Your Little Secret

From Melissa Ethridge's Your Little Secret:

I could, I won't, I can't, I don't,
You make it hard, talk down my guard,
My senses soaked, my ego's choked,
I will not lie, I will not lie.

Of course, Melissa's talking about cheating on your partner with another person. But when I heard myself screaming those words at my partner, my heart, my lover, my best friend last night as I cried so hard I couldn't see her, I knew we had a problem. Put that on the back burner.

Get a really big stew pot. This is big and bad. Heck, there's so many things wrong with what I have just said. My partner is trans. It should read "he" and increasingly does. Cameron's living this wretchedly double life caught between who he is and what he is, facing dysmorphia every time he looks in the mirror. But we were fighting about his parents, who see him by his very feminine first name. And who see me as the best friend because, on top of everything else he's not out to his parents.

Keep stirring. I'm invited to every wedding, every funeral, every family reunion. I receive the same gifts as Cameron every Christmas and birthday except I get the uber-fem version. Yes, that's a technical term. But as Cam pointed out, there's the side of the family that I have never met. Her dad's side of the family would not welcome me. I don't receive the invitations. And when her dad passes away, I would be seated not up front beside my partner, but somewhere alone in the back.

(Side note, when my oldest son got married, he broke his four year silence to invite me to the wedding. We were seated on the bride's side of the family behind her parents. The minister didn't know who I was and was shocked to learn I was the birth mother. Indeed, there was a lovely point of the ceremony where the mothers went up together and lit candles to join the two families. It was his step-mother lighting that candle. I wanted to crawl under the pew. Some wounds never heal. We weren't included in the wedding pictures. We finally got one, by request, at the reception, in a side hall. They didn't purchase it and I don't have a copy.)

Last summer at the family reunion Cam's cousin asked how long we had been together with her father standing just out of hearing range. He was just trying to be polite and strike up a conversation with the much older dyke because he's a nice person, likes us, and wanted me to feel welcome. Had her father heard, we'd have been out of the closet. Put the stew pot on the back burner. It may require more ingredients. I don't know yet.

Grab a sauce pan. Let's thicken this mess up a little. Looks like we're having stew. In the sauce pan goes the agreement we would not address our couplehood with her parents because they are in their 80's, her dad is insanely bigoted, and she fears rocking the boat. Cam and her/his father are close. They talk every night at 8 when the dog gets walked and I'm tucked into bed listening to my favorite blogtalk radio program before falling asleep for the night. We've agreed a hundred times in a thousand different ways it doesn't matter. So why does it matter now? Keep stirring and move to a low temperature. Let it thicken awhile.

Grab another pot and let's get ready to stir.

Facebook. That lovely social media. Mom got a touchpad, which Cam's brother-in-law is setting up for her. He set up her facebook, unfriended us on his own facebook so mom can't get to our walls, and I immediately show up as a friend suggestion. Mom and I still have other people in common.

When I show up as a friend suggestion, there's the picture of Cam and me taken as a couple taken for the church directory a couple of years ago. The same picture that hangs on the wall of the brother-in-law's house when he made himself a copy from mom and dad's original. Complicated much?

Somehow I think it looks different on facebook. Especially when I say I'm "married". Especially with my feminist/politically active/GLBT posts all over the place. Especially with my right to marry statements, pictures of flowers from my partner, etc. And not only do I stand to out Cameron as my "gay" partner, but I also stand to out him as "trans". This sucks. Yeah, I know I can block mom. But what reason, authentic and true to myself, can I give? She wants facebook so she can be closer to family. And I am family. Not sure of my role, but I'm family.

So yes, I'm madly changing security settings, etc. And I threatened to change our picture today. But for me the issue is even more complicated. It's ethical. It's identity. It's about who I am. I don't want to change the picture. I moved to SC so I would not have to hide. I've already lost my oldest son to the excuse that I'm gay and he doesn't approve. He's about to have my third grandchild. Yet another grandchild to grow up without me. I paid my fricking dues to be authentic. I pay everyday when I think about Beauty and see how much she looks like me at that age. I see those pictures on Facebook because my daughter-in-law allows it. My son has me blocked.

Let's add some more ingredients to a skillet and put this on the front burner. When I outed myself ten years ago, a very wise woman said to me, "Claiming to be lesbian is not about sexuality or orientation. It is a political statement. Think about what it means to you. And live it." I did.

