During the 2008 Presidential elections, the Obama campaign rightly identified queer people and their straight allies as a crucial liberal base to be pandered to. Upon taking office, however, the Obama Administration seems much more interested in expending a lot of effort claiming that it has policies that expand and entrench GLBT rights while not doing much in particular. Sure, the James Byrd/Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act was a great thing, and Obama took the opportunity of signing the bill to compare himself to another leader with dubious human rights claims, President Johnson. (However, the bill includes gender expression as a category of protection, an advancement that is hugely important for the transgender community, and one that the gay community is too often satisfied to leave out of other anti-discrimination legislation.) The HIV travel ban, which prevented HIV-positive foreigners from visiting the United States, has been finally lifted.

Yet these are merely tokens compared to what the Obama Administration could really do for queer rights, if they were actually an interest. Not even a priority – merely a sideline. Dan Savage, for instance, suggests that the president should order Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to not be enforced, an action that would free up important personnel and time from ridiculous investigations into gay soldiers’ personal lives. This has something that the President promised but has not gotten around to it. Lt. Dan Choi’s recent visit to University of Puget Sound has magnified that particular issue in local news, but there is a huge list of things the President could do – and isn’t. This inaction has not played well in the gay community, and the administration has been on the defensive, mostly to secure funding for Democrats from its liberal base. The gay community has become the fundamentalist Christians of the left: we get pandered to, but the deliverables are scanty.

Therefore, in order to promote the advancement of legal rights for the GLBT community, I am writing this open letter to Malia Obama.

To:

Malia Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20006

RE: Your Future Sexual Orientation*

Dear Ms. Obama,

At eleven years old, you will soon begin to experience certain…changes. Aside from growing hair in weird places, you will soon have uncontrollable and frequent sexual thoughts and fantasies. As you begin to develop an adult understanding of your sexuality, I urge you to consider going gay.

Women have a lot to offer as sexual partners. Aside from the capacity for multiple orgasms, the huge and interesting variability in tastes between women, and our generally more attractive bodies (though men are okay, I guess), women have better communication skills and are more likely to take care of you if you become sick. Thus women offer great advantages for short- and long-term relationships.

As you explore your sexuality, I urge you to share your thoughts on the desirability of women with your parents, particularly your father, the President. One advantage that men can offer you in all states is spousal rights – insurance coverage, equal custody of children, medical decision-making, burial rights, inheritance rights, financial rights and protections, and so forth. You can change this. One hint that one or both of his daughters have the hots for ladies and your father President Obama will suddenly take a huge interest in the status of lesbians and other sexual minorities in this fine nation. I am sure that your parents have instilled in you the values of equality and justice for all, but there is nothing like the possibility of injustice to a family member to motivate those in power to rethink the status quo. This is the benefit and purpose of coming out: to change the hearts and minds of those that love you.

But, Ms. Obama, you only have a short window in which to do this: before Inauguration Day 2013, on the off-chance that your father does not get re-elected. Many people choose to come out in college, but you would be joining a new wave of young people exploring and discussing their minority sexual preference with their parents and communities. Even, after a short period of contemplation, you conclude that men rather than women tingle your clitoris, the good you could do for the queer community may be substantial. In one day, you could accomplish what your father would not do for ten months. Think about it: your adolescent bi-curiosity could produce the same number of rights for American queers as every gay rights activist since Stonewall. Isn’t that a fine goal for any right-thinking American daughter of the President?

Sincerely,

Glynnis Kirchmeier

Queer Citizen

*Note: I am not, other than posting this on the internet, actually sending this to Malia Obama in any way. Because she is a child.

Last Wednesday night I attended the community ballot issues discussion at the downtown Tacoma Public Library. It was an informative session. Initiative Measure 1033 (everybody now: when I say, “Tim Eyman,” you say, “Taxes booga booga!”) didn’t seem to receive too much support. No one supporting it was available (read: they didn’t have enough manpower) to speak on the panel, and attending voters were more concerned with asking clarification questions about it than debating its merits. The Pierce County Charter Amendments got lopsided discussion toward Charter 3, which would eliminate instant runoff voting and restore the two-party primary system. Even Alex Hays, providing the supporting argument for Charters 1 and 2, spent the balance of his time arguing for Charter 3. (As a side note, after the event I went up to speak to Mr. Hays about whether moving elections to odd-numbered years would cost more money. He’s of the opinion it would not. While we discussed this, another voter came up and asked what we were talking about. Mr. Hays turned to him and said, “Oh, we’re talking about how IRV is a waste of money.” I exclaimed, “What? That’s not what we were talking about at all!” I’m not sure why he thought I wouldn’t notice him lying.) But only the most dedicated of the audience stuck around for the Pierce County Charter Amendment discussion. Clearly the issue of the night was Referendum 71.

