Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
My Gay Marriage Question
Well, here it is, 1:27pm in the afternoon and no one has responded. I have had both men and women gay friends. Is ‘gay’ the correct word to use these days?
The people who use the words ‘supposed to’ the most, are the least qualified to address this subject. Marriage traditionally implies some kind of legal formality...pay the justice of the peace or listen to some minister mumble, then get a divorce. Very good for some people’s economy.
I don’t care who gets married to who. The whole issue has been used by hate mongers and fearful people. What are these fearful people afraid of?
Posted by joe of maine on from 08/14 at 12:35 PMI would offer my daily “Hello Expendables” but it seems like it’s just me and Joe here today.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 12:51 PMHere’s another question Mickey...why do men and women get married?
Posted by joe of maine on from 08/14 at 01:02 PMHold on joe and Mickey… I have an opinion on today’s topic. I am opposed to government sanctioned gay marriage. I am also opposed to government sanctioned heterosexual marriage. I am opposed to having the government in the bedroom - as it would be when it messes around with any kind of marriage. I support a “next of kin” law. It would give all of the legal rights that now go with marriage (there are a lot of them) to everyone. This is important, especially for people without partners or families - and the elderly.
As you probably know, in my State there was a big campaign for Gay Marriage a few years ago. The literature that my gay friends distributed advised that everyone should “be careful to NOT advocate for the legal rights of marriage to be given to anyone who was not in a gay or heterosexual marriage”. That view cost them a lot of support, including mine because it marginalized all others who are denied the legal benefits of marriage. The position of the local gay community would have put the government in the bedroom and denied the legal rights to other groups. Why should legal rights be based on sexual behavior?
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 08/14 at 01:15 PMTo get to the other side?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 01:15 PMSorry, RMJ. My facetious answer was for Joe.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 01:17 PMIs there any movement for such a “next of kin” law? It makes a whole lot of sense (which probably explains why it doesn’t exist).
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 01:18 PMMickey #7...Actually it is endorsed by the Vermont Liberty Union Party and some groups within the Socialist Party. I favor an expanded version, which would allow listing more that one next of kin - would come in handy when people die or move away.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 08/14 at 01:22 PMAs screwed up as our culture is, it remains true that there are so many relatively easy steps we can take to help humanize our world and help milions in one fell swoop, e.g. what RMJ discusses above. But as long as we willingly accept what we’re given, things can only get worse.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 02:02 PMHoly horsefeathers, I left for a moment to buy some new panties and 5 other posts happened.
I don’t know what current laws are for any kind of marriage...my response is simply I have no problem with people choosing their mates. Yes how the current regime’s laws handle marriage is a concern. To hell with the current regime.
Posted by joe of maine on from 08/14 at 02:12 PMWhen I was a kid a gay person was called a “homo.” It was well into adolescence before I learned what that actually meant. As I understood it, the normal thing to do if ever called a homo was to fight. That’s it. I never knew why.
Growing up, I discovered of course that the world is about as full of “homos” as it is full of “lefties"-- people who are born left-handed.
Most of the gay people I’ve met have been kind and sympathetic friends-- beginning with Buddy who gave my grandmother a clean dress shirt because my grandfather did not have one to be buried in. He used to occasionally treat us children to a meal at one of the first pizza parlors that opened near where we lived, probably to give our grandparents “a break.” Handsome, quiet, and sincere-- we considered him curious in some ways-- but he taught us a valuable lesson: being “different” is not something to be ashamed of, but something to accept as being natural.
Since those days, AIDS came. It took Buddy and his partner of many years. Whenever I passed my grandparents home which was sold when my grandmother died, my sadness was magnified looking at the home next door which would never be the same.
In the 90s I lived next door to an AIDS hospice in Florida. People would shun me when they learned about it. It was crushing to see the ambulance arrive regularly-- with stretcher bearers removing the body of someone I had only just chatted with-- encouraging them to have faith in science and/or miracles.
Now I live in San Francisco, a city hit as hard by the disease as New Orleans was hit by Katrina. It is curious to me that my life path has led me here. Even so, one can live a life here and almost pretend that AIDS never happened. It is not on the front page anymore-- but I don’t think that it is because it deserves not to be.
Life and love are the most important issues for all people. I’ve always marvelled that this is so in spite of the matrices society creates that promote the illusions that we live forever and that money or power matters most.
Marriage, as it should be-- perhaps not as it always is, is a celebration of life and love. In its way, it can be a de facto protest against the ruling illusions.
In the end, though, life and love matter even more than even it.
Posted by Robert B. Livingston on from San Francisco, California 08/14 at 02:15 PMMZ, your question brings to mind the witticism ‘brokeback marriage’: a current or former marriage in which one partner is gay or has had a gay affair. I would add that this could include marriages of convenience.