For me it's a political statement. I "look" very "straight" until seen out in public with my "gay accessory." If I am to challenge and participate in change then it is my job to live authentically, to hold hands in public when appropriate, to talk about my partner the same way I would a husband, to honor our relationship. At work Cam's paintings hang on my wall and talk very openly about him as an artist. I must have two conversations a week with different people about being gay, trans, other.

Of course, if Cam's straight and male, we aren't a gay couple at all. Let that twist my identity awhile...and Goddess know what his parents would say to that. It is neat solution to being gay, isn't it? And that also seems to fall short of the truth.

And if we are going to be political, let me rant a moment. My partner can barely walk, needs surgery, and is in school so he can pull his financial weight in this relationship. But for the last eight years it's been me to hold a steady job and have money for food, gas, and trailer payment. I used to be able to claim him as a dependent. Until the IRS changed the tax law this year and I can't claim anyone older than me unless they draw disability. So I got $2000 less back on my refund this year. Two cannot live as cheaply as one. That was the money that was supposed to repair the sagging, soft floor in the bathroom. Maybe put cheap flooring in the kitchen. We've lived on subfloors for the last five years. They are not meant to be swept and mopped, but what cha' gonna do? Of course, I live in a state that will NEVER allow gay marriage.

Stir in the fact that when Cameron got the first hip replacement it was with my insurance, my sleeping at the hospital and my care. "Loophole in the policy" my ass. Anyone with two brain cells knows the only "loophole" for insurance is partner's benefits. Which I lost when the company laid us off and closed the doors.

I reread this mess and I'm not even sure what the point is. I'm angry, I'm hurt, I'm frustrated. I don't want to be the cause of Cam loosing his parents. I don't want him to choose. I don't think a choice should be necessary. My partner is agony, and I'm truthfully not a lot of help. But this bitter recipe aside, I love him. He is my heart. And I will be here no matter what. Nevertheless, I just want to grab all those pots and throw it out. It is bitter recipe and has no good answer.

On Faith: Washington Post's Question on Religion

“As voted by the Religion Newswriters Association’s members, among the year’s most consequential religion newsmakers were Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Pope Benedict XVI, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, and the U.S. bishops. How would you have ranked them? Has their influence been harmful or constructive? What issue or person do you expect to have the biggest impact in the year to come?”

First the positive...I like the choice of Feisal Abdul Rauf. He condemned the attacks of 9/11 which inspired my own son's enlistment and current service in the Marines. He has worked hard to create peace and understanding between the Muslim world and the West. I doubt many Westerners, however, even know who he is. Moreover, I admire a man who speaks the truth. It's hard for an American to hear that we might be responsible for the some of the unrest in the world, "because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA." Tough to own responsibility. But look at our role in Iraq or Afghanistan which are obviously more politically motivated than humanitarian and I see his point.

Now my objections...

Are you kidding me??? We are naming conservative, hostile people as leaders in the faith community? What happened to the separation of church and state in this country anyway? Seems to me that GLBT issues and paganism are prime examples of other people's religious views legislating morality. Indeed, many of our founding fathers were actually what's now known as Unitarian Universalist. How many of these people have attended their Sunday morning services? Religion doesn't even necessarily appear to be a part of their service. Communication, discussion and respect is.

Pope Benedict XVI might do a lot of things right. But until we stop legislating morality and denying the world the choice and education to use birth control, people will continue to die of things like AIDS. Until the Pope and the Catholic Church promote birth control, I cannot see them as a positive influence. At the heart of the issue, for this feminist witch, is the need for women to have control over their own bodies. Otherwise, patriarchy controls them. And don't even get me started on the number of people in other countries we have harmed because we teach abstinence rather than common sense. Certainly handing out condoms may not suit many fundamentalists, but the cost to humanity needs to be evaluated.

Now, we all understand that the Pope has made insensitive and critical comments about Paganism and indigenous faiths...but Glenn Beck believes Pagans don't deserve the same protection under the Constitution as Christians. I have to wonder what he would say about someone like myself who walks a duel path of paganism/Christianity. I get half my rights? Beck incites the world rather than bringing it insight. Having looked over his books and listened to him on cable, his negativistic views are over the top.

Sarah Palin scares the bejesus out of me. She has a knack for surrounding herself with folks who know how to make her look good. Now she is going to have a TV reality show. What a lovely way to get oneself elected to office. Now everyone will feel as if they "know" her and trust her because they saw it on TV. Most of those viewers won't be troubled to look beneath the story to the core; to question, to investigate. Instead, entertainment will become fact. And yes, this means of marketing would scare the bejesus out of me regardless of who was being portrayed in a "reality" show and wants to run for office.

