NO COMPROMISES!
Or, Just What Part of "ALL" Don't You Understand, Senator Kerry?
I've decided not to vote for John Kerry. And due to the fact that I haven't suffered a
traumatic head injury anytime recently, I won't be voting for Geo. W. Bush either.
To most, my announcement about a NO vote to Kerry might seem surprising. But here's my reason.
He lost my vote with his pro position on Civil Unions and his unwillingness to fully extend that
right to equal marriage.
Sure, Kerry and other so-called liberals claim they would be in favor of allowing homosexuals to have
civil unions ~ legal knot-tying which would offer us almost the same perks as marriage offers our heterosexual counterparts. And that's all well and good. However it's not good enough in my book. Nor should it be good enough in yours.
What's central to this debate is the wording: 'Marriage' vs. 'Civil Union'. It's largely a war of
semantics. And while some might be complacent with a new, politically correct name for an old
institution, allowing this name change will also allow unpleasant consequences for the gay
community... consequences most of us have not given thought to. Let's start with the concept
of "Separate But Equal". By settling for a difference in terminology, we are settling
for SBE status. It didn't work positively for blacks. Nor for women. It is not likely to have
positive results for us either.
"Civil Unions" are born from the concept of Separate But Equal, and SBE starts with
the premise that we are (and should remain) separate from, but supposedly equal to, first class citizens.
It means that there is still a label attached to us. It gives others license to keep the prejudice toward us alive. "Separate
But Equal" has historically proven to be a device for segregation.
Heterosexual society still wants us to be identifiable with one of the many labels it has
approved: homosexual, faggot, queer, pervert, nancy-boy (isn't it about time they add 'Priest'
into the label-bin?). And these labels are not mostly just derisive, they are used to keep us in a
separate (but "equal") position within society.
Without such labels, the gay community is largely invisible. We can't be picked out of a crowd
based on our gender, our skin color, the shape of our eyes, or our age. We are not easily identifiable
targets of discrimination. Therefore, keeping us placated by allowing us near-equal Civil
Unions is yet another way of keeping us identifiable to the larger body of Americans who would not
like to put their prejudice to rest.
Either John Kerry and others like him understand this and are insensitive to our needs and desires,
or they just plain don't get it. Regardless of the reason, his position on gay marriage has made
him another man whom I do not wish to have running things because it is obvious that he is not
going to be amenable to that which is ultimately in the best interest of all Americans ~ both for
today and for the rest of human history. It appears that Kerry, like so many others, would sooner
keep us in that second-class position rather than permit us our Constitutional birthright of equal-class
citizenship. And in my opinion, that is not the stance a 21st Century American leader should be
adopting.
For one thing it says he really doesn't have a sympathetic eye toward the Gay community. He doesn't
understand us or appreciate our needs. How can he actually help the situation if he doesn't
appreciate it? Without that sympathy, without that openness to understand, our efforts toward
having our marriages recognized will be long-fought battles. Arguably, electing John Kerry would be
better than trying to survive another four years under the angry wasp nest of Fauntleroys known as the Bush Administration. But Kerry has to understand that we are not willing to compromise on this issue. It's gotta be MARRIAGE. Any other offer is just plain insincere.
There is no justifiable reason why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, except as
a means of continuing the tradition of inequality. Permitting us to marry is one of the last major
roadblocks standing in our path to true equality. The removal of that barrier will be like
the removal of the Berlin Wall to Eastern Europe. The rest of the prejudices will over time most likely
wither away and die once we are granted true marital equality.
Unfortunately, there are only so many candidates, and again I find myself questioning
the worthiness of any of the people involved in the current presidential race. Not one candidate has indicated he really understands the concept of "Equal rights for all". However, thanks to the efforts of a few stalwart judges who are risking their jobs by doing the right thing, the gay marriage issue is now an integral issue in the election. Ironically, it's also helping to show us, the voters, the true colors of the candidates and how closely they understand and adhere to the Constitution they are supposed to uphold.
As far as John Kerry goes, I question his ethics and motives on this issue. Is John Kerry committed to equality for all Americans and just missing the connection, or is he simply giving us lip service as a means of getting votes? We must ask ourselves if we really want to offer the highest seat in the land to anyone who hasn't our best interests in mind.
Perhaps if Kerry made the case for changing the name of 'marriage' all the way around, and proposed
that all future 'marriages' would be known to the Federal Government as Civil Unions, then I'd
renew my interest in seeing him elected. That would at least be making a change that affected everyone equally. And the people who SHOULD compromise, the conservative straights, would have to do so. That would be an equally valid alternative to letting gays 'marry'. But John Kerry has to show he has the cajones to lead, to make a decision, and have it be the morally correct one. I cannot in good conscience vote for a man who has openly said that he isn't interested in ensuring equality for every American. That is truly the wrong attitude for the job.
Vote, and vote wisely,
Jack
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a letter you can send to Senator Kerry, visit Abuzz @ NYTimes.com
|
