Second-Class Citizens Loving and Fighting in Portland, Maine
Hey all, I'm taking a temporary detour from blogging my novel. A couple hours ago, I was sitting on the steps of Portland, Maine's City Hall, watching a press conference in response to the voters of Maine deciding against equality for all. Alas, the microphones did not work, and we had to strain to hear the speakers, especially with late-morning traffic buzzing behind us. But everyone behind the podium was nevertheless powerful and eloquent, refusing to give up hope.
A lot of us were crying and hugging, but we will keep fighting. We lost, but with smaller margins than with the anti-gay votes of 2004. We are on the right side of history, and future generations will be as embarrassed for our time as we are now when thinking about past laws forbidding interracial marriage or women voting.
We feel a lot of anger but will not let it turn to bitterness. While it is difficult not to burn with anger towards about half of my fellow Mainers for their ignorance, I will not turn away from them, but hope to keep talking and sharing with them until years from now, after my hubby Jason and I have gotten married, they will pretend they never opposed us in 2009.
During the press conference, there was a solitary couple holding an anti-marriage sign gloating that the voters had spoken. They reminded me of Nelson Muntz on The Simpsons pointing and exclaiming, "Ha ha!" Both of them were making hateful remarks about us. A group of No on 1 supporters, some of them still crying, locked arms and encircled the protestors with their backs turned to them. That I approved of. One supporter tried to cover up the hateful sign with her coat. That I did not approve of, because as poisonous as the message is, censoring it is not the answer.
Fortunately, the coat soon came down, and the heterosexists were able to keep holding up their sign. A local religious leader argued against them with brilliant restraint and class, explaining that Unitarians and many other churches are with us in our struggle.
Afterward, I went to the farmer's market on Monument Square, and I talked about this week's events with several perfect strangers, all wonderful people who offered hugs and support and the hope that we will change things for the better in the near future.
To quote Yoko Ono, who knows something about being hated and demonized for no reason, "Have courage. Have rage. We're rising. There's no confusion. We're all together."
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Placebostudman
Dennis Knight
marytkelly
Stellaa
JustMarriedUs
victimofFarahDamji
Salon.com
Comments
We're heading to a rally in San Francisco tonight to voice our upset over the decision in Maine. We're with you in spirit. xo
I'm slow to anger, so my harsher side might surface in a few days. I'm so sorry about what you went through last year, though I'm happy you got to be married first.
Ranting and raving behind closed doors sounds like good advice. I'll try not to hurt my honey's ears, though.
Thank you for the rally. Love to you both. xo
Your desire to call your relationship with a person of the same sex "marriage" challenges what many/most believe are the foundations of our society. You do not have to agree. But when the laws of a land have been so defined and the matter is so important to the moral/social fabric of the majority of those people, setbacks and failures will abound. Only when that moral/social fabric have changed will those laws change.
The people have spoken. Twenty-nine states have a constitutional ban restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
Those states are: * Alabama * Alaska * Arizona * Arkansas
* California (with the passage of Prop 8) * Colorado * Florida
* Georgia * Kansas * Kentucky * Idaho * Louisiana * Michigan
* Mississippi * Missouri * Montana * Nebraska * Nevada
* North Dakota * Ohio * Oklahoma * Oregon * South Carolina
* South Dakota * Tennessee * Texas * Utah * Virginia
* Wisconsin
The following states have laws that ban gay marriage and limit marriage to one man and one woman (but it is not in their constitutions): * Arizona * California * Connecticut * Delaware
* Florida * Hawaii * Illinois * Indiana * Iowa * Maine
* Maryland * Minnesota * New Hampshire * North Carolina
* Pennsylvania * Vermont * Washington * West Virginia
* Wyoming
There are 5 states where gay marriage has been made legal. None of those 5 states did this by a vote, but by either a court order, or by a state legislature. The peoples wills where thwarted and abused in those states.
Maine has now joined 30 other states. When the issue has been placed on a ballot, it is abundantly clear beyond all doubt that the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans believe that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman.
For the sake of your cause, hope that it doesn't get put on a ballot in those other 5 states or it will likely be reversed. It looks like the only way this will ever be legal in the U.S. is by force and coercion. It is obvious that a vote is unlikely to accomplish your goal.
There are many laws in our country in which many Americans believe are unjust, unfair and inhumane. To call ourselves Americans, we submit to them and obey them. We use the power of the vote to change them. I find it unusual that in this particular case, the gay community supports fighting the uphill battle knowing full well that it is an "in your face" win to the vast, vast majority of Americans.