Now my joy...

U.S. Bishops: well, if that includes Gene Robinson, the first openly gay, non-celibate priest to be ordained a bishop in a major Christian denomination, I'm all about it. He has made it possible for Cameron and I to hold our heads up and attend church. He has made it possible for our priests to support us. While it may well cause a split in the Episcopalian Church, his courage has inspired me. And I'm saddened he has decided to retire in 2013 because of the strain on him and his family due to the worldwide backlash he has faced. Episcopalians again showed their support for same-sex relationships last year by authorizing bishops to bless same-sex unions and by consecrating a lesbian, Assistant Bishop Mary Glasspool of Los Angeles. Unfortunately, since the SC dioces does not support homosexual unions, my own relationship with Cameron cannot be blessed in our own dioces.

Maine voters reject gay-marriage law

I grieve. I don't even have words for how deeply this wounds the soul. Obviously, in no way does legal saction to marry my wife destroy another's marital rights. NOTHING changes for heterosexual people. And yet I'm such a threat, every state sees fit to deny my right to marry. The trick is in the advertising. By voting to uphold the institution of marriage, rather than voting for homosexual people to marry, then the advertising implies the voter is simply upholding the institution of marriage, rather than voting to deny  my rights. I've written about this little problem previously. Click on the label "Brian Brown" following the article.


By GLENN ADAMS and DAVID CRARY, Associated Press Writers Glenn Adams And David Crary, Associated Press Writers – 12 mins ago

PORTLAND, Maine – Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine — known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate — and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.

With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the votes.

"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Gay-marriage supporters held out hope that the tide would shift before conceding defeat at 2:40 a.m. in a statement that insisted they weren't going away.

"We're in this for the long haul. For next week, and next month, and next year — until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for," said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign.

At issue was a law passed by the Maine Legislature last spring that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it in a referendum.

The outcome Tuesday marked the first time voters had rejected a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians put a stop to same-sex marriage a year ago, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.

Five other states have legalized gay marriage — starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

The defeat left some gay-marriage supporters bitter.

"Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been hoping for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's a personal thing."

The contest had been viewed by both sides as certain to have national repercussions. Gay-marriage foes desperately wanted to keep their winning streak alive, while gay-rights activists sought to blunt the argument that gay marriage was being foisted on the country by courts and lawmakers over the will of the people.

Had Maine's law been upheld, the result would probably have energized efforts to get another vote on gay marriage in California, and given a boost to gay-marriage bills in New York and New Jersey.

Earlier Tuesday, before vote-counting began, gay-marriage foe Chuck Schott of Portland warned that Maine "will have its place in infamy" if the gay-rights side won.

Another Portland resident, Sarah Holman said she was "very torn" but decided — despite her conservative upbringing — to vote in favor of letting gays marry.

"They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love," said Holman, 26.

In addition to reaching out to young people who flocked to the polls for President Barack Obama a year ago, gay-marriage defenders tried to appeal to Maine voters' pronounced independent streak and live-and-let-live attitude.

The other side based many of its campaign ads on claims — disputed by state officials — that the new law would mean "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools.

Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state voted on whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. With half the precincts reporting, that race was too close to call.

In Kalamazoo, Mich., voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Resignation from Human Race

Some days I want to resign from the human race. This feeling is not provoked by having the flu for two weeks (the reason for the sparse postings from this rather prolific gay witch), but by my outrage at this homophobic culture. Here's an example:

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida today rejected Lambda Legal’s lawsuit filed against Jackson Memorial Hospital on behalf of Janice Langbehn, the Estate of Lisa Pond and their three adopted children who were kept apart by hospital staff for eight hours as Lisa slipped into a coma and died.

But it's not just our women and children who cope with discrimination. Here's one soldier's story:

The rate of suicide by gays and lesbians is higher than that of the general population. Military gay personnel are still subject to those same problems as the rest of the homosexual population, but gays and lesbians have fewer opportunities to deal with these problems. While overseas or home, “don’t ask don’t tell” greatly harms the ability of a soldier to get the care he needs.

I can't even phrase my outrage at such discrimination coherently.

Sinead's Hand

Why do the majority have the right to determine the rights of the minority?



Six years. How much longer do I have to wait to get married?

