The Legalities of Love

Before I step up on my soapbox, I thought I'd update everyone on the car insurance fiasco... it's over. I received my settlement check and paid off most of my bills with it. I got all necessary repairs done on my car. The only thing I'm still waiting on is the salvage license, which is in the hands of the Ohio BMV. So there was a happy ending to the story. It probably shouldn't have taken two months, but at least it's over. I'm a little less angst-ridden than I was before.

Now where's that soapbox?

Ever have one of those thoughts that won't leave you alone? No matter how much you try to think of other things, it's still sitting in the back of your head, metaphorically tugging at your sleeve and asking "What about me?"

I had planned to write today on movies that I've recently seen and will be seeing next week. It looks like that will have to wait until later, because the thought that's been sitting in the back of my head has moved from sleeve-tugging to slapping me upside the head and declaring "You will write about me NOW."

There's been a lot of talk on the news lately about the legality of same-sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that denying marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, and I firmly agree. Of course, the irony of living in the most uptight city in the country is not lost on me.

For those of you who aren't familiar with Article XII in the Cincinnati City Charter, here it is:

"The city of Cincinnati and its various boards and commissions may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, status, conduct, or relationship constitutes, entitles, or otherwise provides a person with the basis to have any claim of minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment. This provision of the City Charter shall in all respects be self-executing.

"Any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy enacted before this amendment is adopted that violates the foregoing prohibition shall be null and void and of no force or effect.''

Technically, this allows a person to be refused employment, residence, practically anything because of their sexual orientation, and the person has no legal recourse. How is allowing a person to work and live somewhere like everyone else a "special right?"

There are currently efforts being made to repeal Article XII. (Unfortunately, as I have moved to the beautiful city of Norwood and am no longer an actual Cincinnati resident, I have no say in this matter.)

With all of this going on in addition to Ohio recently becoming the 38th state to ban same-sex marriages, the thought that's been nagging me lately is "WHY?"

I guess I just don't understand the argument here. One does not choose who they love. As one of my friends put it after coming out many years ago, "If I had a choice, do you think I would pick a lifestyle that immediately opens me up for discrimination, hate crimes, and loathing by much of the population? Don't you think I'd have chosen the social acceptable lifestyle?" I doubt that he woke up one morning and decided that he would choose to prefer members of the same gender as a romantic partner. I know I didn't suddenly choose to prefer men over women. It was just something I knew. And as a heterosexual woman, I have the right to marry, which would entitle me to certain benefits that would not be extended to me had I "just known" something different. If my hypothetical partner of the same gender was taken to the hospital, I would not be allowed to make any sort of medical decisions. If the visitors were restricted to "family only," I would not be able to even see my partner, no matter how long we had been together. I would not be able to add my partner to any sort of benefit package or file taxes jointly. If I chose to worship in an organized religion, many congregations would forbid me from serving as a deacon or elder.

How is this not discrimination?

There's a lot of arguments out there, and I have yet to see one that makes much sense. There seems to be a general feeling that same-sex unions will undermine the "sanctity of marriage." Sanctity is a religious term; marriage is a legal term. The church can officiate at any union it so chooses, but it's not legal until the license is filed. (I have known several couples who have had wedding ceremonies, considered themselves married, but were still "living in sin" according to the state because they never filed the paperwork.)

In the same manner, people can get married without getting the church involved. If it's not right to let same-sex couples get married because of religious views, then it should also be illegal to let atheists marry or allow someone who is not ordained by a particular church officiate in the ceremony. So much for the whole justice of the peace thing. (And where would all of those people who have their minister's license from the Universal Life Church fit in?)

(On a completely strange and unrelated tangent of this whole "what makes a marriage a marriage" argument, I would like to point out that in the Rankin-Bass Christmas special Santa Claus is Coming to Town, Santa never had his marriage to Jessica ordained by any institution because no church would accept them. They simply proclaimed their love for each other before nature under a starry sky. So according to that telling of the story, Santa and Mrs. Claus are living in sin, too. How 'bout them apples?)

I always believed that marriage had more to do with how two people felt about each other than what a church had to say about the union or what my government thought about it. Still, I understand that to get the legal benefits, you need to follow the rules and get the piece of paper. (I'm still unclear on where the church fits into the legal binding document, though.)

One of our local ministers was booted from his congregation for continuing to perform same-sex union ceremonies. He's appealing the decision, and has recently had his standing in the Presbyterian church reinstated. (I think he was the minister who married my former resident managers.)

Some people are still floating that whole song and dance about promiscuity. As someone who's been on both sides of the bar scene (as patron and bartender) for entirely too long, I can safely say no orientation has cornered the market on sleeping around or eternal devotion. Gay bars like The Metro and 1470 West were no more dens of iniquity than straight meat-markets like Burgundys or college bars like Mr. K's.

San Francisco just started issuing same-sex marriage licenses, which prompted dozens of couples to get hitched. The first couple that got married was a lesbian couple, aged 80 and 83. They'd been together for 51 years. But their relationship undermines the term "marriage" while we can marry off complete strangers on reality shows and Britney Spears can have her 55-hour marriage and annulment and there's nothing wrong with that?

Some argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman can produce offspring. By that argument, infertile couples should be banned from marriage. And what if a couple decides not to have children?

There's a related argument that says that the best possible living conditions in which to raise a child is a family unit with both a mother and a father. Well, life isn't perfect. Children are raised in all kinds of different families these days. Should we make divorce illegal, since it breaks up this ideal family unit? (And potential family units have nothing to do with whether two people should be allowed to get married anyway.)

There's an argument that opening the door to same-sex unions will pave the way for the legalization of other taboo practices, much like Rick Santorum's comments upon the Supreme Court's decision last year to overturn a Texas law banning sodomy between two consenting adults:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Settle down, Rick.

This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, folks. There seems to be this strange misconception that if gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people are given the same rights that we straight folks enjoy, that mass corruption will erupt and everyone will be carrying on in the streets decadently. (Dogs and cats! Living together!) Isn't this the same kind of philosophy that was embodied by the people who opposed the civil rights movement in the 60s? Stereotyping on the basis of the color of one's skin, the way one worships, what country one's parents came from, what gender one is, who one finds attractive, or how many candles were on one's birthday cake will get us nowhere. This isn't a matter of gay rights or religious rights or women's rights.

It's about human rights. And it doesn't feel right to say that this person may do something, but another may not because of something that is part of what makes them who they are. I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of "whatever works." I don't care for asparagus, but that doesn't give me the right to ban it.

We're never going to be able to ban personal bias. Passing a law preventing discrimination of the vertically challenged will not prevent a person from personally thinking that the world has gone to hell in a handbasket because of those damned short people. And unfortunately, some people won't stop hating gay people no matter what their rights are.

Tomorrow is Valentine's Day, the big daddy of all Hallmark holidays. This year, let's forget the cards and flowers and candy conversation hearts that taste like antacids. Let's celebrate it by letting people be free to love whomever they choose, and allowing them to celebrate their love however they see fit.