadly, it’s all too rare.

That’s why Brad’s statement is so powerful, why my gay friend Mason and I sighed and fluttered our eyelashes at each other today when we heard the news. I’ve found it hard to resist Brad ever since he burned up the screen as a dangerous boy toy in Thelma and Louise (we'll tactfully avoid any mention of Troy), and lately, with his photogenic, humanitarian globetrotting at Angelina’s side, frolicking with their rescued rainbow brood, it’s hard to find fault. Now this: spokesmodel for tolerance and inclusion and civil rights. Dreamy.

Not only do my girlfriend and I want to get married, we want to do all those crazy, mainstream things like share a house and have kids. Everything’s a little more complicated since we don’t have the rights that married couples take for granted, but hey, we’re plucky. We’ll make it work. So far, where children are concerned, we’re still weighing our options, in all their bewildering variety: adoption (domestic or international? open or closed?), foster children, carrying my own baby, harvesting my eggs so my partner can carry my biological child. These last two require the participation of a third party, someone cool enough to take a back seat while lesbians raise his child, someone smart and good-looking and compassionate, a humanitarian, a…wait a second...

I bet Angie would be cool with it. She’s all “we are the world, we are the children,” right? So, Brad, how about it? Will you be our baby daddy?