Oposing Gay Marriage

I really fail to comprehend why people want to make a living at denying a minority their rights. Even more so am I confused by the obvious lack of separation of church in state in our country. It is no one's business who I choose to make my partner. Didn't we fight a war for that privilege? So why do we legislate morality?

Indeed, a recent column in the local paper stated that adultery was illegal and adequate grounds to rid the state of South Carolina of its current governor. While I have objected to Governor Sanford for years, I don't believe that this love life is my business. His location when he should be serving my state is my business. How he spends my tax dollar is my business. Where he puts his dick is not my business.

I look at gay rights the same way. I have a right to choose my partner. The gender on her driver's licence does not determine my ability to be a good citizen, pay my taxes, or support my local church. So when I encounter idiots, like the senator who recently suggest Matthew Shepherd's death is a hoax, I am horrified. I am even more horrified at the skillful rhetoric of redefining marriage as between a man and woman, which sidesteps the who "ban gay marriage" argument. The leader of this rhetoric, Brian Brown, led the The National Organization for Marriage in persuading California voters to ban same-sex marriage through Proposition 8.

Bigotry's crusader seems intent upon making a name for himself. I can't help wondering what his designated war will actually prove to be a stepping stone into. Certainly, Brown has his sights set on something much larger than simply being a leader of bigots. Pay attention to this man's name. He's got big plans. And he is very successful at what he does: "“Whenever we’ve been able to have a direct vote on the issue, we’ve won — in 30 out of 30 states."

Brown claims that his stance has nothing to do with anti-gay, but he is out to protect same sex marriage. He believes in standing up for "the common sense definition of marriage". He claims there are "real consequences of same sex marriage." Below is the latest of outrageous articles that got my ire up:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Opposing Gay Unions With Sanity & a Smile
NOM Head Moves His Cause to D.C.

By Monica Hesse
Washington Post Staff Writer

The nightmares of gay marriage supporters are the Pat Robertsons of the world. The James Dobsons, the John Hagees -- the people who specialize in whipping crowds into frothy frenzies, who say things like "Katrina was caused by the gays." The gay marriage supporters have not met Brian Brown. They should. He might be more worth knowing about.

Brown is the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, the preeminent organization dedicated to preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage. For two years, Brown has been traveling across the country. He moved his wife and six kids to California, where NOM was instrumental in passing Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as an institution only between a man and a woman. Before that, Connecticut, where his cause was hurt when the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

It was NOM that Miss USA runner-up Carrie Prejean went to shortly after her infamous "opposite marriage" pageant answer. "Gathering Storm," the much-YouTubed announcement in which actors discussed how gay marriage would negatively affect their freedom of religion? That was NOM. Now NOM is moving its national headquarters to Washington.

The thing about the John Hagees and the Pat Robertsons is that some people consider them "fringe." And when they speechify, the people they're most persuasive with are the ones who already believe them. But this country is not made up of people in the far wings, right or left. This country is made up of a movable middle, reasonable people looking for reasonable arguments to assure them that their feelings have a rational basis.

Brian Brown speaks to these people. He has a master's degree from Oxford, and completed course work for a doctorate in history from UCLA. He shoulders the accusations of bigotry; it's horrible when people say that your life's mission is actually just prejudice. He tries to help people see that opposing gay marriage does not make them bigots, that the argument should have nothing to do with hate or fear, and everything to do with history and tradition.

The reason Brian Brown is so effective is that he is pleasantly, ruthlessly sane.

* * *
"The Human Rights Campaign is massive," Brown says, referring to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy group. Brown sits at the nearly empty desk in a nearly empty room -- the H Street NW office space NOM has sublet until the organization finds its own building and moves its staff down from Philadelphia. He is 35, red hair, solidly built, wearing a crisp blue shirt with a white collar. Instantly likable. He's a thoughtful talker, especially when discussing his "opposition, " such as the HRC. "They were ahead of the curve but ... I didn't see any reason why we couldn't do the same thing."

The same thing -- large, well-publicized, well-organized campaigns -- for different purposes. In the world of activism, what works for one side can work for the other. In just two years since its formation, NOM has become a leader in the fight against gay marriage, which Brown calls "the issue of the decade." "Brian has been the foremost grass-roots leader who has been involved in the marriage debate," says Chuck Donovan, a senior vice president at the conservative Family Research Council. "He's one of the more effective leaders out there."

