Year of the Queer

You may not be aware of this, but 2009 is the Year of the Queer.

If you’ve heard of any other year, prior to 2009, deemed that of the queer, please report it to the authorities immediately. We cannot have two years running around with the same name (especially if it was one that failed to meet expectations).

This year’s official purpose is: Change That Triggers Endless Discomfort in Bigots (CTTEDB for short). It’s true. I’m totally not lying. We will have a black president, a feminist Secretary of State and a feminist-leaning male vice president.

We will have a president and vice president who believe there should be “absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.” (Thanks.) And we will have a president who mentioned “Gay, straight, disabled and not disabled” in his acceptance speech.

Awesome, right? My back is already a little less tense.

So, let’s take a moment and appreciate the difference of what is to come. Now take a moment to appreciate the promise of what is to come.

Now take a moment and think about the fact that Obama selected the evangelical pastor, Rick Warren, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Clearly this fella was selected to represent Obama’s promise of inclusion, unity, country-as-a-community that welcomes all kinds of diversity. This is great and all; I mean, I’d never select an evangelical for my invocation, but to each his own. Wouldn’t a Rabbi or an Imam be a better example of that?

You see, Rick Warren is not just any evangelical. He’s the author of these fine sentiments (when explaining his opposition to gay marriage): “I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.” (Check, please.)

This was during an interview with Steven Waldman.

Apparently, Rick felt he sounded a little too, how you say, “normal” when he said he supported “full equal rights for everybody in America,” so he sent this statement, post-interview, so no one would forget his dedication to Christian values (after all, somebody’s got to pick up Ted Haggard’s slack): “No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the Constitution can you find the ‘right’ to claim that any loving relationship [is] identical to marriage.”

(I think I’m in love.)

OK, so:

A) A civil union has nothing to do with one’s beliefs about gay marriage; a civil union is nowhere near the same as a marriage. Say it with me: A civil union is not the same as marriage. A civil union is nice and all, but it’s still a step under marriage. Lovely Democrats, such as Biden or Obama, make the claim that marriage is a religious term or idea that doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the government. And in a sense, they are right. Which means, then, any law that has passed banning same-sex marriage is irrelevant and can no longer be considered a law. A civil union is a term that provides queers the same protection/rights as straights, under law, by the government. Being denied any right on the basis of an inherent quality (i.e. color of skin, sex) is a civil rights issue.

B) The reason you will find no mention of marriage in the Constitution is because romantic relationships fall under the right of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

In Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Warren wrote, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

(In the Bill of Rights, you will find mention of something about equality regardless of race or color; as it turns out, the 15th Amendment is irrelevant until white people say differently.)

Back to 2009’s purpose. Back to the Year of the Queer.

I challenge any anti-gay person to make a solid argument against gay marriage that is logical: no contradictions, no cyclical reasoning.

I challenge Democrats to face their own homophobia and actively support same-sex marriage with the same conviction they do with the pro-choice movement.

I challenge all of us who love Obama to hold him to the highest standards and respect him enough to protest his choices when necessary.

I challenge 2010 to live up to 2009: The year same-sex marriage was legalized.