Wednesday, June 26, 2013

"You're Straight, Why Do You Care about DOMA?"

DOMA is DONE. I'm grateful. Nah...i'm not gay. Not even sure what my number is on the Kinsey Scale (that's the test that tells you whether you might be a little straight...or at least that's what they say...). So, why would I be grateful that something that "doesn't involve me" happened?

"I'm just trying to show you the big picture" ~~~ Loaded Lux

Gay rights are human rights. I'm human. There. Now, that should be enough of an explanation, but some of you raggelly bastids enjoy breaking people up into groups and assigning values and privileges to each group based on how you feel about that group. An adjective is a modifier. A tall woman. A short man. A straight human. A gay human. That's the origin of the bullshit. Because, no matter what modifier you use, the essence of the object is the same. Ok...i went too deep? Allow me to say it another way...calling a cat a dog won't make it bark. So...a straight human, and a gay human, are BOTH human. Human rights aren't "straight" rights. They're not "Christian" rights. They're human rights. So, if you're human, I'm here for your rights. (to those who wish to get off of the animals rights tangent, shhh relax...not today).

On a fundamental level, I care because I want everyone to be treated equally based solely on their humanity (yes, that goes for those who aren't US citizens as well...later tho). On a broader level, I recognize that standing idly by while some other group is oppressed jeopardizes MY freedom, as well. You don't think that women being allowed to vote helped influence the civil rights movement? You don't think Martin Luther King, jr. and his speeches impacted the LGBT movement? To those who say that the civil rights rhetoric has been "stolen" and "re-appropriated" for the LGBT movement...look. We don't own oppression. If the tools used to fight our oppression worked, why WOULDN'T another oppressed group use those tools?  To go from oppressed to oppressor is some bullshit. We couldn't believe how "good hearted people" could stand by and watch as Black people were systematically marginalized in a free country. Now you got yours, huh? "Fuck gay people, I'm not gay"? Really...which black president was responsible for enacting the legislation that attempted to end Jim Crow? Let's be real...if Black people were the ONLY people who fought for the civil rights act, we'd still be "separate but equal". Acknowledging that white people were involved in the struggle doesn't minimize Rosa Parks. Mentioning the Jewish groups who fought to push civil rights doesn't take the light off Malcolm X. 

Oppressive groups have the advantage of power. The ONLY way to combat that power is to be consistently opposed to all oppression. DOMA was overturned. But oppression was NOT. You don't have to be an activist to care. Shit, I'm a activism usually involves me going on stage and holding a mirror up to hypocrisy, then ridiculing it until you at least consider a different way. You don't have to be gay to support gay rights. Hell, you can even be opposed to homosexuality. But unless you are willing to admit that you believe that some groups were inherently created better than should probably relax on the "fuck gay rights" talk. Because just a couple of generations ago, there was a good hearted white guy saying "I don't care about civil rights, I'm not black"...don't be THAT guy...ok?


  1. It was all about money.

    Let's clear somethings up first. I am strongly against double taxation which is what the inheritance tax does. Ms. Windsor should have been able to keep all of the money. Also, I am confused by folks who feel the need to have their relationships 'validated' by a government entity. If the gov't is going to keep you from the person you feel most connected to then that relationship isn't as strong as you think it is.

    DOMA was idiotic legislation in the first place. The idea that CONgress could legislate a religious ceremony is preposterous.

    Ms. Windsor was fine in her status prior to her partner's death, because she didn't do anything until the IRS refused to give her a refund on the inheritance. Up until that point, Ms. Windsor did not care one whit that the Feds didn't 'recognize' her 'married status' until it cost her some of that inheritance money.

    $363,053 is how much she cost the government, good on her.


    1. I agree wholeheartedly. Framing this argument around whether or not your agree with homosexuality is silly. It's about equal access. Believing marriage is a christian/religious construct is also problematic in that people feel obligated to ignore humanity in the name of God.

  2. Great blog post, and yes, I'm happy to see it gone too. The point I do like to bring up to some of my LGBT friends is that while equality sounds great on paper, in practice, they may come to wish they had their unrecognized status back. It's never a one way street. We always hear about the tear-jerking story of the life partner denied access to their dying partner at the hospital, but we never hear about the life partners who simply split up, and did not involve any family court, alimony, dividing of shared property, custody issues, pets, etc. Don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled that the gov't is finally on the path to treating the people it is SUPPOSED to represent equally, I just wonder about what assets will be lost from unrecognized status. Be careful what you wish for. I'd never really considered that angle, until my openly gay co-worker brought it up.