I Kissed a Girl X 2

Gay boy versions of the ubiquitous Katy Perry hit. I liked kissing girls, but I like kissing boys better.

The Difference 10 Years Can Make

As the Vermont legislature contemplates allowing gay couples to marry, with a vote expected soon, the Burlington Free Press has published an editorial in favor of it. This in itself isn't extraordinary since newspaper editorial pages all over VT have been expressing support for marriage equality. What's extraordinary is comparing this editorial with the Free Press editorial from 10 years ago. Instead of trying to hide their former stance, they're actually brave enough to say how wrong they were. Goes to show that opinion can evolve, particularly when people learn firsthand that allowing gay couples to marry is a lot more dull and a lot less scary than they expected. Most importantly, it represents the societal shift that's taken place over the past decade, one that is likely to continue even as a shrinking core of opponents to marriage equality become more firmly entrenched in their views.

Excerpts from the editorial:

In an April 1999 editorial, the Free Press editorial board wrongly warned Vermonters against gay marriage. The years since then have proven our position to be unfounded.

Ten years ago, as the case that would eventually lead to Vermont adopting civil unions was making its way through the courts, we argued that our laws discriminate when a valid reason is found to do so, giving the 21-year drinking age as an example. We also argued that marriage was not a right.

In the 1999 editorial we spoke of the need to bridge the cultural divide to reach a consensus if we were to embark on such a major change to a fundamental social institution. We went so far as to warn that becoming the only state to allow same-sex marriage would make Vermont a target hostile to the idea, solemnly predicting, “there will be violence.” That prediction of course was pure nonsense.

Vermont’s experience with civil unions since 2000 has shown us that people are more than ready to accept the idea of two people of the same gender should receive legal recognition for a committed relationship. The world as we knew it hardly changed at all for the larger population, though it did for that portion seeking a measure of equality. The fact that civil unions are so unremarkable today is perhaps the best testimony to their acceptance.

We repeat these words from the 1999 editorial that did make sense: “Vermont boasts a long and proud heritage of civil rights and social tolerance” — and we call for adding marriage equality to that heritage.

Idiot of the Week ~ John McClaughry and his Horny Young Males

John McClaughry is a Vermont conservative, and president of the Ethan Allen Institute "think tank," whose views are stuck somewhere in the middle of the previous century, or perhaps earlier. He had an idiotic op-ed in the Rutland Herald this week titled Let the People Vote on Marriage. 

Never mind that the people of Vermont do vote. We vote for our representatives, whose job it is to be informed on the issues and communicate with their constituents. If we don't like the job they're doing, we vote them out. Unlike in states like California, in Vermont we don't have ballot initiatives that put sensitive issues--particularly civil rights issues--before an often ill-informed electorate. If everything was put up for popular vote, why bother having legislators? We'd just let Joe the Plumbers run the world and let them cherry pick for elimination civil rights that don't conform to their narrow world view. But John seems to think we have a precedent in Vermont for putting "emotionally charged" issues up for popular vote. How recent was this precedent? 2006, maybe? 2005? Nope, 1976!

Here's a few choice tidbits from the op-ed:

Probably a majority of opponents base their opposition on religious grounds, as contrary to church teachings and natural law. There is also a secular argument that deserves more attention than it has gotten.

Marriage, so this argument goes, serves three important social functions: procreation and child rearing, mutual care and assistance, and reining in horny young males by linking approved sex to a serious and long-lasting social commitment.

The gays and lesbians may well say, we're pro-marriage, and those are valid arguments, but how does allowing us, loving and committed couples, to enjoy the status and benefits of marriage undermine the institution of marriage?

The response is that prohibiting discrimination against same-sex couples seeking marriage cannot be limited to just those couples. If two men or two women can marry, why not two of each as a foursome? Or a Muslim taking four wives? Or brothers and sisters? Or an entire Perfectionist "complex marriage" commune (Putney, 1830s)?