While there are many rights afforded married couples that others don’t enjoy, I’m with RMJ on this one. Aside from the cranky medieval framework that makes marriage, um, *marriage,* the state has no right to decide who is or isn’t family. Recognized legal succession of various sorts (wills, next of kin, etc.) could be accomplished sans lawyers, and this is where the state could have a role by requiring various entities to accept such arrangements.
That said, let me raise the stakes: what if a gay and a lesbian in the military came out and got married? How would the invitations read? (Dearly Deployed...) Who would be invited? (Family? The press? A battalion of lawyers? )
I hope this isn’t seen as making light of homophobia. I leave that to its practitioners, who achieve this better than two buses full of comedians.
Posted by Zen Prole on from Urth 08/14 at 02:23 PMYikes, I step away to help Joe pick out his new panties and here comes Robert and Zen with two excellent, essentail posts. Thanks, guys.
Btw, this may be unrelated but today is the fourth anniversary of the big blackout of 2003.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 02:30 PMAnybody see that NYC ‘77 “the coolest year in hell” on VH1? I thought of it because of Mickey’s mention of the 2003 blackout...I was only four back in ‘77 but I remember the black out:
http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/vh1_rock_docs/122259/episode_about.jhtml
It goes into the birth of punk at CBGB’s, the birth of Hip Hop in the South Bronx, graffiti on the subways (remember that?), the black out...I really enjoyed it. I know, some don’t have cable, but if you ever get the chance, check it out.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 08/14 at 03:08 PMCool posts lately and great story the other day, Mickey, but man, that blackout story sure got me nostalgic. Not for the blackout, which was pretty dull for me, but for the missing ‘voices’ on the comments that day. Not that it’s not great here now, and some I know about, but… where’s Keir, for one?
And what is this, plagiarism?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/13/3139/Posted by James on from Hell's Kitchen 08/14 at 03:12 PMI got pretty nostalgic myself, James. How about Mudge, Amelopsis and the rest?
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 08/14 at 03:28 PMI’ve been meaning to catch that show, JOS. I remember 1977 very well. As for the “missing” Expendables, it would be wonderful to reunite the old group and mix them with the current gang but I guess that’s how life is. People come into your life and then move on.
James: That link was frustrating for me. If only my WWII book had been published by someone capable of promoting it.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 03:46 PMI step away for a few moments (not to pick out a new pair of panties) but to mow the yard and eat a tomato sandwich and the discussion is still going great. I was going to say what Zen said, that a “Next of kin” law has many advantages, one of the big ones is that no lawyers would be needed. The rights would be automatic.
This discussion brings to mind something that I might have discussed here before. A few years ago, a young transient man was found unconscious. He was taken to the hospital and put on life support. Then the decision was made by the Secret Ethics Committee of the hospital (who knew that hospitals have them) to remove the man from life support. Somehow a local clergy man found out about this. He intervened. The man’s life was saved and he went on to live a normal life. My point is: if there was a “next of kin” law, and we carried a card designating a list of next of kin, maybe someday we won’t end up almost dead like the young transient man. Did you all know that hospitals have secret committees that make the life and death decisions? I tried to get our local newspaper to do a report on the secret committees. They tried but were told that the committees were so secret that no information would be released.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 08/14 at 04:02 PMOh man… I didn’t mean to be upsetting or insensitive with that article. I agree with you and always felt that you had unfortunate experiences with marketing/publishers, no fault of your work itself. If only those people commenting on Common Dreams would read Private Power.
For whatever difference it might make, I just left a comment there recommending it…
Posted by James on from Hell's Kitchen 08/14 at 04:17 PMWell, due to the topic of today’s discussion, I’ll join in and say hello. I’ll also ask a question I’ve been wondering. I end up getting attracted to men who are either bi or cross dressers. Anyone got any theories on that? What kind of woman goes that way? I never know at the beginning but after I know them well and the relationship starts, I find out. Other women I know have that happen too. Is that the majority of men or is that just me? Thanks.
Posted by Sasha on from london 08/14 at 04:32 PMBut Sasha, I only wore the dress that one time.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 04:57 PMThe question wasn’t just aimed at you Mickey! And I meant men who don’t show it but I find out later. I was just hoping to tap into the wisdom of your bloggers as I have often wondered about it. Is it a traditional type of couple? Strong woman and gentler man? Or does a gentle woman appreciate that gentleness in men and she finds it in bi men? Any insights or historical examples or reading tips would be appreciated.
Posted by Sasha on from london 08/14 at 05:16 PM“I only wore the dress that one time...”
Yeah, but you seemed to enjoy it way too much.
Sorry Sasha...I have no insight for you other than I’ve heard of other women having similar patterns.
