While Rhode Islanders scratch their heads when local lesbians or gay men slip over the line into Massachusets, two-by-two, to marry (since the commonwealth allows that) Alberto Linero, 27 and Alberto Sanchez, 24, will soon celebrate their 4 year-anniversary. Sanchez and Linero, were both privates in Spain’s air force, when they wed on June 28, 2006 in the elegant chandeliered hall of Seville’s city hall by Mayor Alfredo Sanchez Monteseirin
Monteseirin not only officiated, but he underlined the importance of this gay marriage by reaffirming the local government’s obligation to the couple. "This is not just your wedding. You symbolize millions of people who are not here and suffer from homophobia," said Sanchez Monteseirin. "The city will protect your rights." Imagine someone saying this in Salt Lake City of on Block Island?
How refreshing that the country where the word “macho” was born, has sailed forward so effortlessly into the twenty-first century, despite Spain’s strong Roman Catholic roots and centuries of fascist or monarchical machismo. Apparently the Spanish, unlike many residents of the US, are able to put their history in perspective; love it, but also override it when it seems misguided.
Spain, joined The Netherlands, Canada and Belgium in recognizing gays’ rights to legally binding marriages, and also has no laws restricting gays in the military. It was able to abolish the draft in 1999 and now has an all-professional Spanish military of 120,000 troops-- 13 percent of them women.
Though both Linero and Sanchez refused to answer questions about possible harassment they may face in the service, we can assume that even Spain has its share of bigoted idiots. We further imagine that the military ethic, wherever it exists, cannot totally free itself from its traditional worship of machismo. Historically this meant men were men, women were horizontal, and marriage was for one of each (with men not required to take their vows seriously.) Fags and dykes, of course, were always just that, and never, ever, in uniform. Anyone who dared test the boundaries of these stereotypes deserved what he or she got: brutal hazing, near-death beatings, or out-and-out killing.
In the face of the eternal reality that homosexuality exists-- in the military, in Congress, in the clergy, among firefighters, police officers and others-- the best the United States could come up with was, first, a total ban on gays in the military, followed by an even dumber plan called “Don’t Ask: Don’t Tell.”
This current policy, which defies explanation, implies that if U.S. soldiers, sailors and flyboys sit around and ignore the big, gay, elephant in the room long enough, everything will be fine.
Meanwhile, from Parris Island to Camp Pendleton and in every bunk around the globe where U.S. military men and women try to rest, some dream of a day when they too, like two privates in Seville, will be able to say, “We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re married.”
It’s supposed to be the land of the free, gay or straight. When will they ever learn?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
escrito por nada
Wren Dancer
FusunA
Leepin Larry
Out on a limb
Miguela Holt y Roybal
Salon.com
Comments
Damn those are beautiful words! Thank you!
It takes much effort on my part to try and comprehend why people care about other people's legal situations or private lives. Me, I'd want to celebrate love. I suppose*sigh* those who oppose gay marriage oppose change and those who cite religious beliefs are really afraid of what they don't (and don't need to) understand.
Thanks for the reads and rates.
I do not have any statistics, but I understand that part of the decision to legalize gay marriage in Spain and now Portugal was to take advantage of the foreign gay tourism business, and that actual Spanish citizens (it is too new in Portugal to have any meaningful stats) who have married one another, like your example above, are very rare -- that only a couple hundred of gay marriages of Spanish citizens have actually taken place (but a couple thousand of FOREIGN TOURISTS have married there).
This has pretty close to nothing to do with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", though I think that was a stupid law and needs to be repealed. At the time it was passed, it was considered a compromise between allowing openly gay soldiers OR the old method of seeking out and expelling gays and lesbians. "Not asking" seemed to be kinder and more compassionate, but it has not worked out that way.
Gays and lesbians have every right to serve in the military (as they have, silently, for generations) and to work, vote, own property and live as they choose, including with any partner they wish. What they CANNOT DO -- no, not even in states that have technically "legalized" gay marriage -- is marry one another. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Two men or two women can have a relationship -- they may be pair bonded and very devoted, and live together in a way that superficially resembles marriage. But it isn't a marriage -- no culture, no religion, no society, no ethnic group in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY recognizes such a relationship as a marriage. It is offensive to many people, of different beliefs and cultures, to pretend that it does, simply to assauge the desires of a tiny, tiny minority.
It's as if, as a society, we have lost the ability to simply tell people "no". No, you can't pretend you are married when you are two men or two women. No, you can't come up with some crazed Yearning for Zion ranch and marry ten girls who are underage. No, you can't marry your sister -- or your mother. Or your father. Or your dog or cat.
I am hopeful for the future, that gay marriage laws will be rescinded in places like Canada, Spain, The Netherlands and Portugal, because decent people will come forward in time and demand that marriage remain a definite relationship between a man and a woman, and not diluted down into what basically ends up as nothing -- a "super duper friendship" with benefits. That's not marriage, and it degrades the very definition of marriage.
As far as the US, given the well-funded pro-gay marriage activist groups ($38 million in California ALONE for a failed attempt to force gay marriage on the citizens of that state), I now believe the only correct action is to work diligently towards a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a relationship between a man and woman; yes, it should not be necessary -- it was NOT necessary for 200 years! because it so blitheringly obvious -- but I guess TODAY it needs to DEFINED before it is "liberalized" out of existence.
I feel there would be no problem whatsoever getting a 3/4 majority on this, given that 45 states still prohibit gay marriages, and a 46th (IOWA) will almost certainly overturn its inappropriate court decision in the next two years.
Laurel -
When the courts overturned the laws that made inter-racial marriages illegal the majority of people in this country would have voted to keep those laws. Would they have been right? Should the majority have ruled? This country was organized as a Constitutional Republic to protect the minority FROM the majority. It was not setup as majority rule.
You also say that 'decent people will come forward in time to demand" that marriage continue to be defined as between a man and a woman. So people who don't agree with that are not decent people? We are decent people, we love and live just like heterosexual people do and our relationships are the same as between people of opposite sexes.
If anything, the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. What business does the government have bestowing a religious sacrament onto people? The government should civilly unite people. If a couple wants to marry they should do that in a church or other religious organization.
Lastly, if you do not have the statistics you should either look them up or not repeat hear-say concerning the reasons gay marriage was approved in Spain.