Gay is the New Left Handed

So roughly 10% of people are left-handed. Maybe less, depending on who you ask. And in centuries gone by, it was generally decided that left-handedness was a sign of evil. People quoted scripture to "prove" that God didn't approve of people eating and writing with their left hands. Therefore, good Christian parents and schoolteachers took it upon themselves to stifle any tendencies in their children towards left-handedness. This included tying their left arms to their sides or behind their back, to force them to use their right hands. In the 1600's, when witch trials were prevalent, lefties were often accused of witchcraft (and convicted, and executed) for no other reason than their dominant hand.

In the Bible, Matthew Chapter 25 sees Jesus telling about Judgement Day, when God separates the nations into two group: the "sheep", who go to heaven for their goodness, are gathered on God's right side. The "goats", those doomed to Hell, get to gather on God's left side. The implication was clear. Left=Devil, right=God. Therefore, lefties were evil.

Even today, there are subtle reminders in our languages of the generally negative view held on left-handedness. "Gauche", a term generally understood to mean tacky or inappropriate, is literally the French word for "left". Sinister also literally means left-handed. Say the right thing, but in the wrong way? That would be an example of a "left-handed compliment". Bad dancer? You must have... say it with me... two left feet.

And so it goes. It makes a certain amount of sense, sociologically speaking. Lefties are the minority. Anthropologically speaking, the majority in any society gangs up on the minority and demonizes them. Sometimes they use religion as an justification, sometimes they use more practical and mundane reasoning to ostracize these heretical creatures.

We saw examples of this "us versus them" mentality in race relations, as "minorities" were grouped together to mean anyone non-white. Ironically, if you group all those non-white people into one group, they actually make up the majority in many cases. But to outnumber a group, throughout history, is to claim not only superiority in numbers, but moral superiority as well. "Our way of life" gets threatened any time a minority group rises up and demands equal footing. We saw in the 1950's and 60's, as civil rights became an issue, white people (the majority) fret over their way of life being in jeopardy as the minority (non-whites) began to insist on losing their second-class status. White leaders railed against this threat to the status quo, warning all that to allow blacks and whites to intermingle unchecked would bring about the ruin of civilized society. Forty years later, in lieu of the aforementioned Apocalypse, it must be admitted that allowed equality among the races was not the undoing we were warned it would be.

In 1997 it was discovered once and for all that left-handedness is a genetic trait. They mapped it in DNA, and this is significant because it established once and for all that left-handedness was not some scheme cooked up by evil people. It was not a subtle sign to other evil doers. It was a predisposition - a tendency from birth to favor the left hand and foot. In lefties, there was a natural grace and skill demonstrated on the left side that the right could not match. Pretty much exactly the same as everyone else, only reversed.

Left-handedness was not contagious. It was not a flaw. It was not to be discouraged in children. It was not harmful to others. It didn't make one less religious, less honest, less wholesome. There was simply no downside to being left-handed, other than managing to successfully maneuver in a right-handed world.

I know, I know: so what, right? What does ANY of this have to do with the gay thing? We're not talking about something as innocuous as how you sign your name here, are we?

Are we?

Let me ask you this: if you have gay and lesbian friends, family or co-workers, what part of their lifestyle has been forced onto you? Have they made you watch them having sex? Probably not. What about lurid tales of their bedroom escapades - have they forced you to listen to those? I doubt it. Have you ever seen a homosexual passing out literature on the glories of sodomy at the local grade school? I think not. So if they haven't forced you to watch them actually practicing their homosexuality, they haven't forced you to listen to them describe it, and they haven't tried to indoctrinate your kids, how has their sexuality impacted you?

