NQR : Topgallant : Rants

The Difference Between Water and Ice

Originally posted December 12, 2003:

This started out as a short thing but grew a lot longer. A lot a lot. Yes, I do work when I'm at work, why do you ask?

I haven't checked my friends page yet so I don't know if mention has been made of this around here or not, but I wanted to call attention to two separate pieces in today's NY Times.

The first one is an article detailing a 7-year old's school punishment for talking about his gay mothers.

Excerpt from the article (you have to be an online times member to read the whole thing):

A 7-year-old Louisiana boy was disciplined by his elementary school for telling a second-grade classmate that he had two mothers and explaining that gay meant "when a girl likes a girl," the American Civil Liberties Union says.

The boy, Marcus McLaurin, was referred to the school's behavior clinic, where he was ordered to write the sentence "I will never say the word `gay' in school again" over and over, the civil liberties group said.

...

"The school called me the day it happened and said Marcus was in trouble for using foul language, and behaving inappropriately," the boy's biological mother, Sharon Huff, said. "I didn't know what he'd said because the assistant principal said he didn't feel comfortable repeating it over the phone. He told me Marcus would bring home a note. I was imagining something horrible. But when Marcus came home with the note, all it said was that he'd told another child I was gay, and explained what gay meant."

~~~

The second article is an op/ed piece by Nicholas Kristof, who responds to attackers and critics of a previous column he wrote in which he espoused the "gay gene" argument for homosexual equality. He writes, in part, "No force is more divine than love, and if some people are encoded to love others of the same sex, how can that be unholy?"

The presence of these two articles side by side is why I am very nervous and wary of the "gay gene" argument when we're talking about civil rights. What took place in Louisiana, the actions directed against that little boy, had nothing directly to do with science versus religion. This little boy was told that he couldn't talk about his parents in school. His mothers were told that their very identity constituted "foul language" in the eyes of their son's educators. And it seems to me that no matter how many genes pop up to give scientific proof to the equality of gay relationships, until they are given full equality under the law, gay marriages are going to continue to be seen as examples of foul language.

If the gay gene were found and identified tomorrow, then this school would probably continue to discriminate fully against this child and his parents, under the protection of the law. (Since when have schools given a fuck about science anyway?)

However, if gay marriages were made constitutionally legal tomorrow, then sure, this school might continue to discriminate against this child and his parents, but they could not, legally, prohibit him from discussing his mothers in the classroom unless they also started punishing every other kid who mentioned their parents.

It seems to me that if we are to ever reach a state of equality regarding gay civil rights, then the law has to be the leader, not science. The law in this case would protect this family and this little boy's education, where science would do nothing.

And I think that in terms of making strides, the nation's first goal should be securing equal protection for all citizens under the law, and *then* educating people and changing the minds and hearts of bigots everywhere.

The second and even more troublesome reason that this "gay gene" argument bothers me is that it fails to encompass the civil rights of bisexual, transgendered, and transsexual individuals. I am thinking at the moment of Lily's post from the other day in which her teacher left out bisexuals in a discussion of gays and lesbians. If the "gay gene" theory becomes a fact, then it will place bisexuals and trans individuals even more outside the realm of the "acceptable" than they currently are.

I have always felt that the "gay gene" argument is a double-edged sword. Yes, it provides a logical argument for why equality should be granted to gays and lesbians. But it also serves as an unnecessary apologist, an argument where none is needed. The basic underlying truth of who we are as human beings is that we are all equal, equal in every way, in every aspect of who we are. To say that gays and lesbians are equal to heterosexuals because of the presence of a gene is like saying blacks are equal to whites because they have the same basic body structure; it's like saying water is equal to ice because it is wet. There is not, there should not, be a mitigating "because" anywhere in the equasion. Water and ice are the same thing in different states. Saying they are equal is a moot point: they are the same thing. Humans are the same regardless of orientation and skin color, religion or race. Humans are either all equal, or they all aren't.

Any other kind of argument for equality fails to get at the root of the problem.

