4 posts tagged “queer”

I have a little backlog of posts to write here -- one about knitting & one about the Rufus Wainwright show this weekend -- but I read in Andrew Sullivan's blog today that yesterday the Catholic Church directly equated suicide bombing with civil unions or civil marriage for gay couples.

And then my head exploded.

I'm trying to see the Archbishop's point. No, really. The Catholics have this fun little "hate the sin but love the sinner" fence-sitting thing happening, and they have a certain amount of actual logic in that they are opposed to ALL non-reproductive sex. So I wondered how this worked.

I started with researching the speaker. He's Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary of Doctrine of the Faith, an office which cites as its role to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world and to spread sound doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition which seem in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrines.Well, okay. So this isn't some random Catholic. This is The Guy as to morals.

Then I wondered... what did he actually say? That is harder to track down; I've failed to find a transcript of the speech, given on the topic of "The Problem of Evil."

Catholic News Service has the story thus:

Evil also is present "in the parliaments of so-called 'civil' nations where they promulgate laws contrary to the nature of the human person, like the approval of marriages between persons of the same sex or euthanasia," he said.

The archbishop described this phenomenon as "'terrorism with a human face,' which also occurs daily and is equally repugnant" with the actions of a suicide bomber.

Just. Let's think about that. "Equally repugnant", he says. Two people, promising to love, to be faithful, to share a life, are "equally repugnant" to a terrorist, to a mass murderer of innocents.

I kind of adore this initiative, which I read about on The Stranger's blog this weekend. It takes things to their logical conclusion: if marriage really does need to be defended from all those damn homosexuals, it also needs to be defended from those selfish straights who do not have children and from those (with children) who dare to get divorced.

Yes, of course it's absurd. That's the point. It was absurd that "oh won't someone think of the -children-" was the sole argument the judges had against gay marriage. The Andersen ruling said that marriage was to be limited to straight couples because of a "legitimate state interest" in their ability to have and raise children. Very well, then. We will think of the children.

And lest you think that all that's happening in Washington on this fight is a well-developed sense of irony and some political risk-taking, I'd point out the domestic partnership bills currently in committee in both the Washington State House & Senate. It's a really interesting strategy, where they will work on adding a few of the hundreds of rights each year, rights that straight couples get for the cost of a marriage license, but which cost gay couples untold amounts in legal fees. It shows, step by step, right by right, exactly what gay couples are asking for. 

As for the initiative, there are three outcomes. First, it never makes it onto the ballot at all, in which case it only creates debate. Second, it makes it on, but is soundly defeated, setting a precedent for challenging the "marriage just equals making babies" argument. Finally, it makes it on and passes, at which point it'll undoubtedly be challenged, again setting a precedent.

I'll be interested to see what happens.

(Don't worry. The knitting will return tomorrow.)

Last night I watched an old Gregory Peck film called Gentleman's Agreement. In it, the Peck character prepares for writing an article on anti-Semitism by posing as a Jew himself. At a party he is introduced to a Jewish professor, and they have this exchange (thank heavens for the IMDb quote page):

Professor Fred Lieberman: "Millions of people nowadays are religious only in the vaguest sense. I've often wondered why the Jews among them still go on calling themselves Jews. Do you know, Mr. Green?"

Phil Green: "No, but I'd like to."

Professor Fred Lieberman: "Because the world still makes it an advantage not to be one. Thus it becomes a matter of pride to go on calling ourselves Jews." 

I wish I had seen that movie a few years ago when a friend questioned the need for gay pride. Because the world still makes it an advantage not to be one.

Unless you're living under a rock, you heard that Lance Bass came out today. Or, more accurately, that People released his coming-out interview today.

When I first read the headline on the Seattle Times website I gasped, waved my hands in the air, and did a little happy dance right here at my desk. Of these facts, I am not ashamed!

Of course it's not a surprise. No one gets points for their gaydar here. That is not the point. The point is that it is still hard. The point is that there are virtually zero young queer role models. The point is that when I was on the bus yesterday I heard a kid talk about how some Wayans Brothers flick was "so gay". The point is that in Washington State today discrimination against gays was upheld ... for the sake of the children. (Don't even get me started. That's an entirely different entry.)

Lance is happy and sweet and in a healthy, stable relationship, and it puts his career at risk to tell us so. But he did, and that's just amazing.

That's the point.

PS Lance was always my favorite. N'aww.