As a strong believer in democratic principle, and someone who believes that the people should have the power to define their own society, I believe that to somehow allow a very small minority of people to redefine marriage for everyone would be a miscarriage of democratic justice. Peace
The majority should not have veto power over the rights of the minority. There's a reason for the phrase "the tyranny of the majority," and yesterday's vote was a clear example.
As for "in your face," millions of our fellow Americans regard the simple fact of our existence as being in their face. There's nothing we can do that would ever placate them.
But after I read the post :p
Really nicely written. :D
And thank you, too, LizG, for your post.
It's beginning to look like some incremental approach is what the meanies need to see that fire and brimstone won't consume them if they allow civil rights for all.
The difference is that the anti-miscegenation laws were part of an entire web of laws and practices designed to prevent black from having any significant participation in society. These issues included being able to register to vote, the right to vote, the right to travel, to have a jury of one's peers, to employment, to have have housing, to have an adequate education, etc., etc. In many cases blacks were even unable to vote or to organize in order to "petition for a redress of grievances."
The situation could hardly be more different today for gays. They are perfectly capable of organizing and campaigning for same-sex marriage. Thus far they have been unsuccessful in winning the popular vote, but some of the elections have been close.
I personally do not favor same-sex marriage, but if the people of a state voted for it I would have no basis for complaint. That's how democracy works, and my guess is that as the older generation dies off it's eventually going to go your way in the next 20 years.
Ditto to Yoko's words.
I compared race-based marriage laws with gender-based marriage laws to point out that if civil rights had been put up to a vote in the 60s, they would have lost. No more, no less.
I for one cannot wait until we can look back and see this dismal period of time gone. I agree that, as the older generation passes away, this too shall pass. I'm sorry that you have to go through this.
I want you to know that I am one of those "ignorant" people who comprise the vast majority. Us “ignorant” people understand the current science that is homosexual behavior, unlike race, is chosen. There is no valid widespread science that proves otherwise.
The struggle you chose to compare yours with is not a very fair or appropriate example.
The civil rights movement was within a relatively short period in world history. It happened over a period of +-350 years in a small portion of the world. America was a small sparsely populated country. It wasn't world wide and the whole world didn't agree with America. The brits had outlawed slavery in the late 18th century. So "enlightenment" was a world trend. Slavery was marked with brutality and severe oppression.
Your situation and the conditions whereby you are "persecuted" are so slight in comparison; you should rethink your argument. The relatively few examples of violence towards gays are fewer and fewer. The rights you enjoy and tolerance towards what most Americans still think is abhorrent behavior is mainstream. Very few people reject your right to engage in homosexual behavior. It's the constant drone of acceptance into that same mainstream that is becoming more and more of a threat.
Cutivate all of the affections you want for whomever you want, but please try to understand what you are asking for. To try to make the world accept the premise that your affections are out of your control is unacceptable to most people.
To compare what you are trying to accomplish, changing the moral foundation of the majority of the world, to the struggle of African Americans is unfair and misleading. To allow the homosexual community to redefine marriage for the rest of the country is not right.
Harvey Milk
Thanks for your bravely written and incredibly thoughtful post. You are on the right side of history.
Yesterday was a dark day for all citizens. Enticing folks to believe that denying equal rights to some citizens is somehow defending the greater good is a seductive method of corralling them into a position to have their own rights stripped away one day using the same justification.
“We feel a lot of anger but will not let it turn to bitterness.”
That statement reveals the kind grace that some - even religious folks - merely profess. I admire that you embrace it fully as is evident in your words.
Rated and appreociated.
I'm glad that this post has gotten so much attention, but I'm wondering if I should take it as a hint that far fewer people have looked at the novel I've been blogging here. A few friends have told me that it begins too harshly. If anyone here has seen my other posts, please tell me what you think.
Change is hard, and slow, but it's coming.
Best,
- Con
To Philos777:
You know, you come off as a deeply closeted, self-hating gay man. You should really try to come to accept yourself. You are just fine the way you are. You'll be much happier for it, too, and so will the people around you. It takes a lot of time and energy to be that ignorant, so just imagine what you could do with the reapplication of all those resources. The places you could go!
And belated thanks to Karin and Connie.
The rest of the objectors really aren't worth bothering with. Despite the rhetoric, they ARE the minority and their numbers are shrinking daily, hourly, minute by minute