Note: I personally support Ref. 71

Laurie Jinkins provided admirable arguments to approved Ref. 71. However, she had clearly been instructed not to say that domestic partnerships are in any way equivalent to marriage, nor will they lead to marriage, nor that approving Ref. 71 will ever, on its own momentum, lead to marriage. A voter asked (I paraphrase, but she was pretty explicit), “If I give you my vote on this, will you then use that to legalize same-sex marriage?” Ms. Jinkins hemmed and hawed at this, varying between “Who, me personally? I will support all families!” and “I can’t speak for the future, but this law provides important benefits to all families now!” She used “families” a lot. This whole strategy came off as extremely weasily, and is one of the most immature and tiring aspects of politics. Her opponent, Mr. Steven O’Ban, was absolutely correct when he pointed out that people who support gay rights see this as just one more step to full legal equality – that is, probably, eventually using the term “marriage.” By attempting to sidestep what is actually true with emotional buzzwords, Ms. Jinkins lost some of her authority to at least one of her supporters (me). What is the point of denying what is obvious to everyone, true, and not merely a disingenuous slippery slope argument from the opposition? It’s not like anyone is going to be tricked by this strategy. “Oh, she didn’t answer the question, so this must exclusively be about families!”

Mr. O’Ban’s arguments against approving Ref. 71 pretty much rested on fear of the government and backwards theories on gender in the family. We all know it: if this passes, it’s government intervention in homes! (As though anyone would somehow be compelled to change their sexual or romantic feelings.) It’s government sanction of nontraditional relationships! (So? And that’s if you agree that recognition equals sanction, which I do not.) If there’s not one dude and one lady with rings running the child-raising show, the children will suffer! (Actually, poverty is the primary cause of all children’s suffering, due to its features of instability, lack of essentials, discrimination, lack of social safety networks, etc. Having same-sex parents raise a kid won’t automatically instill the kid with deviant gender ideas, and even if it does, again I ask, “So?” It’s only a problem if you somehow think morality is related to “proper” gender roles, and that people without these are somehow morally inferior. This is an arrogant, self-centered, righteous value judgment.)

Mr. O’Ban also seemed to think the “purpose” of marriage was to produce kids. Well, it was, but it’s been a state-sanctioned expression of mutual love and support for a few decades now. Join the modern era, sir. At least don’t be a hypocrite about it; not that I know anything about the man, but I speculate, based on my understanding of American culture, that his own marriage is based first and foremost on love and mutual respect, not baby-makin’.

Speaking of speculation, one voter got up and ranted (in part) about the dire danger bisexuals posed to children. Oh Noes! European bisexuals, apparently, are arguing for an extension of marriage to include one bisexual plus one man plus one woman. There’s that slippery slope again – except this time, it’s false. The vast majority of people prefer monogamous relationships and are uneasy with the idea of extending marriage to more than two people. Even bisexuals. Even Europeans. Well, the gist of this fellow’s argument appeared to be the assumption that bisexuals would decay the moral fiber of children and make the government do this also. Mr. O’Ban picked up this train of thought, and while I don’t remember his exact statements, they were something along the same lines.

I went up to the microphone to ask Mr. O’Ban a question on why same-sex marriage is a big deal (answer above). But first, I delivered the following statement: “Let me clear up the record on bisexuals. My name is Glynnis Kirchmeier. I am a bisexual woman, and let me say that bisexuality is no barrier to monogamy.” I should know.

Bisexuals are the new homosexuals. Homosexuals, bigots argued originally, are wild creatures of lust whose very nature chafes against the restrictions of monogamy. Legions of dedicated, loving, monogamous same-sex partners (including Ms. Jinkins) have apparently proved that wrong, or at least made the argument too awkward and upsetting to debate. (“Oh, so I’ve been cheating on my same-sex partner for thirty years? News to me!”) However, bisexuals are still rhetorically open to the fears about rampant, uncontrollable sexuality the bigoted religions have. The argument proceeds from the assumption that bisexuality means that a person may only be fulfilled sexually by having partners of both sexes. It assumes, like the argument against homosexuality, that bisexuality is a conscious choice rather than inherent wiring, and that therefore bisexuals are people who choose not to control licentious sexual behavior. They’ll fuck anything, and since pleasurable sex and marriage have nothing to do with each other (in the sex-phobic religious worldview), it is impossible to approve of their relationships in marriage. However, there’s nothing about bisexuality – real, actual bisexuality, the way that real people feel it and live it – that assumes sexual fulfillment can only happen with multiply gendered partners. In reality, most bisexuals, whether they are with women or men, prefer monogamy. Bisexuality isn’t a deficiency, a symptom to be treated with promiscuous sex, but rather a capacity to be aroused by and love more kinds of people. To say that bisexuals cannot be fulfilled by one partner is to imply that heterosexuals and homosexuals are therefore always satisfied by their partners. This is not true; the willingness of considerate partners to satisfy and indulge fantasies is what creates satisfaction. Plus, there’s always porn and masturbation. The bigots assume that they know more about the behaviors and desires of these bisexual boogeymen than the real people know about themselves.

