I was going to write about tattoos today. Really.
But then Wyoming decided that it’s ok to legalize domestic partnerships, but not same-sex marriage. And, y’know, this could be considered a step forward, I suppose. It’s better than killing both bills, right? Well, yeah, except…. here are their reasons for killing the marriage bill:
“Homosexual behavior is harmful to the mind, body and spirit,” state Rep. Lynn Hutchings (R-Cheyenne) said.
Uh, what? I’d like to see the studies, please, that prove people who engage in homosexual behavior are more likely to suffer chronic mental or physical illness. Preferably studies that don’t include “homosexuality” as a mental or physical illness, since that would end up being some pretty circular logic. Of course, I’m not sure how seriously I can take Representative Hutchings, since
Hutchings, who is African American, called on supporters of gay marriage to “stop carpet-bagging on our civil rights movement,” saying that there is no comparison between the two.
She goes on to say this because she believes being gay is a choice. She believes this because she knows someone who has decided to stop being gay.
And, I guess, since people are being marginalized for things they choose to do, it’s okay to perpetuate discrimination and hate against them. Just like it’s okay to discriminate against people for choosing to practice a certain religion. Right?
I’d also like to address her use of the term “carpet-bagging” here. I actually had to look it up, just to be sure it meant what I thought it did. Yup – it’s a derogatory term from the post-Civil War era. It was used as a derogatory term, “suggesting opportunism and exploitation by the outsiders” as Wikipedia puts it. So that’s nice. She’s suggesting that the marriage equality movement is somehow exploiting the civil rights movement; like somehow all those gays and lesbians are just waiting to steal liberties away from people of color. Because freedom is a limited resource – in order to give freedom to one group of people, apparently, you have to take it away from someone else.
There’s also this little gem:
Opponents centered their arguments primarily on religious, moral and health issues. In addition to her civil rights comments, Hutchings said that she opposed the bill because of AIDS cases nationally, while another witness said she has found research connecting homosexuality to higher cancer rates. She did not cite the research. A male witness raised questions about health as well.
“Anatomy is not made for two women or two men,” he said. “The colon is not made for that type of behavior.”
AIDS. Gay people shouldn’t get married because AIDS. And cancer, scary scary cancer!
I’m trying to figure out what exactly it is about marriage that causes cancer. And why does it only happen to homosexuals? Where is that research? Assuming that a majority or even a plurality of married homosexuals are monogamous, wouldn’t that actually slow the spread of AIDS? Plus, I’m not sure about your colon, Mr. Male Witness, but mine handles “that type of behavior” just fine. Don’t knock it ’till you’ve tried it.
Come on, Wyoming. Just say what you really mean. I would respect you more if you just said “It’s icky and we don’t like it.” I could handle that – hell, I’d even say it’s your right to feel that way. Not that you should be allowed to make legislature based on it, but at least people could see your squeamishness for what it is. Throwing around your pseudo-science and made-up health concerns makes you look childish. Pretending that this is not a civil rights concern makes you look petty. Acting like your opinions on homosexuality are universal facts makes you look uneducated and foolish.
We are men of action, Wyoming. Lies do not become us.
Penny Gets Lucky 
Daniel Goh
It’s sad to see the weird mental gymnastics people do to justify their irrational hate and fear. I also found it very (sadly) ironic that an African American woman in Wyoming would use the word carpet-bagger, especially since without “carpet-baggers,” the South would be even more backwards than it is now.
P.S. The last line is obviously a quote. Where does it come from?
Kasey Weird
*sigh* So many things wrong with this stuff! I can think of plenty of body parts that weren’t “made [primarily] for” sexual behaviour that I’d be willing to bet Hutchings has used that way. Also, I am always oddly frustrated about how, when anti-gay folks complain about the unsafeness or whatever of sexual acts, they are *always* talking only about gay men having teh buttsecks, and they throw lesbianism into a sentence that has nothing to do with lesbianism. This, even though their claims would be wrong even they didn’t try to expand them to include lesbians. Blah.
I will say, though, that the “carpet-bagging” complaint is coming from the tendency of (usually white) LGBTQ folk to compare their civil rights battle to the POC civil rights battle, which is generally agreed to be a problematic comparison to make, beyond the fact that they are, indeed, both civil rights issues. There may be comparisons that can be drawn on very specific points; it’s just the general “we’re the same as black people in the first half of the twentieth century”-ness that is totally not cool.
pennyposh
Kasey: that makes sense, on the carpetbagging issue. And I would never claim that LGBTQ rights are the exact same thing as rights for POC – obviously, there are differences. But it’s just as inaccurate to say that the two have nothing to do with each other – they are both, at their roots, a fight to end discrimination in certain societal sectors. How and why and to what effect can vary, yes; but to claim they have nothing to do with each other is just as erroneous as claiming they’re exactly the same. And seems exclusionary and elitist, to boot. (In my opinion.)
As far as the anatomy argument goes… yeah, I just can’t take that seriously. “Anatomy wasn’t built for two men or two women”… what does that even mean? That has got to be the most unconvincing, unscientific argument I have ever heard. “It’s icky and I don’t like it” is more convincing than that. If you’re going to try and state that opinion as an unequivocal truth, at least dress it up in better language. That statement is the linguistic equivalent of showing up to a postgraduate thesis lecture in your underwear. Sheesh.
Daniel: I might recommend researching the term “carpet-bagger” a little more thoroughly before you make that claim about the South. There’s a reason it was not a friendly term.
And you are right, the last line is a quote is from The Princess Bride. :)
Kitty
Ugh, I find that kind of backwards, unsubstantiated reasoning depressing. :( And that carpet-bagging comment is ridiculous!