~~~~~~~~

The root of the problem has ultimately nothing to do with gays and lesbians. The root of the problem is that if we start saying gays and lesbians are equal under the law, then who else will we have to legitimize and accept next? Foreigners? Muslims? Criminals? Those skateboarders with the fluorescent hair and piercings on the sidewalk?

Humans are so afraid to accept their basic underlying dignity; it's like they think that if anybody else has as much dignity as theirs, then their own will be negated. Americans especially have gotten it so drilled into our heads that we are the chosen people, the nation fashioned by great men into the greatest country in the world, that we have to prove our sovereignty over and over again, scream it, rant it, yell our heads off and drop a million bombs, just to keep convincing ourselves that we're the best. And that attitude, that fierce capitalistic drive to be the best, has American citizens stepping all over each other. our government steps all over other governments; our states step all over our state-funded programs and our education system steps all over its educators; our major corporations step all over their employees; religions step all over other religions; the upper class steps all over the poor; the middle class steps all over the working class; the working class steps all over minorities, encouraged by their conservative religious institutes that their bigotry is holy; and the minorities step all over each other.

What would happen if just once America let Canada be the greatest nation in the world? Or Zimbabwe? What if just once corporate CEOs took pay cuts so their bottom-rung employees could get paid a decent wage? What if just once special interest groups didn't get the interests that made them "special"? What if instead of doing everything it could do to alienate its melting pot of citizens, our government repealed the Patriot Act and took real steps to level the playing field by granting the same basic civil rights to all Americans? What if for once nobody had a legitimized excuse to step all over someone else because for once everyone was equal under the law, regardless of heritage, race, religion, nationality, sexuality, or wealth?

My guess is we'd probably still find an excuse to beat one another up, and John Ashcroft would probably race to find a reason to legalize that excuse.

But the bottom line for me is that no matter how many genes science discovers, gays and lesbians and blacks and whites and men and women and you and me will never be fully equal in America until we stop creating laws that foster inequality. It's kind of startling to me--I never really realised until just now just how liberal I have become--until I was writing this and it turned into a much larger rant on general civil liberties. But all you have to do is look at the Patriot Act to see how Orwellian we have become, how completely we have all gotten sucked into the general notion that some of us really are just more equal than others, and that's the way it is, buster--and if you don't like it, then you aren't American.

I think that the reason that gay civil rights is so utterly divisive at this moment in time is that it's the last bastion of "immorality" in america, it's our last excuse to persecute citizens based on a moral precept. After this who are we going to attack? There's not much left of Iraq to attack. Maybe Sweden? They legalized homosexuality in Sweden, didn't they? Those heathens. But seriously, I think somewhere deep down, America's religious right and the people who are spearheading this attack on people of alternate sexualities realise that this is their last stand--after this they will have no more excuses, no one else to lash out at in their pulpits--except themselves. Except themselves. And I know that scares them. I know a bit about deflecting blame; it's not fun to deal with your own sins. It takes self-discipline and a willingness to say to yourself, "Self, I've been an ass." Which is a lot harder than it sounds.

I was watching Community Access TV two nights ago--did I mention that I have cable now and it's like this whole amazing world where you have all these different channels and there are people on your screen talking about different things on every channel, and sometimes there are even movies, and like, wow-- anyway, the local community television is wonderful and liberal and I love it, and late Monday night it was broadcasting a worship service from Cathedral of Hope, a large Catholic church out of Bush's own Houston, Texas. A large gay catholic church, that is. (Wonder if Bush has ever been to visit?)

Since my mom wants me to go to church more, I sat down and watched it all like a good girl. It was great. Two thumbs up. In the middle of the sermon the priest started talking about divorce rates. It turns out that the Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest protestant church--my church, the church I grew up in, the church that (along with Stephen Sondheim musicals) has turned me into the happy, optimistic, faith-driven and spastically rebellious person I am today--has the highest divorce rate of any protestant church in the country. Nearly 30% of Southern Baptist marriages end in divorce. Thirty per cent.

And yet the Southern Baptist Convention is the most vocally rabid and increasingly aggressive protestant community to attack and challenge the dignity of homosexual marriages.

