Gay rights, Bigfoot, and The Lochness Monster

Yesterday was a big day in the fight for the equal protection of human and civil rights for all persons in the United States. We’re not there yet; every victory should be cause for celebration, but we should realize we have a long way to go still and not congratulate ourselves too much.

In case you haven’t heard, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed legislation on Wednesday that legalized gay marriage in the granite sate. The law will take effect January 1, 2010. In passing this legislation New Hampshire becomes the sixth state to open the doors to marriage to folks who are not heterosexual. Currently Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa are the only states where gay marriage is legal. Vermont passed legislation legalizing gay marriage that will become law September 1, and Maine has passed similar legislation that takes effect September 14.

Several states have passed laws that do, or soon will, recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. New Jersey, Washington and Oregon recognize same-sex unions, but not marriage. There is a bill making its way through the state legislature that, if passed, would legalize gay marriage in New York. Washington, D.C. recognizes same-sex domestic partnerships, as do Nevada and California. And D.C. recently passed legislation that recognizes the legality of gay marriages performed in other states. Contrary to popular belief, Hawaii does not recognize gay marriage or same-sex civil unions. They do, however, allow for two unmarried people (not just heteros) to register as being in a “reciprocal beneficiary relationship”. This is said to entitle the individuals to some rights and benefits of marriage. The word some is the problem.

I frequently post articles related to gay marriage, homophobia, and heterosexism on facebook. Facebook being what it is, these stories are then viewed by all my facebook friends. But since a large number of my facebook friends are just that, facebook friends and not actual friends, many of the people who see my frequent postings of material on these issues do not know me very well.

This has led to several people sending me messages wondering why I seem to care so much about the last legal form of discrimination and oppression we still endorse by law. The clear implication is that since I am heterosexual, my interest in the issue seems odd. I’m pretty certain none of these folks would question a person who identifies as anything other than heterosexual for being so interested. If the issue doesn’t impact me personally and directly by limiting my freedoms and the privileges heterosexual marriage allows, why do I care?

To me, this line of questioning is representative and telling of our uber-individualistic culture. But the truth is that I do think these issues affect me directly, just not in the ways reflected in the mentality of the question.

I am not impacted by heterosexism and homophobia in nearly the same way an individual who is not heterosexual is impacted. The same may be said when it comes to racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, discrimination against those with disabilities, and so on. The existence of these benefits me. I am the beneficiary of unearned privileges, whereas those who are marginalized feel the pain of unearned oppression. But while I benefit from the existence of these forms of hate and discrimination, I also see myself as being negatively impacted.

The term social justice gets thrown around a lot, particularly by people in positions of power and privilege who use the term to describe some type of work they do with/for (it’s usually for) marginalized folks. And while many use the term, few ever describe what they mean.

For me, social justice means a lot of things. One of the foundational principles of my conceptualization of what social justice means is that our collective, as well as our individual, well-being is determined by the conditions of our lives and of our daily lived experiences. We are all connected.

This may be simplified into a bumper sticker slogan of, “When one is oppressed none are free.” Please note that I ain’t hating on bumper stickers – those who knew the Integra know why. But while this may sound and/or look good, it is pretty easy to argue that affluent folks living in the United States do not have to feel the pain of the more than three billion people in the world (almost 50% of the planet’s population) who live on $2.50 or less per day. And I don’t say that as a transition to an “I feel your pain” argument. Believe me, Bill Clinton is one of the last people I would ever quote, particularly when it comes to the issue of gay rights. The man has a less than distinguished record on such matters. But I digress.

I say that individuals who are on the top of the economic/identity-based hierarchies of our world do not automatically feel the pain of oppressed people after I make the argument that we are all connected because this argument is just that, an argument. It is a position I take and a worldview I employ. But I recognize that not all people view things this way. In fact, many would label this way of thinking as collectivist (how awful), or even socialist (now that’s pure evil). And while I don’t really care what labels are thrust upon me, I do care that the ideas that comprise these philosophies are seen with such disdain.

I see myself as an individual, but I also see myself as a small part in a larger whole. And if I have to privilege one over the other, I think the individual is far less important. I feel the impacts when the larger whole of which I am a part is one that does not promote basic rights and liberties for all people. I am impacted by the fact that I voluntarily live in a culture that decides marital status should afford individuals tangible, financial benefits, but who you fuck determines whether or not you are entitled to receive said benefits. And for the record, I don’t believe the state should be recognizing and sanctioning any monogamous adult relationships, let alone incentivizing them. And that’s why this isn’t about marriage at all; it’s simply about recognizing that when we are part of a group that acts in violent and repressive manners, against targeted groups of people, it does so in our name. We are responsible.

This also isn’t about how this impacts friends and family members, or the fact that I should work hard to eliminate all possible forms of oppression and injustice my offspring might face, should one or both them not be heterosexual. This type of self-motivated fight for social justice is not a fight for social justice at all. It’s a self-serving fight for the betterment of individuals experiencing injustice. Fighting against injustice simply because it is impacting those you love, or because it could do so in the future, is anything but a fight for social justice. Such an act may serve as a first step; it may be just the eye-opener a privileged parochial person needs to pop the bubble they gleefully exist in. But in and out itself, it is the definition of a selfish act.

And before you react to the notion that personally felt and lived oppression does not serve as a legitimate catalyst for social action, take note that I am not arguing such. Privileged folks (and god knows my White, heterosexual, married male ass is in that camp) fighting to right the wrongs that harm and oppress individuals they know is an entirely different situation than a person fighting against the oppression they feel the brunt of. These two are nowhere near analogous. But this still leaves the question of why I care unanswered. It also leaves the explanation of this not being about marriage incomplete.

I engage in these fights for the simple fact that I believe we are a we. When we recognize that we are doing harm, we have a responsibility to act. We all have a voice, and we have a responsibility to use it. We have a responsibility to point out injustices, by screaming if necessary, and then do something to rectify these injustices. Speaking out is one of many things we can do. It is the least we can do, and the least we should feel the responsibility to do, irrespective of the fact that so many don’t. It is our job to lead by example and, if necessary, guilt others into joining us.

And in joining us we must embrace the responsibility of articulating why this fight over gay marriage is both vitally important and not about marriage at all. The fight over marriage is but one arena where legalized discrimination against non-heterosexuals exists. It is a carefully chosen symbol, and a first step. Because even if all gay people were allowed by law to be married tomorrow, these same folks would, in most states and municipalities, still face legally-sanctioned discrimination in seeking employment and housing, and in openly serving their country in the armed forces (thanks again Billy C).

The binary view of an issue, policy, or existing social condition impacting one personally and directly versus it not is a false dichotomy. It is nothing more than a tool used to promote the promulgation of the ideology of individualism. That’s why there is no such thing as gay rights. There are only civil rights and human rights.

The fight over gay marriage is not about granting gay people something different, based on the fact that they’re gay. This would be a granting of privileges, not rights. No, this is about recognizing that being gay is not a justification for the denial of rights.

So when you hear the talking heads on TV and the radio ramble on about non-heterosexuals and other oppressed minority groups wanting special rights, know that you do have something in common with them, at least in terms of the last word - rights.

We disagree on the moniker special, but we do agree that is about rights, not privileges. Remind them that privileges are special; rights are not. Then ask these individuals, the disproportionate number of whom are White, affluent, heterosexual, married men, if what really makes them upset is granting rights to others, or if it’s the inevitable transformation of these special privileges they enjoy merely becoming rights when all share in equal opportunities. Get back to me when you have an answer.