Simple answer: it hasn't. Other than the you knowing they're gay, you have nothing to go on. The "Gay Agenda", as far as I can tell, consists of much the same stuff the Straight Agenda does: Get up, go to work, pay your bills, spend time with friends and loved ones, try to be happy. Lather, rinse, repeat. I know they aren't planning world domination. They're way too outnumbered. And just to revisit the "gays around your kids" thing... did anyone NOT have a gay teacher at some point? Maybe they didn't announce it ("Attention class, I am a practicing homosexual, and if you'd like to know more, I have an array of colorful pamphlets to fill you in"), but you just knew. The stereotyped lesbian gym teacher, the sensitive and perhaps even effeminate male English teacher or drama coach... we all had some exposure to homosexuality in our childhoods. Before we became sexually aware ourselves, the fact that someone was gay was probably a non-issue. We didn't understand it, we didn't care. We heard things and people called "gay" by our classmates to indicate they were bad. By the time we actually understood what "gay" really meant, we had associated so much negativity with it, that it was hard to be objective when dealing with actual homosexuals - people who not only admitted being "gay" but seemed to be proud of it. Add to all that some Bible verses that make God seem displeased with gays, and you've got all the makings for a good old-fashioned torches and pitchforks mob.

And that's what we got with Proposition 8. Prop 8 amends the California State Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. No doubt the courts will chew this up and spit it out like so much bubble gum. It's a blatant attempt to single out the gays from having the right to marry. The opponents of gay marriage say that they're "defending" traditional marriage. I'm sorry, but you force me to call bullshit on this one. Traditional marriage? Does that mean I'm legally allowed to beat my wife now? Traditionally, that was the deal. What about divorce? In the traditional context of marriage, divorce was not just frowned upon, it was illegal. And yet there was no mention of abolishing divorce from the "traditional marriage" crowd.

Then they tried to scare us with the best possible weapon, and it worked: kids. If Prop 8 fails, and gay marriages continue, we were told, kids will be forced to learn about/accept/go to gay weddings. All your wholesome upbringing as parents will be undone. Teachers will be teaching your little Johnny and Mary all about the wonders of sodomy, complete with full color slide shows. All this is rubbish of course. But just like the makers of "Poltergeist" and "The Exorcist", the anti-gay marriage crowd knew that the quickest and easiest way to freak people out was to put some innocent kid in jeopardy. So they cooked up some fantasy scenario where your kid gets systematically corrupted, indoctrinated with "gay is good, gay is normal, gay is fine", until they run home from school and proudly announce "Mommy, Daddy, I'm GAY!" To the parent who feared such a scenario, I say relax: that won't happen until the second year of college.

So gays today are pretty much the lefties of a century ago: outcasts, demonized, a threat to your wholesome Christian world. I wonder, when we finally isolate the DNA nugget that determines sexual preference, will we then finally let it go? Or will we then seek out a new minority to demonize? I suspect the latter. But until then, we always have Massachusetts. Interesting to me, that Massachusetts was in many ways the birthplace of our nation's freedom. In Lexington and Concord, colonists took up arms against British soldiers - representatives of what was at the time the most powerful empire on the planet. These colonists had no military training. What they had was a belly full of being pushed around. In Boston Harbor, other colonists let it be known that they had had enough as well. Massachusetts has a history of taking a stand against tyranny, and it is fitting that this state, if no other, represents the vocal minority demanding that gay marriage be legal. I suspect that after a few years of gay marriages squeaking through, we will finally realize that married gay people in America is not the sign of its undoing, any more than desegregation was in the 1960's.

The majority throughout our history had threatened us with doom whenever the status quo is upset. Society, they would have us believe, is a house of cards, ready to collapse at a moment's notice. We must therefore tread carefully, loathe to upset the delicate balance. But from the abolition of slavery through women's suffrage, on through McCarthyism and the civil rights movement, we have seen our status quo adjust itself to society's revelations. We have, over the past two centuries, evolved from a nation where only white male land owners had a voice to one of remarkable equality. And while we are certainly not perfect, and while injustice still rears its ugly head, we have refined our understanding of what freedom really means.