In their 2000 revision of their Faith & Mission statement, the SBC included an entire article on the family which reads in part, "Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God's unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race," as well as an entire article on The Christian and the Social Order, which abjures, "In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography."

At the top of the agenda at the Southern Baptist Convention's 2003 national conference was the passing of a resolution stating unequivocally that marriage is between a man and a woman, and if that wasn't enough, still another resolution specifically targeting Same-sex marriages:

WHEREAS, The Vermont experience indicates that if same-sex unions are recognized as “marriage” in a state court, then same-sex couples wishing to marry will inundate that state to “marry” and return home demanding that their states recognize their “marriages” ...

WHEREAS, Legalizing same-sex “marriage” would convey a societal approval of a homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible calls sinful and dangerous both to the individuals involved and to society at large ... ;

now, therefore, be it RESOLVED... That we continue to oppose steadfastly all efforts by any court or state legislature to validate or legalize same-sex marriage...."

They--no, wait, let me back up, I have to say "we," because once you're a member of the SBC you're a member for life whether you like it or not, and so I am partially responsible for the Southern Baptist Convention's failngs. "We" make it sound like a virus, don't "we"? "We" make it sound like gays have been running to Vermont, contracting a disease, then coming back home and spreading it around and infecting everyone else's happy safe marriages.

What about the guy who goes over to the next county to by porn and then brings it back to his house--where's his resolution? Is he affecting his neighbor's loving family environment as well? No, no, wait--the guy who buys the porn may just be a deacon in the church. We can't get too personal, now, or else we'll lose sight of our agenda.

For me, the most amusing parts of that first resolution proposing to bolster marriages within the church is the part that goes, "A disproportionately large number of children reared in evangelical churches are growing up to leave the “faith of their fathers”; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 17–18, 2003, renew our commitment to building Kingdom families..." blabbity blah.

I left the Southern Baptist Church in my heart some time around 1993 when it called for a church-wide ban on Disney for having "gay days." And as one of those disproportionately large numbers of children who left the "faith," may I just say that I did not leave willingly--I was driven away by my church's intolerance. I did not want to ever get to the place where I held the church in contempt--the church of my "father,"-- well, of my mom and grandmother, technically, since my mom is one of the 30% statistic, and you know, I'm just fine with that.

It was the church's intolerance, its complete lack of grace where gays and lesbians are concerned, that alienated me from its flock and its brand of "faith." So while the church is trying to get its children back by heightening the very intolerance that is driving them away, I will be over here celebrating my non-traditional two-parent family, which is comprised of my mother and my grandmother.

"All forms of sexual immorality." That is such a cop-out. Where are the happily married homosexual couples screaming that their next door neighbors' extra-marital affairs are destroying their marriage? The Southern Baptist church with its 30% divorce rate should worry about the plank in its own eye.

But it's not really American to do that, is it? Not hardly. Not anymore--if it ever was.

I worry for my former church--I worry about what will happen when they run out of people to blame for their own immorality, their own hypocrisies on individual and institutional levels. I worry about what will happen when they have no minority groups left to persecute under the law and are forced to deal with the fact that people are just people, and that Christ never said anything about a hierarchy of sin where all men are created in sin, but some are created in more sin than others.

What will they--no, what will we do, when we don't have anybody left to put our bootheel on?

The other day, the first full day I worked at Borders, this lady went through the register and was staring at the display behind the counter. She demanded to know why we had so many occult things at the front of the store. I turned around to see rows and rows of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and Lord of the Rings. We sell a wide variety of books and materials of all genres, I answered. Well, but why so much occult? she answered. Why not something Christian? If you'd like to talk to one of our managers about our display I'd be happy to get one of them for you. She bristled. If I had more time I would, she said. I won't be coming back to this store again. And then she looked down at my name tag and added in an accusing voice, "Ahzha."