NOM's campaigns have had missteps. "Gathering Storm," with its melodramatic dialogue and fake lightning, prompted parodies as much as panic; one New York Times columnist called it " 'Village of the Damned' meets 'A Chorus Line' " for its instant camp value. Two Million for Marriage, the organization' s push to rally online activists around the country, was similarly unfortunate: Apparently no one at NOM had realized that 2M4M, the hip-sounding tag they'd chosen for the initiative, is also the abbreviation favored by gay couples looking for a threesome.

Brown has been undaunted. Along with NOM President Maggie Gallagher, who lives in New York, he keeps putting out or starting up fires. He raises money. He organizes phone drives. He sits in the empty Washington digs and cheerfully takes conference calls about whom NOM should hire for an Iowa position ("I haven't had good luck with the Heritage job bank, but that doesn't mean anything"). He sends out regular e-mail updates to NOM's mailing list, conveying his excitement on the issues with exclamation points. Some pro-gay marriage activists then get hold of these e-mails and mock them.

But his more informed opponents know that scoffing is a response born of fear. "You have to take them seriously," says Peter Montgomery, a senior fellow for the liberal People for the American Way. "They've raised a tremendous amount of money that they're funneling into various states. They're mostly responsible for putting the Maine veto on the ballot."

Brown is confident that if people hear his message, they will believe it. "People already believe it," he says, "but the issue is so deep-seated that they've never had to create an argument for it. Now we have to give people the language to do that." Create talking points. Help them see.
On NOM's website, printable PDFs show visitors how to explain their position. "Why Marriage Matters" comes in versions for different religions: Protestant (Spanish and English), Catholic (Spanish and English) and Jewish.

Avoid the phrase "ban gay marriage," the talking points suggest, adding that opponents "know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don't use it. Say we're against 'redefining marriage' or in favor of 'marriage as the union of husband and wife' NEVER 'banning same-sex marriage.'"

Bishop Harry Jackson, the Beltsville pastor who has been one of the most vocal gay marriage opponents in the D.C. area, sees a happy partnership between his followers and Brown's group. Jackson says Brown and NOM "have a sense of dignity about human beings. They simply believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the best for society. But they're not gay bashers." "I believe," Brown says, "that there's a clear purpose to what I'm doing."

* * *
Is it possible, in 2009, to avoid the title of "gay basher" while dedicating your life to preventing a portion of the population from participating in a legal process allowed to other people? Does bashing require blows and slurs? Will those who oppose same-sex marriage eventually be put by their opponents into the same pile as people who think interracial marriage should be banned?

Brown worries about that, about being squeezed out of the debate. "The racial bigot comparison is the most troubling part of the argument," Brown says. It's horrible, offensive, deliberately incendiary. He thinks it is "irrational, " a word he uses often. It is irrational when the opposition points to polls suggesting that most young people support gay marriage. "People mature," he says. Their views change. It is irrational when people believe that the legalization of same-sex marriage is an inevitability: "We have the people. We have not had such an organized force" before, Brown says.

Brown is Catholic. He converted at Oxford, where he studied after a BA at Whittier College (he grew up surfing in California). He liked Catholicism' s traditions of social justice and work for the poor. Along the way, he met Sue, also a devout Catholic. After UCLA he accepted a position with the Family Institute of Connecticut, and worked to prevent the distribution of condoms in schools. "People would ask, 'What does your husband do?' " Sue says. "It was embarrassing to say he worked on condoms. But it was nothing compared to this."

His faith is important to him, but in his arguments he is ever the PhD candidate, addressing questions and dismissing counterarguments with fascination. "I have gay people who are friends and family," he says. "We can disagree on all sorts of things and still care about each other." And later, "Of course, I have to take their arguments seriously. This issue is important. Ideas have consequences. "

He takes nothing personally. He means nothing personal. He is never accusatory or belittling. His arguments are based on his understandings of history, not on messages from God that gays caused Hurricane Katrina. In short: The institution of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Yes, there have been homosexual relationships. But no society that he knows of, in the history of the world, has ever condoned same-sex marriage.

"Do they always agree on the number of partners? Do they always agree on the form of monogamy? No," Brown says, but they've all agreed on the gender issue. It's what's best for families, he says. It's the union that can biologically produce children, he says. It's all about the way things have always been done. He chose his new church, St. Catherine of Siena, because it still offers Latin Mass. Other noted conservatives have been parishioners there; Antonin Scalia has worshiped at St. Catherine's.