And there's the rub. Statutes and judicial opinions allowing every conceivable collection of humans to unite in legal marriage will eventually make the idea and practice of marriage a laughing stock — especially among young heterosexual males who society most wants to channel into stable, legally recognized relationships responsible for child rearing and support.

The Legislature was faced with just such an emotionally charged issue in 1976: whether to create a Vermont lottery. The Legislature decreed a referendum to get the opinion of the people. By a 72-28 margin, the voters supported the creation of a lottery. The next year the Legislature adopted it.

And my response:

I'm not sure if John McClaughry is being disingenuous or simply dimwitted, but his arguments against civil marriage equality are empty.

His most prominent argument for "traditional" marriage is "reining in horny young males by linking approved sex to a serious and long-lasting social commitment." Excuse me, but how does allowing same-sex couples to marry conflict with a goal of keeping young heterosexual men from running wild? Funny, love and respect don't enter into McClaughry's concept of marriage.

Then, there's the old slippery slope argument. Allowing same-sex couples to marry will open the door to bigamists, polygamists, and, presumably, sheep, dogs, and water fowl. Nonsense. Firstly, I haven't seen the polygamist (or duck) community in VT lining up at the Supreme Court's door to make their case. Secondly, if they made such an argument, they would have to make it on its own merits. 12 people marrying is not comparable to 2 people marrying. It's a different argument, and no one is making it. Gay people made their argument, after decades of grassroots work and education, and they won in VT. He can't rewrite the Supreme Court decision.

As for the referendum idea: So, because there was a referendum in 1976, on the subject of the lottery, we should put civil rights up for popular vote? McClaughry seems unable to distinguish between human beings and gambling. (Perhaps why love doesn't figure into his assessment of human relations.) Referendums, on any issue, but particularly on civil rights issues, are divisive, costly, typically filled with misinformation, and unnecessary. They invite outside money and influence and, like billboards, have no place in VT. Our state is better than that.

Contrary to McClaughry's assertion, allowing same-sex couples to marry via the legislative process is a sign of progress, one VT should be proud of. But, since his arguments are rooted in decades-old thinking, his ideas of progress are likely similarly archaic.

Professor Crabby and the Ugliness of Internet Anonymity

It began innocently enough. Towleroad, a national gay news blog, posted a story about the marriage equality bill in Vermont: Lawmakers: Marriage Equality Will Pass in Vermont This Session. I'd heard the news, but it was exciting to see a positive marriage story alongside pessimistic stories about the fading hopes of overturning Prop 8 in California via the CA Supreme Court. Not only was it a positive news story, but it was coming from my home state, where my legislators were forging ahead to give gay couples full equality within the state (alas, nothing will change at the federal level) despite calls from several quarters, and Governor Douglas, that now--a time of economic hardship--is not the time to worry about the civil rights of a small minority with a, gasp, gay rights "agenda." Anyway, I read the story and added this comment:

I am SO proud of my VT legislators. It would have been easy for them to use the dismal economy as an excuse not to take on this bill this session, but they are doing the right thing. I'm also proud of Vermont Freedom to Marry for their smart grassroots efforts over the past 8 years to educate people why marriage (as opposed to just CUs) makes a difference. The VT Freedom to Marry ads are simple and direct--unlike the recent CA ad, they even mention the word marriage! Beth Robinson, the spokesperson for our side in the WCAX clip, is probably one of the most articulate people on the planet. Now, it looks like it will come down to whether the governor will veto or not. His main argument against the bill has been that it's a divisive distraction for the legislature, but once it's passed that argument evaporates, and vetoing it means it will only return next year, which would be a distraction. So, fingers crossed here.

On a side note, I've always found the WCAX reporter, Darren Perron, cute as a button.

Since Vermont isn't the center of most people's universe, I didn't expect there would be many comments on the thread. But there were a couple of positive ones, then came a response by Professor Crabby Ph.D. He (presumably, he) was more skeptical that the bill will escape Gov. Douglas's veto and be enacted into law, in part because he believes that Vermont is a "center right state," less progressive than New Hampshire.