*The opinions expressed here are of the author only. The Melon does not support or endorse any candidates, charter amendment, referendum, or political initiative.

Image courtesy of http://www.voteyes71.com/.

Last week, in my home state of Iowa, the Iowa State Supreme Court ruled that the state could not place marriage restrictions on same-sex couples, echoing centuries of history of court enforced equality in the state:  slaves, Jim Crow laws, and women practicing as lawyers. Vermont’s Congress recently overruled the Governor and said same sex marriage.

A State Senator from Iowa put it best when he described something his daughter told him about some older males she heard discussing gay marriage:  ”You don’t matter anymore. We’ve all already decided.” And that’s more true than anyone who opposes gay marriage, that true about those who oppose abortion rights, that true about those want to restrict the usage of stem cells. You don’t matter anymore. Those of my generation, we’ve gone elsewhere. These are not the wars we will fight. We’re beyond that. We’re already on to the next great culture war:  The War on Drugs.

When someone asks me about gay marriage, my opinion is really easy:  marriage is a church institution and civil unions should be a state/federal institution. But no matter what we have, equality should be extended to any two consenting adults. That’s the most important. But I like to relate a story about my baseball team. I play with a  group of guys and we’re all about 25-35 years old. We’re mostly athletically fit, but its a pretty wide spread culturally, we have about three guys that graduated from college about four guys who spent some time in college, and about two guys who didn’t make it through high school. We have about five immigrants from Latin America playing with us. They come from nice neighborhoods of Tacoma, they come from Olympia, and they come from the crazy ass parts of Tacoma where I won’t go at night. We have guys who live in high rises in Bellevue and guys who have spent multiple years under bridges.

We had a barbecue last year and our coach, who’s a construction foreman, originally from Eastern Washington said “everyone bring your wives, girlfriends, or boyfriends, its all cool,” and it was a little joke, because obviously everyone on the team was male. I believe everyone on the team is straight, though I don’t know for sure. But it wasn’t a joke at homosexuality, it was a joke the thought of people being homophobic. The joke is post-ironic; we joke about being gay not because being gay is cool, but because homophobia is uncool. But more than uncool, its just ridiculous.*

*Dave Chapelle had skit a couple years ago about a blind, black white-supremacist. Its inherently funny because it is so ridiculous. That’s what my culture thinks of these people. Clayton Bigsby is a satirical character who doesn’t represent what most racists are like. To our generation, these bigots who want to restrict equal rights are inherently caricatures. And yet, they are real people. That is why to us they are so ridiculous.

This is not bunch of people who went to liberal arts colleges, cocooned for years away from society and creating a fabulous world in their mines of communism and atheist taking over the world (and yes, many conservatives do believe that’s the purpose of liberal arts colleges). These are construction workers, hydroelectric engineers, warehouse forklift drivers, and bartenders. These are blue collar as blue collars gets. This team represents what the conservatives need to target if they are to re-brand themselves: and this team doesn’t give a shit about any of the opinions the conservatives hold so dear.

That’s why over the next 10 years, across the country gay marriage will become more and more common. Because the people who will be voting, the people who make the decisions and give the money and the people who will be running for state reps and state senators, they have already decided that the culture warriors don’t matter.

Nate Silver already has a very interesting statistical regression (seriously, you expected him to throw up something different) in which he calculates when each state will have the right population makeup to vote to legalize gay marriage. Within 12 years gay marriage should be legal everywhere. I hope he’s correct.