"I think it's irrational that up until 10 years ago, all of these societies agreed with my position" on same-sex marriage, he says, and now suddenly that position is bigotry. "The opposition is trying to marginalize and suppress us," he says. "Usually, that happens with positions that are actually minorities. But we're the majority."

Does he ever think that what he sees as an abrupt historical shift is, perhaps, progress? Does it hurt his feelings when people accuse him of prejudice? "I think," he says, "it's irrational."

* * *
When Brown came from California a few months ago, the family moved into a comfortable house in Great Falls, surrounded by trees. His children are precocious and sweet; his wife is gracious and funny.

Sue Brown had never really thought about same-sex marriage until she met Brian. "Obviously, I always realized there were gay people," she says one Friday morning, sitting in the still-sparsely furnished living room. "But I didn't think about them wanting to get married." And once she did: "Initially, I probably thought, well, what's the big deal if they do? What does it have to do with me?"

When she and Brian got engaged, she envisioned normal family life, both of them returning from their jobs -- she was a high school English teacher -- and having family dinner. Now, while he's crusading, she deals with home-schooling the older children and caring for the younger. It hasn't been easy.

"Connecticut was really hard," she says. In Connecticut, they lived on a street with two sets of lesbian parents. One summer a mutual acquaintance threw a neighborhood party. Brian wasn't invited at all, and Sue's invitation came with a note: "We know what Brian does. If your views are not the same, you can come to the party." Sue stayed home. "I get how [gays and lesbians] feel," she says. "I get that."

She's pictured what it might be like to be on the other side of this debate. "I know many awesome women, and I've thought about what if I got together with one of them" and tried to raise a family. She has thought through it. She supports her husband. "I can only go by my own experience, and I believe there's a huge difference in gender." The kids don't need Brian "walking in the door because he's another person. They need him because he's a man."

They haven't made a lot of friends here so far. He works endless hours and so does she. Sue starts off by telling people that he's the director of a nonprofit group. If they ask for more information, she tells them it's a nonprofit dedicated to preserving marriage. And then, of course, they ask her about his position on gay marriage. Whether he's for it or against it.

Brian has come into the room. He's late for a conference call and trying to get out the door. "What time will you be home tonight?" Sue asks.

"Ahhhh . . . "

"Six."

"Well... "

"Six. Just say it and do it. Six."

He doesn't quite agree, but he doesn't disagree, either. And then he's out the door, going off to quietly crusade for the hearts and minds of people who, like Brown, pride themselves on being rational, mainstream and sane.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Washington Post received a lot of negative reactions to this story. The reporter admittedly had let Brown tell the story, rather than "quoting what others said about him.

“Fine in theory. But it deprived readers of hearing from others who have battled Brown and find him uncivil and bigoted. To them, he represents injustice. They should have been heard, at length.”

For a video clip of Brian Brown's interview on the Michelangelo Signorile Show, click here.

The Vote of the Majority Cannot Determine the Rights of the Minority

Proposition 8 brought national attention to gay rights. Written to affirm that marriage could only occur between a man and woman, it stopped gays from marrying in California. The 1500 gay couples already married waited, again, in limbo until the state supreme court agreed to not take back the sanctity of their vows. The New York State Bar announced that marriage is the only way to equality (Storey). Furthermore, six states have passed legislation to recognize the union of gay people, yet the rest of the nation seems to continue with its bigotry. I remember standing at Gay Pride at Atlanta several years agon and watching a float that said TWENTY-FIVE YEARS ENGAGED, HOW MUCH LONGER MUST WE WAIT? Reams have been written about the rights given to heterosexual couples that are denied to homosexual couples, including tax breaks, inheritance, and joint ownership of property. But the problem is not limited just to marriage. Gay people’s rights have also been suppressed regarding service for our country, safety, and even in the definition of family. Until this nation recognizes the rights of gays across all platforms, we are allowing the opinions of the majority to legislate the rights of a minority.