I agreed with him that Governor Douglas is not our friend, and that it's mysterious why Vermont can elect a relatively conservative Republican governor at the same time we elect liberal Democrats like Peter Welch and Patrick Leahy, not to mention the out and proud Socialist, Bernie Sanders. Yep, we're a bit schizo when it comes to our elected officials. But I took exception, a bit cattily, to the idea that New Hampshire is more progressive than Vermont, since the joke has always been that NH is upside down and to the right of VT (thanks, Drew, xo). NH has consistently been behind VT when it comes to gay rights and, unlike VT, it's always been the New England state where Republican presidential candidates think it's worth their while to visit. In other words, the idea that NH is more progressive than VT is ludicrous, and, trivial as the distinction is in the scheme of things, I felt obliged to defend my home turf.

That's when the comments took an ugly turn. Instead of debating the issue at hand, suddenly my life was open to debate:

Ernie, I do live in Vermont, just not in the rarified world of Middlebury. You may have been born in this northern outpost of Appalachia -- let me guess, Chittenden County—and therefore, like a lot of native Vermonters, you think this gives you some sort of special right to interpret all things Vermont. Despite your Vermont pedigree, I don’t think you know too much about this state and the people who live here- otherwise you wouldn’t be spouting that absurd Vermont PR malarkey—. It occurs to me you might actually believe all that Ben and Jerry’s ad campaign business, either that or the Vermont you see out of your window as you and your boyfriend tool up route 7 through Ferrisburg to Burlington and on up to Montreal (such a fabulous life you live Ernie M with your Boyfriend on the faculty of Middlebury—so impressive, yawn). You know nothing about the people that matter to Douglas and have (re)elected him four times, he does not care about you because your idea of Vermont is Burlington, Brattleboro, Middlebury and Montpelier. When was the last time you were in Orange or Caledonia County? Have you ever been there? That Vermont thinks we have plenty too many rights as it is and they are Douglas’s voters not you and me. They matter to him. He’ll have them in mind when he vetoes this bill. I’ve lived here for ten years –and I bet you are wrong about Douglas and this veto—as wrong as you are about New Hampshire—which has more democrats elected (and fewer hillbilly residents) than Vermont --

It took me aback, not only because the presumptions were all wrong, but because there was such venom directed not at homophobes and Governor Douglas, our true opposition in the fight for equality, but at me. Of course, this is the Internet, where vitriol is as ubiquitous as fast food. I've made my share of snarky comments on Internet blogs, but I try to refrain from personal attacks, mostly because I almost always use some version of my real name and often link back to my blog in my comments. In other words, I've generally chosen not to be anonymous on the Internet, and therefore I tend not to say things that I would only say under the cover of anonymity.

I could have, and perhaps should have, resisted responding to Professor Crabby, because the exchange had gone off-topic, and there were any number of more useful things I could be doing, like writing a Letter to the Editor in favor of marriage equality, the reason behind my initial comment. Ah, but it's hard to let personal attacks slip on by, particularly when they're so off-base. So, I responded with sarcasm (unlike Prof. Crabby, I can't make personal attacks, because he has chosen to remain safely anonymous):

Whoa, I guess Professor Creepy Stalking Troll would be more appropriate. Sorry to burst your presumptuous bubble, but I didn't grow up in a "rarefied" part of VT and know Orange and Caledonia Counties and their people very well. I'm guessing my 40+ years in VT gives me more insight than your 10, but who cares? I'm not sure why you're living in a state you hate so much, or why you have such animosity towards fellow gay VTers--you are gay, right?--but that has nothing to do with the equality bill before the VT legislature, the subject of this thread. Governor Douglas (who has a lot less connection to the "real" VT than I do) may veto the bill with the Take Back VTers in mind, but they're a minority (most straight VTers don't care about this one way or the other), and he'd be foolish to do so. Meanwhile, maybe progressive NH is more your style.