But, sadly as I like to think, its not the end of the culture wars. There is a new front opening in the culture wars, and I don’t think any of the politicians really understand it yet: the War on Drugs. We got a hint of that in Obama’s press conference in which he was asked about legalizing marijuana. He basically shrugged off the question with a snicker, as did most of the reporters in the room. Sadly, they do not realize how many adults who otherwise live normal lives regularly use marijuana. These are not pot heads who can’t hold down a job at McDonald’s. They are your bus driver, the coach of your kid’s little league team, your boss. This is the next culture war. Drugs is where we go from here, because much of the younger generations hasn’t made its mind of up on the legalization of drugs so they will still fall into the varying camps. But drugs will take over from Gay Marriage, Guns, Abortion, and Stem Cells, and that is a very very good thing.

So a couple of people I know have criticized Obama for supporting gay civil unions but not gay marriage. Here’s the thing about this gay marriage debate that I think most people are missing. Marriage is a religious institution (not a purely religious institution, but more on that later), which has two significant consequences. First, it legitimizes all those passages from scripture people keep quoting.  I’m not saying I agree with this, I’m just saying given the circumstances, a religious institution is freely allowed to use their scripture as their authority. Second, because marriage is a religious institution and we have a (alleged) separation of church and state, the federal government should not have any say in the matter.

If you doubt that marriage is a religious institution just take a look at who officiates the vast majority of marriages: priests, rabbis, Grand Wizards or whatever the Scientologists call their figures of religious authority. (edit: my friend is telling me that Grand Wizards are from the KKK, I would change it but I think it’s a legitimately humorous mistake. Additionally, I apparently talk out loud a lot when I type, so my apologies to those who were near me when I wrote that ZA WARUDO article, which despite it’s ridiculous name is actually a very serious and lengthy article that NONE OF YOU HAVE COMMENTED ON. Dicks.).

As I said earlier, marriage is not a purely religious institution, there are special privileges and benefits conferred upon a married couple by the federal government, such as hospital visitation rights and tax breaks. This all happens upon conferral of a federal marriage license, and can actually happen independent of any religious officials (a friend of mine received a civil marriage officiated by a Justice of the Peace). Since there is an aspect of marriage that is from the government, we have a variety of anti-discrimination laws that say you cannot discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. Because of all this, it is our explicit duty to provide equal rights to all people, which includes offering gay civil marriages, and a difference in nomenclature (i.e. gay civil unions instead of gay marriage) is understandable because it serves to show the absence of church involvement. That being said, I think the church should get with the times and just chill the fuck out (read: offer gay marriage you close-minded jackasses).

There is an additional scientific development that makes it very interesting that gay marriage is not allowed. We live in a somewhat gender-ambiguous society, and I mean that in the sense that we have sex change operations available and transgendered persons in our country. With the existence of these things we run into a great many philosophical questions that make the absence of gay marriage rights seem kind of ridiculous. I defy any religious person to answer these conundrums, and I’m being completely serious, I will be waiting.

First conundrum, a man and woman get married, this happens very frequently. Now, after a few years of marriage, one of them decides they want a sex change operation and their partner consents, this happens less frequently. After the operation you will have either two men married, or two women married. Should the marriage be annulled? Of course not, it was legal before, they’re both still the same people, if you want to say ‘well the one who changed is still genetically of the opposite gender,’ then what about in the reverse direction? By your logic there, a man who has a sex change operation and became a woman should be allowed to marry a woman, even though genitally speaking they are the same gender. There’s also male pseudo-hermaphrodism, where things go haywire during gestation and a male is produced who looks like a girl, has boobs like a girl, has a vagina like a girl, and internally instead of a womb and ovaries like a girl, has un-descended testicles like a pre-pubescent boy. The only way in which you can avoid this person’s marriage appearing to be some sort of gay marriage, is to not let them marry anyone in the first place (there is no female pseudo-hermaphrodism) which I think we can all agree is wildly unfair.

Second conundrum, what about a man with a vagina or a woman with a penis. If a man with a vagina marries a woman with a vagina, is that gay marriage or not? If you say it is gay marriage (and not allowed) going by genitals on this issue, then you’re saying a man with a vagina can’t marry woman with a vagina, but then it should follow that a man with a vagina can marry a man a penis, and you’ve just endorsed gay marriage. If you go by genetics on this issue, then a woman with a vagina should be able to marry a male pseudo-hermaphrodite because genetically they’re man and woman even though genitally they’re vagina and vagina. An additional problem with defining marriage by genetics is that it would then, in theory, exclude anyone with Down’s Syndrome, Patau Syndrome, Edward’s Syndrome, or any number of additional chromosomal disorder (having either one extra or one fewer chromosome than normal) from marrying anyone who does not have the same chromosomal disorder. And if you say marriage should only be between a genetic male with a penis and a genetic female with a vagina, you are taking away the right to marry from a number of people naturally do not fit the mold you’re used to (and in an appeal to the religious opposition, if God didn’t want gay marriage to exist, why would we have male psuedo-hermaphrodism and intergendered?).