Though I did find the part about how the domestic partnerships do not have to be romantic, and could even be between siblings, rather interesting. Ember and I have had many discussions on what society could look like without marriage, and one thing we’ve talked about that would seem necessary is something like that domestic partnership idea.
pennyposh
That is a good point – though I find it vaguely insulting that same sex “partnerships” are lumped in with relationships that are, from a general society standpoint, viewed as inferior to or less committed than marriages.
The whole thing kind of has me going “That’s stupid and gross, but… I guess it’s a step forward, right? Yay?”
Kitty
I do agree that the fact that it’s “marriage between two opposite sex people, and then everything else” is insulting. Honestly, I think that marriage should be left as a religious/personal thing, and then these not necessarily romantic/sexual partnerships should be the only legal form (and preferably, you’d be able to have them with multiple people, but I know that gets complicated).
Kasey Weird
@penny: yeah, I’m totally with you that suggesting that black civil rights and LGBTQ civil rights are entirely apples and oranges is wrong-headed – and I do get the sense that Hutchings doens’t see LGBTQ issues as “rights” issues at all (’cause queerness is a choice, am I right?). I think I just wanted to point out that the argument she’s using in this case, while incorrect, is based in some legitimate criticisms of LGBTQ rights rhetoric.
@Kitty, I tend to agree with you that we should just make marriage a religious/personal thing that people can do but has no legal status (like, say, baptism, or… um… I’m struggling to come up with a suitable non-religious analog, but you get the point?), and the government can be in the partnership business. Except that it’s problematic if the reason for that shift is “well, we don’t want to be giving teh gays marriage”. The thing is that civil marriage and and religious marriage (or non-legally registered secular commitment ceremonies) are already separate things, and there’s no clear reason why the government should change the language it’s been using for this kind of commitment for centuries.
pennyposh
Yup, Kasey, I can totally see what you’re saying about the civil rights/LGBTQ issue. And you’re right, too, about Hutchings not considering it a “rights” issue, since she believes it’s a choice…. but again, it would be discriminatory to make laws that, for example, prevent Protestants from marrying Catholics. Religion is a choice, and yet it’s widely accepted as a choice that is protected from discrimination. So I’d argue (not against you, as I think you probably agree) that it doesn’t matter whether one’s sexuality is a choice or not – one deserves the right to marry either way.
You’ve also hit the nail on the head with my personal hesitance to embrace the “domestic partnerships for all, and leave marriage to the religious” philosophy. For one, it just seems unfair: “Alright, all you non-religious married couples. You’re domestic partners now! Marriage is for religious people only!” I don’t think it would gain popular acceptance.
It also seems a bit like (forgive me for the comparison) separate drinking fountains. Separate But Equal is inherently flawed as a concept, because Separate is not Equal. It would essentially be saying “Well, you can have all the legal benefits, I guess, but you’ll never be good enough to be married. Marriage is only for the right kind of people.”
Kasey Weird
“it doesn’t matter whether one’s sexuality is a choice or not – one deserves the right to marry either way.” Goodness, but this is a sentiment that needs to be heard more often :D
Kitty
@Kasey I think there is a reason the government should change the language. I think there should be a place for recognizing that not all important, long term relationships are romantic, or even familial. I support the gay marriage movement because if marriage is going to exist, then I think that same sex couples should be able to marry too, and to use the same words for what they have that opposite sex couples use, but in my ideal world, I don’t think that civil marriage should exist as something so closely tied to the idea of religious marriage.
So I’m not talking about Separate But Equal. I’m talking about getting rid of the fountain entirely. I think part of my desire for this has to do with my having more than one partner that I’d like to “marry”, and also from my experience in health care with people who have become the primary caregivers of unrelated individuals, and who would greatly benefit from the existence of non-marriage domestic partnerships.
And @Penny, I don’t think marriage would then only be for religious people, or that it should be, which is why I said religious/personal. I think that people should have every ability to say that they’re married and have a ceremony of whatever their choosing is, but just that it should be completely separate from the civil aspect. So you can marry someone socially, but not be married legally, and you can be someone’s “domestic partner” without socially marrying them.
I can’t legally marry one of my partners and most religions wouldn’t do it either since he’s already married, (also, I’m not religious), but there’s a good chance that we’ll do our own wedding of sorts someday, and refer to each other as husband and wife.
I know this is all very idealistic, and probably not going to happen within my lifetime, if ever. And again, this is why I support gay marriage, even though in reality, I really want to completely destroy and rebuild the concept of marriage and how it works in our society.
Essentially, I agree with you both (and I’m sorry if my tone comes off as argumentative at any point!). I just ultimately want something more extreme than gay marriage.
pennyposh
That makes sense. I think you’re right – in the end, we all agree on the desired outcome, even if our motives for wanting it vary :)
And for the record, I do agree with you about the separation between what the social or legal implications of marriage are, and the religious implications. I think what’s most upsetting to me is the idea that policymakers are designing bills based on religious convictions that not all of their constituents share, and then trying to dress it up as something other than a religious argument.
mothlit
Don’t think I can add much to the thoughtful discussion here, but in case any missed this speech, I thought I’d share… not because it represents anything close to the fullness of Penny’s post or the discussion that followed; but it’s one of the few places in recent political dialogue where someone separated from the party line with genuine heart and conviction.
Thanks, Penny.
pennyposh
Oh, my goodness. Thank you so much for sharing that link – I hadn’t seen it. That was absolutely beautiful.
IM Sirius
People love freedom. Except when someone does something they don’t approve of.