Again, I could have made this comment and walked away, but the lure of the Internet squabble, particularly when it involves personal vanity, is strong, and so I checked this morning to see if Professor Crabby had anything to say for himself. He did, and this time it was even angrier and more personal:

Ernie, you sure do seem to spend a lot of time on TR— odd, you link to your pretentious, navel gazing blog for all the world to learn much too much about your trivial life –and then accuse people of being a troll for gleaning the most basic information out of the dreary, drek and poorly done derivative “art” that bloats ernie’sboringlife.com. Sorry if I hit a nerve EM –actually, probably not hard to do to a shallow self-absorbed oldish queen with way too much time on his hands –respond away with more questions and little substance I, unlike you, have better things than to respond again—instead of responding, here is an idea–go upload another one of your art photos to your blog and call yourself creative.

Hateful and silly remarks, yet they do tap into core issues about the worth of blogging or of any creative pursuit. Like most people who aren't curing cancer or saving starving children, I question whether anything I'm doing really matters. Crabby Professor wasn't telling me anything I didn't already know, he was just putting it in an especially venomous way, venom being a luxury of the anonymous. Part of me wanted to defend myself--my blog is hardly a personal diary, for instance, since I'm quite aware that the details of my life are trivial--but defending one's self from anonymous attacks becomes navel-gazing of another sort. So, I mostly stepped back:

Wow, Professor Crabby, the anonymous (i.e. cowardly) misdirected hatred and personal attacks are bizarre. There's an easy solution for anyone who doesn't like my blog--don't visit it!

I think we can agree that Gov. Douglas is bad for Vermont and being the first state to grant civil marriage equality through the legislature would be good for VT. I hope it happens this year. If it doesn't, I'll do what I can to make it happen next year, or the year after that. Can we move on?

Good, I can get back to my pretentious blogging now.

I don't know who Professor Crabby is, and I don't expect he'll emerge from the comfort of his anonymous closet. Being the target of bitterness makes me question my choice to not be anonymous on the Internet. To me, being openly yourself on the Internet is not unlike being out of the closet. It makes you vulnerable, open to bullying and attack, but the alternative is hiding, and some of us who spent too much time hiding in our youth are reluctant to retreat to a new closet. So, I'll continue to be out there, with a new awareness of the risks (a recent news story of cyber-bullying--complete with suits and countersuits--that truly got out of hand was another cautionary tale), an oldish queen sharing my navel-gazing and pretentiousness and dreary drek photographs with anyone who cares to view them. (I never quite understand people who complain about Internet content they don't like instead of simply skipping over it.) Farewell, Professor Crabby, and good luck on your anonymous life's journey.

Now, what was the original goal before the distractions flooded in? Oh, yes, marriage equality in VT. (How overly easy it is to lose sight of those original goals online--another good reason to go offline more often.) Fingers still crossed, still proud of my state's legislators for aiming to do the right thing. Forward.

Reconciliation or Relinquishment?

This past Sunday The New York Times featured an op-ed by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch titled, "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage."

The crux of their "reconciliation":

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

The first thing that struck me about this proposal was the phrase "conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage." MOST? Which ones might be selected out? Who's selecting those federal benefits and rights we might not deserve? Then there's the condition: "Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions . . . " Who will be deciding what is robust enough? And why, when gay people are fighting for civil marriage rather than religious marriage equality, do we need special "religious-conscience exceptions?" Civil marriage equality doesn't interfere with the rights of religions to marry or not marry whomever they please. "Religious-conscience exceptions," however, would likely interfere with my right to full equality under civil law. 

Vermont, for instance, may very well pass a marriage equality bill this year. It will have no meaning federally, yet, but at the state level, there will be no distinction between the marriage of a gay couple and that of a straight couple. What if a few years down the road, Washington enacts federal civil union legislation but disapproves of a gay couple's marriage license in Vermont because it's too equal to a straight couple's marriage license? Would we have to downgrade our marriage licenses in Vermont or else be denied all federal recognition? This isn't reconciliation, it's division. It's relinquishing our right to equality to the appeasement of the religious, who have no business meddling in civil law. It's a cowardly op-ed, one that everyone who believes in full equality for LGBT citizens should reject.

