The American People Aren't Furious!
It all started with our wedding: the be-medaled uniforms on one side, the prochoice buttons on the other. Nope, nope, it started with the intervention, the dinner at which my friends planned to confront the self-delusional rationalization that I, the leftwing columnist, had contrived for accepting the proposal of a Marine. A Marine colonel, no less. Problem was, it turned out they liked him.
And he met my political litmus tests: He is prochoice, figures sexual orientation is irrelevant in battle, and actually gives thought to California’s unbridled ballot measures. Our marriage proceeded, and we’ve been playing house ever since, despite occasionally cancelling out each other’s votes.
Then, when Prop. 8 passed in 2008, my response was to staple a sign to our front gate: I DO Support the Freedom to Marry.
My husband came home, and the conversation went something like this:
“See the sign?”
“I’m keeping it up until same-sex marriage is secured for California.”
“Maybe all fifty states.”
“Yep. Want to go for sushi?”
Then, a couple weeks ago, when Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, I contemplated what my next gate message might be. And when he announced last week that his temporary stay on the decision would be lifted August 18 (barring any interim action by Prop. 8 proponents), I was vacillating between saving the 14th Amendment right to citizenship for children of immigrants and protecting Afghan girls and women from Taliban brutality.
But an email from Brian Brown of National Organization for Marriage hit my inbox and squelched my hopeful ruminations.
He claimed “the American people are furious–furious!–with Walker, that his decisions have ìignited a firestorm.” I did a quick check outside, because I live in Southern California and fires are not to be taken lightly here. Turns out Brown was misstating the situation. There wasn’t even a whiff of smoke in the air. However, he also reiterated NOMís message that the purpose of marriage is procreation.
Now, this made me wonder, because my husband and I had both been to the Yankee Clipper prior to our marriage, which means we don’t meet NOM’s procreation criteria.
I mentioned this to my husband, and the conversation went something like this:
“Honey, according to NOM, you and I should not have been allowed to marry in California because we canít procreate.”
“According to who?”
“National Organization for Marriage, NOM. They say the primary purpose of marriage is procreation.”
“They some kind of commies or something?”
“I love you, Honey.”
In the end, I figure it’s like this: A Republican Marine and a Democratic feminist can agree that marriage is a civil right, to be enjoyed by everyone, and we’re just not that unusual. Remove the angry rhetoric from the debate, the fearful propaganda, and most folks will eventually join us.
K-B can be reached at email@example.com
Soulforce is challenging NOM–National Organization for Marriage–on its religious and political claims about homosexuality, LGBT families, and marriage equality which harm indiviauls and families and fuel misunderstanding which leads to anti-LGBT sentitment, actions, and public policy, such as California’s Proposition 8.