I was absolutely furious at this woman. She was a stiff-necked bristling cylinder of righteous indignation. But I smiled at her, my best smile, and corrected her on the pronunciation of my name. "Like the continent." And I swear to god this woman was absolutely unprepared for my smile. She was prepared for a battle of good and evil, demons on my shoulder, angels standing between us. I know this because I have been there myself, I have known people like her all too well--hell, I've read my Frank Peretti. But the moment I smiled at her, everything changed. Suddenly I was no longer a messenger of Satan; suddenly I was no longer a representative for a vague idea of evil to her. Suddenly I was a person with a smile named Aja, and her entire demeanour changed. She grew friendly and laughed and joked with me through the rest of the transaction. And, you know, I was still furious with her. But I wasn't furious at her. I didn't hate her. In fact I thought she was actually pretty nice.

The very next person to come through the line was a very friendly gay man who was buying a copy of Vanity Fair's "Queer TV" spread. He rolled his eyes at the woman as she left, grinned, and said, "You handled that much better than I would have done." And then we talked about shipping Carson/Ted.

That entire experience just left me with this feeling that no matter how much the debates and politics rage, ultimately all people need is to see one another as individuals, and their hatred and misunderstandings go right out the window. No matter how much you throw science at one person's head and religion at another, ultimately the gay civil rights movement is no different than any other civil rights movement before it--it's about seeing people for themselves, no strings attached.

I think that in America lately it has gotten increasingly harder to do that and not be labeled "politically correct," "liberal," "anti-american," etc. It is a daily task to look at yourself and see your own flaws and your own ingrained prejudices, and to conquer them one at a time. But ultimately that is the responsibility of every human being. And especially every American, because to whom much is given much will be expected, and we are a people to whom much has been given. We have not been living up to our expectations.

To me the difference between the law of the people and the people living under the law, is that the law is greater than the sum of its many parts. While individuals under the law struggle to become better people, struggle to accept themselves and one another for who they are, the law exists to temper our worst impulses--to temper those times when we want to slam our bootheel down on someone who we think really really deserves it. I think that the law of the people should treat citizens "more equally" than the way individual citizens treat each other, because while individuals sometimes forget that their individual dignity doesn't supercede someone else's, the law must never forget. The Ten Commandments were written with that theory in mind, I think--that even though individuals fail at times to be their better selves, the laws that teach them that they should strive to be their better selves are unchanging. The Bill of Rights is a veritable ten commandments in this respect. It exists to uphold the basic human dignity and worth of every individual, no matter how many individuals may think that they are better than all the other individuals around them.

When we try to allow individual rights and interests, or the interests of one group of citizens, to supercede those of another, then we have forsaken the law of the land, and we must be turned back. That is what the Massachussetts Supreme Court has attempted to do for us, tentatively, and we owe them a debt of thanks for holding us accountable to our own laws.

But really, this is not about equal civil rights for G/L/B/T citizens. It's about the fact that there is no fundamental difference between water and ice. Water is not better than ice because it can be drunk. This is not a subjective opinion, but a natural law that cannot be changed or subverted. There is no difference between water and ice--they are not given equality, they simply have it.

Civil rights are not something that can be won. They cannot be won because we all already have them. They are inalienable rights. The fact that successful arguments for these rights have to be argued at all, as if there is some other opposing side to the natural law of what people simply are--that is, equal under the law, equal under God-- shows a flaw in our thinking and a flaw in our society that has been ingrained since the days of slavery and maybe even earlier.

Until we get out of the mentality that civil rights are things that must be argued for, that must have scientific evidence to back up, that must have rebuttals between religious theorists and debates on the House floor before they take effect, then civil rights will never really exist for any of America's peoples. Until the laws of America's government truly reflect the fact that people are not fundamentally different from other people, period, and until the rhetoric of difference is erased from our language, our society, and our ways of thinking, we will never be truly free, any of us.

Because of our insistence on seeing differences where there are none, we will continue to lash out at minorities and activists, and at anything and everyone we can, be it gays and lesbians, Iraqi rebels, or Greenpeace--because attacking the person next to us is a hell of a lot easier than examining our own faults.

Americans have practically turned the difference between water and ice into a political theory. And that, not the "gay gene", is what the most recent civil rights movement is all about.