My complete unpublished response to The New York Times and the authors of the op-ed:

To the Editor:

David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch (Op-Ed, Feb. 22) talk about reaching a reconciliation on "gay marriage." But gay people aren't fighting for "gay marriage," we're fighting for civil marriage equality. There is a difference.

The term "gay marriage" implies that gay people should be herded into a special category separate from "straight marriage." "Straight marriage" is viewed as a static institution, one inextricably linked to tradition. Yet marriage has changed remarkably over the centuries. Women now have a role equal to men in marriage. A black woman is now permitted to marry a white man. Gay people don't seek to upend traditional marriage; we seek to become part of its continuing evolution.

Allowing gay people to marry does not threaten religious freedom. Once gay people are permitted to marry, churches will remain free, as they are now, to marry or not marry whomever they please. That is because civil marriage and religious marriage, though often conflated, are two different things. Straight agnostics and atheists are permitted to marry without question. Straight people of different religions are permitted to marry even though not all of these marriages are sanctioned by the church. Potential conflicts between religious organizations and antidiscrimination laws already exist. Should, for example, a remarried woman, whose first marriage was not annulled, receive benefits for her spouse if she works for a Catholic charitable organization? It should be the obligation of religious organizations to justify discriminatory employment practices.

The fact is religion does not own the word "marriage." If it did, then only church-sanctioned marriages--straight and gay alike--would exist. Everyone else would be permitted civil unions only. Many non-religious people, myself included, would be satisfied with this two-tiered system. But if we are to have a two-tiered system, it should be applied equally, without regard to sexual orientation. Otherwise, it is simply discriminatory.

Would federally recognized civil unions be better than nothing? Of course. On that we can agree. To view civil marriage equality as an "extreme," however, is a dangerous mistake. It relegates gay people to second-class citizenship instead of recognizing that civil marriage equality by definition protects religious freedom. Why is it that Canada has managed to reach reconciliation on marriage without unnecessarily dividing its citizens into better-than and less-than groups? Perhaps it is time to seek guidance from the "cooler heads" of our neighbors to the north when moving towards full civil marriage equality for all Americans.

Winter is a Drag Ball 2009

Paparazzi, please just leave me alone!
Dainty Ivona rests her weary feet towards evening's end.
Zsuzsi, freed at last from the horror of free falling pantyhose, struts her animalistic stuff.
Zsuzsi practices her signature pout, which seems to be the only expression she's mastered.
Ivona is ready for her close-up, even if we aren't.
Lenin, caught up in his manifestoishness, remains immune to Zsuzsi's seductive charms.

Vladimir Lenin woos Ivona with his Communist Tranifesto.
The nearly enchanting Gábor sisters, Zsuzsi (left) and Ivona (right). It goes without saying that Ivona is the elder sister.
The blindingly vivacious Miss Ivona Gábor, one of the (very) lost Gábor sisters. She's also known by her (former) married names, Ivona Kiss and Ivona Koch. Perhaps her next husband's surname will be Makeover?

This year's Winter is a Drag Ball may be over, but the memories live on . . . 

Winter Constellations

Kittens Inspired by Kittens

I don't know why this is perfect and demands repeated viewings, but it is and it does.

My Favorite Anchors

I was having one of those days when everything, for no particular reason, seemed overwhelming and pointless. It was gray and drizzly outside. My mood matched the weather. Then I watched this video. It's silly, in the very best sense of the word. Here are two people who decided to make the most of a small gap in their time to do something simply for the fun of it. What emerges, along with the surprising and hilarious choreography, is so warm, funny, and affectionate that it snapped me--for the moment, at least--out of my Tuesday funk. The commercial break ends, they go back to their more serious jobs, the news marches on. But it's a reminder that the smallest of things can suddenly make life seem a little more charmed and precious.