There will be gay marriage. All that Prop 8 did was delay it. It is a temper tantrum thrown by those scared of change. Some people will never accept gay marriage, any more than they accept interracial marriage. But the laws of the land insist on freedom for all, and even if it takes a few more years. Massachusetts will serve as it has in the past, as a voice crying out for change in the wilderness. And as state after state takes up the battle cry, we will once again emerge from the cocoon of our own fear and ignorance to blossom into a more perfect union.

Gays vs. The Sanctity of Marriage

My marriage license was distributed by the state of New York. Nowhere in that document does it mention the church, Christianity, God, Jesus, Yahweh, Mohammed, Allah, or the flying spaghetti monster. That's because marriage is a secular institution.

Let me say that again: Marriage is a secular institution.

That means that it exists outside the authority of the church. My wedding did not take place in a church, it was not done with the church's permission, and it was not presided over by a minister or a priest.

So when I hear about same-sex marriage and the church's disapproval, I am forced to wonder: who asked them? Since when does a couple need to seek the approval of the church? If two people wish to be married in a church, by a member of their clergy, then by all means get the endorsement of the church. But apart from that very specific scenario, I have to think that the church, and religion in general, should sit this one out.

Weddings can be performed by judges, ship captains, and a host of other officials that exist outside the controls of any organized religion. So if same-sex marriage were to be legalized, and certain clergy were squeamish about officiating a gay wedding, I have no doubt that the couple could seek out a whole host of alternative officials.

Then we come to the argument about "preserving the sanctity of marriage". This old chestnut gets trotted out by evangelicals as though they hold the line against the incursion of invading hordes, hell-bent on destroying the sacred. But let's do a little math here. According to most polls, about 75% of Americans profess to be Christian, of some denomination. Of that 75%, a little less than half fall into the category of evangelicals. So, essentially, we're looking at one in three Americans affiliated with some degree of Protestant evangelical Christianity. Several studies have rated these same evangelicals have higher divorce rates that Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc.

When I got married, I knew that I was bonding my life to my wife's. I knew that this was not a commitment to be taken lightly, because it was intended to be a lifelong commitment. This is not news that was exclusive to me. The traditional wedding ceremony makes mention of this, so anyone who has ever been to a wedding has a pretty good idea that it's a long-term commitment. The expressions "'til death do us part" and "as long as we both shall live" are so ingrained in our understanding of wedding litanies that to not hear it would cast an awkward moment into the vows.

And rightly so. So it begs the question, if evangelicals are so concerned with preserving the sanctity of marriage, why do they perceive the biggest threat coming from the homosexual community? It should be clear that they are doing more harm to their own cause than any gay couple could.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: marriage, gay or straight, is an issue that ought to be decided by the states, not the federal government. This is truly the best compromise on an issue that is so divisive. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Each state issues marriage licenses, and should be trusted on how to define a marriage. If the state you live in allows gay marriage, it should not be the right of the federal government to challenge or interfere. And if your state's marriage laws do not reflect your own personal moral code, you are entitled to move to another state.

I would love to see a study done in the coming years comparing how gay divorce rates stack up against their straight ones. I wonder if part of the straight community's fear of allowing gay marriage is that gays might be able to make it last better. Time will tell. Since there will likely be fewer children in a gay marriage it would make divorces a little less complicated. But that's a whole other discussion.

Ultimately there will come a day, after this business has been settled and we collectively decide that the right to marry belongs to all Americans, when we look back and wonder: why we were so obsessed with denying our fellow citizens their basic rights? Certainly being happy and in love is a right we all have. I think it will hearken back to the Civil Rights movement when white sincerely believed that to allow blacks equal rights would unmake the fabric of society. The bigots were wrong then, and they are wrong now. To insist on gay people having "civil unions" instead of "marriage" is just the latest version of seperate drinking fountains. We cannot expect the homosexuals to forever sit at the back of the bus. We cannot continue to call ourselves the land of the free when some of us are freer than others.