As you can see this can quickly become an absurdly complex law to enforce, and it becomes basically impossible to not be unfairly discriminating against at least one group of people. If you want to ban gay marriage, you’ve first got to define it rigorously or else (as I’ve conundrummed above) there will be a very large number of unfairly… I’m going to say “disenfranchised” even though I’m aware it is in no way the correct word. The correct word is to disenfranchised as marriage is to voting. Yeah, didn’t think you’d have to solve any more analogies after you took the SAT, did you?

And if your response is to say they are not human because they do not follow God’s intelligent design, I will have one of two responses. If you’re a guy, I’m going to punch you in the balls as hard as I possibly can so you can really experience just how intelligent that design was. If you’re a girl I’m going to point out to you that when you were a baby in diapers your feces regularly entered your vagina, which poses a significant health risk as well as being really, really gross.

In light of all this (well not so much this, I’m pretty sure President Obama doesn’t read my writings, although I really hope he does), our current President picked out a stance on this issue that provides as much equal rights as possible without overstepping the authority of the federal government. So lay off.

image credit http://flickr.com/photos/doxiehaus/

November 26th, 2010 – A recent study by the Rand Corporation details the dramatic extent to which American lives have been ruined since lawmakers passed a bill forcing the country to end its decades of marriage discrimination.

San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom, the main proponent of this equal rights bill, now regrets his decision. “I thought that I was doing progressive work for minorities,” said Newsom, “But I had no idea how much shit would hit the fan.”

Since the bill’s passing, or ‘Gay-Day’ as some have come to call it, the housing market has crashed causing millions lose their homes, the economy has plummeted, gas prices have risen to over $8 a gallon, thousands of confused adopted-children have taken to the streets after parenting failures by gay couples, and, of course, a chasm spitting the scorching fires of hell has opened up in central New York.

Richard Kush was recently married in Las Vegas after a night of drunken debauchery, coke, and gambling.  “My marriage was significantly less meaningful knowing anybody could get one,” says Mr. Kush, who was promptly divorced once he sobered, “Sure, I regret my decision to marry the prostitute, but without the exclusivity to do so, I’d have nothing to give relevance to my life−and that’s the American way.”

But it hasn’t been just families and lawmakers whose lives have been destroyed by gay marriage−the food industry has also suffered a serious blow.

“Well, we all don’t know what to do anymore,” says Iowa farmer Tad Thompson, “I can’t buy seeds because the seed guy is marrying his sheep, I can’t plow the land because the tractor guy is marrying his sheep. I mean, I pretty much have to marry my sheep now that gays are wedding.”

Even in suburbia, Gay-Day has taken its toll. Carol Vicky, a mother of three, says that gay marriage has seriously affected the way she raises her children.  “Every morning I have to explain to my children why two men are getting married,” says Carol, “They say they understand, but how could anyone comprehend such insanity? It’s like saying that global warming is human-made.”

‘Damage control’ has been the talk all over Washington as President Barack Obama prepares to section off parts of the country to the gays. “In hopes to quell the hurt Americans are feeling, we’ll be cutting off parts of major cities and referring to them as the ‘gay parts’ of town,” says Obama, “These gay reservations will be required to display rainbow flags and offer gay-specific services like bars and nightclubs. I feel like this is a necessary step to begin the healing process.”

As Americans continue to suffer, people are starting to wonder if equality was really worth the pain it has caused. Elton John could not be reached for comment.

Whether you’re a resident of California or not, there’s a good chance you’ve heard of Proposition 8. It’s an initiative that the ballot description tells us would “change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.” It would add a new section to Article I of the constitution that would read “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” I’m writing this note because so much of the information put out by the “Yes on 8″ campaign is a pile of lies. Not the kind of lies politicians might use – omission of facts, shades of gray, or slight exaggerations – but flat untruths easily undone but Googling California law. I’m writing because the campaigns for and against Proposition 8 are tied in the polls. The outcome isn’t certain, the future isn’t set in stone, and the effects on November 5th to the California constitution, civil laws, and the rights of couples in the state can still be influenced.

Read More >>

It has always been impossible to celebrate the anniversary of American independence without taking a step back to examine just how violently our founding ideals have clashed with the realities of our nation’s historical experience. For many Americans, the past has been a constant obstacle they have struggled hard to overcome. Many are still struggling to this day.

Read More >>