Bravo, Robert Jordan and Jackie Bange, for putting a smile on a lot of people's faces. Keep up that routine!

My Turn

My op-ed on marriage equality appeared in today's Burlington Free Press. In addition to airing my perspective on the matter, I've learned that pro-gay letters and op-ed's are a great way to keep homophobic wingnuts warm and busy on these cold winter days. (We wouldn't want them to catch a chill, after all.) The online response to my pieces, here and here, has been, um, illuminating. (Anti-gay people also seem to be anti-spelling, anti-grammar, and anti-coherence.) Fortunately, the anti-gay people who have nothing better to do than hang around forums spouting nonsense don't have much power in Vermont these days. I sent pro-marriage-equality letters to my four local VT representatives this past week and in less than 24 hours all had written back expressing their support for passing a marriage bill this year. Their open-mindedness makes me proud to be a Vermonter. (Our current governor, however, does not.) I wish some of that open-mindedness would spread to the whole US. For that to happen, we may need to have a more open-minded Supreme Court, something that seems more possible now that it's President Obama instead of President Bush. 

My Turn: Time is right for marriage equality

Recently, while visiting California, my partner and I were seated beside four young people in a crowded bakery. In the midst of enjoying our pastries, we overheard two of the young people announce to the other two that they were planning to get married.

Congratulations ensued, along with carefree discussions of wedding and honeymoon plans. This was a straight couple. A gay couple couldn't make such a carefree announcement. In the aftermath of the passage of California's Proposition 8, which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, the status of legally married gay couples in California is now uncertain, while gay couples who wish to wed will be forbidden from doing so.

Though I restrained myself from butting into this young couple's happiness, I wanted to ask them if they realized that what they were taking for granted, the simple right to express their love through marriage, was something that had been taken away from equally committed gay couples, even couples who had been loving and caring for one another longer than this young couple had been alive.

This incident has stayed with me since my partner and I returned to Vermont. Like gay couples in California, we don't have the right to marry. Why is that? We pay the same taxes as straight people do. We've supported each other through the deaths of family members, just as straight people do. We're good Vermont neighbors. We love each other. Two straight people could meet one another today and get married next week. But if my partner of 18 years and I were to try to get married, we'd be refused.

People put forth various reasons why gay people shouldn't have marriage equality. Some of these reasons stem from the belief that homosexuality is wrong and that allowing same-sex couples to marry will infringe on religious freedoms. Even when same-sex couples are allowed to marry, individuals will remain free to hold whatever personal beliefs they choose. Churches will not be forced to marry same-sex couples, since civil marriage laws have no bearing on religious marriage ceremonies. Furthermore, it was already established in the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court Baker decision that same-sex couples are entitled to the same benefits and protections as opposite-sex couples.

Debates about homosexuality are beside the point. Other people argue that since civil unions were designed to provide the same benefits and protections as marriage, they are equal enough. This argument defies logic. If civil unions and marriage are truly equal, there's no need for separate categories.

Classifying couples solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is inherently discriminatory. The only justification for it is to imply that one type of love is superior to another, one type of human being superior to another. If the difference between civil unions and civil marriage is trivial, as some suggest, why make the distinction? If civil unions are sufficient, as Gov. Douglas has stated, why not leave "marriage" to the churches and have the state provide civil unions to opposite and same-sex couples alike? If this were put before the Legislature, I suspect civil unions would no longer be "sufficient."

In the past eight years, Vermonters have come to understand that the fear surrounding civil unions was unfounded. Discrimination threatens people, equality shouldn't. The 2009 legislative session is an opportunity for Vermont to once again demonstrate our fair-minded spirit and set a positive example for the rest of the country. Gay couples in Vermont, and everywhere else, should be able to announce their intentions to marry as freely and joyfully as a young straight couple in California.