While campaining, President Obama made a campaign promise to repeal the policy barring openly gay people from serving in the military. Despite his promise, it does not appear that Congress will ever send him a bill reversing the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, our own president has not followed through on his promise to the minority. The current policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” does not allow gay military personal to live anything but a celibate life requiring them to suppress their sexual orientation. Specifically, National Guard officer Dan Choi was the first New York National Gaurd member to be discharged for "homosexual conduct" (Kates). Certainly the injustice of such discrimination seems to go unnoticed and unheeded by our current administration. The Obama administration seems to fear embracing gay rights because they do want to provide social conservatives a rallying cry while the president is trying to assemble legislative coalitions on health care and other initiatives. Concerning gay's right to marry, Orange County newlyweds Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer are using President O'Bama's word's against him in their lawsuit. Based on the president's preinargual comments, their lawyer aruges that the administration is on "the wrong side of the case, in light of Obama's latest comments" (Egelko). Their attorney aruges that"I'm not sure who the attorneys for the United States are representing." So once again the appeal to the majority overrides the needs of the minority.

If our own president does not follow through with his promise to our serviceman, we certainly cannot expect our state legislatures to do any better. Indeed, our own state has failed to protect its gay citizens by refusing to enact hate crime legislation. When Sean Kennedy was murdered at a Greenville bar, the FBI could not classify his death as a hate crime (Smith). Consequently, his murderer served ten months in prison for manslaughter, despite the obvious bigotry of his actions. It is time for our state and country to recognize the danger of not protecting gays. Despite Elkie Kennedy's considerable work to bring the tragedy of her son's death before South Carolina's citizens, despite numerous newspaper articles regarding hate crime, and despite several bills brought before the South Carolina legislature, nothing has changed. We cannot even track the number of gay related hate crimes in our state because no legislation exists to recognize hate crimes. Furthermore, without that information, the FBI is also handicapped in compiling accurate statistics. Without hate crime laws, the FBI cannot even track deaths like Sean's. Moreover, without hate crime legislation, Stephen Moller plea bargained to involuntary man slaughter. Such horrible events clearly demonstrate the inability of our government to protect the safety of a minority.

There are also huge controversies surrounding gay families. Six states currently assume that gay parents are unfit to raise children. Often the heterosexual parent will appeal to the court for custody based on sexual orientation. In at least six states custody is automatically granted to the heterosexual parent and courts may inhibit the gay parent’s visitation rights (Kendall). In addition, without legislation, if a lesbian couple chooses to have a child, one bears the child but the other wants custody, without gay sensitive legislation, neither parent is protected. As more couples turn to invetro fertilization, legislation and courts will determine family relationships and rights. If one mommy birthed the child and other mommy caught her at birth, then both deserve to have their rights as parents recognized (Mrs. Kramer Vs. Mrs. Kramer). Without the benefit of marriage, gay parents are often ordered in court documents to never see their children in the presence of their live in partners (Gaines). Eleven states inplicitly or explicitly restrict gay couples from adopting children (Gandossy). Once again, we must recognize the rights of gays to determine the rights of the individual situation.

The civil rights movement of the sixties clearly demonstrated the struggle of a minority to gain their rights. More and more heterosexuals ally themselves with the gay rights movement as they come to understand that inhibiting the rights of a minority can ultimately inhibit the rights of all. Certainly, justice cannot be served when we rely upon the vote of the majority to give rights to the minority. It is time that our governments, federal state and local, recognize the needs of all its citizens. All citizens have a right to choose who they want to marry, to live in safety and to have their rights as parents recognized.




Works Cited
Egelko, Bob. "Gay couple's weapon in lawsuit: Obama's words." San Francisco Chronical. 23 Jun. 2009. Web. 9 Jun. 2009/

Gadossy, Judith. "Gay adoption: A new take on the American family." CNN.com. 27 Jun. 2007. Web. 9 Jul. 2009.

Gaines, Judith. "Recent hate crime reopens need for legislation." The Boston Globe. 14 Sep. 1993. Web. 9 Jul. 2009.

Kates, William. "Board: Discharge Gay NY National Guard Officer." San Francisco Chronical. 30 Jun. 2009. Web. 9 Jul. 2009.

Kendall, Kate. "Lesbian and Gay Parents in Child Custody and Visitation Disputes." Summer 2003. American Bar Association. Web. 7 Jul. 2009.

"Mrs. Kramer Vs. Mrs. Kramer." 15 Dec. 2008. Newsweek. Web. 7 Jul. 2009.

Smith, D. A. "Recent hate crime reopens need for legislation. " Charleston City Paper.18 Jul. 2007. Web. 8 Jul. 2009.

Storey, Jeffrey. "N.Y. State Bar 'Refines' Position on Same-Sex Couples, Says Marriage Is the Only Possible Path to Equality." New York Law Review. 24 Jun. 2009. Web. 9 Jul. 2009.