Advocacy Burn-Out

There's this thing that happens to me sometimes. Something I care about becomes so overwhelming that it starts leaching into every thought and every other conversation. It wakes me up at night, and it keeps me up—I lie in bed replaying conversations (Why didn't I say that? How did I miss that terrible logic?)—and partly just to get some friggin sleep, I end up shutting down for a bit.

During this last bit, something pretty huge happened: California's proposition 8, which revoked the right of people who are gay to get married, was ruled unconstitutional by Judge Walker. He put a stay on that (i.e., "Let's wait a little bit before putting it into effect.") Then he took it away. Then someone else put it back. This gives the chance for that decision to get appealed. I don't know tons of details because of that shut-down I mentioned. If you want lots of details given by my side of the issue, go to prop8trialtracker.com. If you want details given by the other side, go to prop8case.com.

Just this past weekend, I got into what I perceived as a rather heated argument with my granddaddy about Judge Walker's decision. This is a remarkable event as I'd venture to guess that Granddaddy has had about two heated arguments in his whole life. He's pretty calm and cool. I'm not though.

Anyhow, it seems a lot of people who are conservative think the voters of California were pretty put out by this. The voters, and the democratic process in general, actually. After all, if what the voters want can be "ruled unconstitutional", what kind of democracy is that?

A fair question.

My answer: Since when can voters decide to revoke civil rights? What would have happened if white people could have voted on whether black people could vote? We don't ask our child if she'd like to invite that dorky kid to the party; we make her invite him.

And this is where Granddaddy and I diverged. Sin is not a civil right. Voting against gay marriage is akin to voting against murder. Or vandalism or car theft or female genital mutilation or having to check blow-out preventers. It's not a right. It's just wrong.

So I am freshly stirred up about all this. I'll begin posting about all the reasons my 17-year-old self used to give against being gay and gay marriage, and why I no longer believe those reasons. I'll start—naturally—at Genesis 1.

You Know What Happens When You Assume

I have struggled with what should be said next, and since assumptions often are the hidden framework for conclusions, I thought it might be a good idea to name some of the more deleterious assumptions people—particularly Christians—make about people who are gay. (There are others, but I thought these seemed the most invasive and damaging.)

To be gay is to be promiscuous. The roots of this are pretty easy to understand. Here's an analogy.

Say I go to the farmers' market, and this farmer is really talking up this heirloom khalerabi. "Heirloom what?" I say. "I can't even spell it well enough to google it to see how to really spell it, but okay, I'll try it." I take it home and do what the farmer told me, but I find it really stringy and bitter.

The next week, I'm with a friend. She picks up a khalerabi and I tell her, "Oh girl, don't do it. I had one last week and it was pretty much the worst thing ever." What I didn't tell her is that I also picked up some tomatoes last week that were super disappointing, but it didn't occur to me to write off all tomatoes since I've had so much experience with tomatoes.

In the same way, if all you know of gay people is that at some park, dudes are known to hook up with dudes, then your view of all gay guys is colored by that. We also know that some straight dudes pay prostitutes for sex, but no one thinks that all do.

Another important point: Some deduce that it takes sexual experience to realize one is gay. But it sure didn't take sex for me to know I'm straight.

Gay people can be only nominal Christians, if even.  This is pretty subtle, but it's definitely out there. For the purposes of this argument, let's let homosexuality be a sin. Are there people in your church who misuse alcohol? Are there people in your church who have sex outside of marriage? Are there people in your church who shoplift? Are there people in your church who do not feed people who are hungry?

Why does homosexuality exclude? Why does it, seemingly over any other sin, render people incapable of being leaders?

Anal sex is just icky and wrong. New Hampshire state rep Nancy Elliott wants her state to revoke same-sex marriage rights, and here's her reasoning: "We're talking about taking the penis of one man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, I'm not sure, would I allow that to be done to me?"

There are so many things wrong with this.

1. As I understand it, certain measures are taken before anal sex to eliminate the excrement.

2. So. . .  lesbians are still cool, right? Since they don't have penises? Right?

3. Women also have rectums. In 2005, The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a survey. 40% of men and 35% of women between the ages 25 and 44 reported having had heterosexual anal sex. Study results vary, but the incidence ranges from 24% - 56%.

Did you get that? More straight people have anal sex than there are gay people. 

4. This is most troubling to me, since it comes from a policy maker: Something tells me that "Would I allow that to be done to me?" is not a great way to determine what should and should not be lawful. Here is a list of things I would outlaw if it were: root canals, interest on my student loans, mountain biking, pelvic exams, and Beef Products Inc.