Bill Clinton has changed his stance on gay marriage! He now supports it, although he still thinks the ultimate decision should be left to the states. Genuine change of heart or political maneuvering? Then again, what reason would he have for maneuvering at this point? Once you’ve spent eight years in the White House, shouldn’t you be past the opinion poll issues dance?
That’s why I’m inclined to believe this is genuine. Saint he is not, but I think he’s got good intentions.
One of the most pervasive arguments against marriage equality goes something like this: “If we allow gay marriage, what will we allow next? Polygamy? Incest? Pedophilia?? MY GOD WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN.”
Calm down, straw-Republican-I-just-made-up-for-debate-purposes. Obviously there are serious practical and moral considerations that prevent things like incest, pedophilia and bestiality (or “man-on-dog,” as Rick Santorum so elegantly described it) from being OK. Polygamy, on the other hand, is clearly the logical next step after gay marriage (according to Straw Republican here).
Here’s why that’s wrong. It’s as simple as the difference between sexual orientation and sexual practice. Everyone has a sexual orientation, whether it’s gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, etc. It refers to the gender or genders to which you are physically attracted (or not attracted, in the case of asexual people). It defines your range of options, and to some extent, your identity. “Gay” is a sexual orientation. “Polyamory” is a sexual practice. Polyamory is something you do, whereas being gay is part of who you are.
People who practice polyamory (straight and bisexual people, at least) still have the option to marry someone to whom they are physically attracted. They can find someone they love and marry him or her. Marrying just one person might not be their first choice, but at least they have a choice. Those who identify as exclusively gay have no choice. The only people to whom they could ever be attracted are the exact same people they can’t marry. Which effectively means that gay people are denied a right that straight people take for granted (and crap all over on a daily basis, I might add). This is why homosexuality and polyamory are not the same.
And the fact that YOU, Straw Republican, believe homosexuality is a sin does not magically make homos hetero or give them the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex. Your religion does not exempt them from equal rights.
This is why I get so angry when conservatives say they’re “against gay marriage, not gay people.” What the hell do you expect your gay BFFs to do, then? Suck it up and marry someone they can’t romantically love? Or just shut up and be content with their status as second-class citizens? Be OK with the fact that they won’t ever have access to partner medical benefits, hospital visitation, even joint guardianship of their kids?
If there are any polyamorists reading this, please chime in. I would love to get your take on this issue (and I hope I haven’t offended you in my zeal to take away the bigots’ slippery slope argument).
Carrie Prejean filed a lawsuit on Monday alleging religious descrimination was involved in her unceremonious booting from the Miss California throne back in June. Whether or not the suit has legal ground to stand on is neither here nor there. The question I find more relevant and intriguing is: where does one draw the line between expressing beliefs and actionable discrimination?
Prejean is an evangelical Christian, so it’s no surprise that she parrots the standard talking points about “defending marriage.” Of course she has the right to that belief. But is she disqualified from the Discrimination Olympics just because she justifies her bigotry with religion? Does that make her viewpoints, for lack of a better word, sacrosanct?
Right-wingers have been gleefully up-in-arms about Prejean’s firing for months, citing rampant “religiphobia” as the culprit. “Religiphobes” (in fact, the term for one with an irrational fear of religion is “theophobe”), in their abject terror of all things Judeo-Christian, persecute righteous believers by firing them from beauty pageants. Or something. Because obviously no one who believes in a higher power could find Prejean’s fame-grasping ways unsavory.
So, according to the religious right, one kind of discrimination is fine and godly and should be protected by law. The other kind is vicious persecution. Conservatives are allowed to discriminate against gays, but by golly, no one better discriminate against THEM. It’s their RELIGION, for pete’s sake.
Carrie Prejean chooses to be an evangelical Christian. Gay people have no such choice in their sexuality. Which group has more reason to cry discrimination?