Posted by JOS on from Chicago 08/14 at 05:19 PMI’m with the advocates against state-controlled marriage—I don’t think the government should control marriage for gay people, straight people, or any kind of people.
Why is marriage controlled by the state? It certainly is not for the purposes of fomenting joy and freedom. Marriage is controlled because of inheritance—property and money. Take the property and money out of marriage, and you can have the life-affirming ritual (or non-ritual) of your choice, and it can mean as much or as little as you wish.
Give people an opportunity to define their inheritors without worrying about biological relationships, and marriage will cease to have meaning from the perspective of the government.
What are they afraid of? I wish I knew. I’m not sure all opponents of “gay marriage” are afraid to lose inheritance laws based on biological relationships, but then, what do they fear?
Sasha, I have similar proclivities. Men in dresses are sexy. I can’t explain it fully, but I think the attraction comes partially from the transgressive nature of cross-dressing—seeing men deliberately violate the very oppressive norms of masculinity and play with gender.
Peace and the life-affirming ritual of your choice to all.
Posted by Rachel N H on from San Francisco, CA 08/14 at 05:33 PMSasha: I was just kidding with my first answer. The only “wisdom” I have to offer is this: I’ve learned that what folks do in private is often quite unexpected and well outside what society “allows.” Perhaps you” pattern is more universal than you (or I) imagine.
Welcome, Rachel. Thanks for adding to the conversation. I do hope you and Sasha will join us again here. Things are slow, in general, in August. After Labor Day, I’d love to see a re-birth here. Who’s with me?
Even captcha sez: start
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 08/14 at 05:38 PMAppreciate you trying JOS. We mustn’t tease Mickey about the dress. As I said, he is so upfront about that one time. It’s the men who aren’t upfront who interest me. They might be afraid that it really means something about their sexuality. I’m interested in the make up of the men I mentioned and the type of woman who they end up with and her or my sexual composition. Why the chemistry combines so well.
Posted by Sasha on from london 08/14 at 05:39 PMSasha 20,22...It’s possible that you have it? And they obviously enjoy you...feel good! By the way, I’m single and available. I’m 59 years old but most people think I look 58. I have no money, don’t like cars. I prefer to sit by bodies of water and stare. My favorite movies are IF and the original Metropolis and I don’t like getting together with the family. That’s really about it!
This isn’t about bi-sexuals or panties or any of that, but I’ve been trading emails about political change. One man’s strategy is to bring back the draft. His logic being if enough middle and upper-middle class people found their children going into war they would revolt. I said the slaughter mongers will love you for this recommendation...so will your 18 year old son.
Posted by joe of maine on from 08/14 at 05:43 PMFor Rachel regarding: “Sasha, I have similar proclivities. Men in dresses are sexy. I can’t explain it fully, but I think the attraction comes partially from the transgressive nature of cross-dressing—seeing men deliberately violate the very oppressive norms of masculinity and play with gender.”
Dear Rachel, I don’t know the men are in dresses when I am frst attracted to them, and I’m not really into the dresses part. I like to be the woman! Although I can be a tom boy too. But, I definately agree with your point about trangressing norms and I have thought this might be the attraction and “in common” thing. I do like men who think very liberally and mentally question these norms (and thus allow me a liberal life)and perhaps those who question them very deeply act them out, and it comes from deep inside them. You might be right Rachel about that transgression issue. I’ve just always wanted to “get” it as I don’t feel bi myself and I wondered why I go for that type, but perhaps it comes from that deep questioning of all gender roles and ones willingness to “throw them off” either mentally or some men seem to do it with cloth aswell as thought. Some men might like to hand over some traditional male roles to the woman either in life and work or sexually. For example a gentle man is attracted to a woman who loves hunting and farming. I’m no hunter myself but that is an extreme example. But other times it’s in bed. Or a woman who appreciates a man doing cooking and being a domestic God because he loves it, for example. I think it’s the soulmate understanding of freeing up gender norms and finding a man who might accept all the weird and wonderful strengths and weaknesses in a woman and visa-versa. Make sense?
Posted by Sasha on from london 08/14 at 05:57 PMjoe...how about we only draft men over 50 who wear suits and ties?
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 08/14 at 06:02 PMRMJ...29...I agree, this severe, classist mentality in this backwards country is sickening…
Sasha, Rachel, as a male who has had a terrible time with relationships...your comments and questioning are refreshing.
Posted by joe of maine on from 08/14 at 06:10 PMJoe- What part of all this is refreshing, and why, if you don’t mind me asking? (and I’ve just had a challenging courtship with an older man who was a closet cross dresser so please don’t mention older men for a little while. I’d say they don’t “enjoy me”, as you mentioned, it’s more that we really enjoy or enjoyed each other, if that makes sense. Maybe that type of man enjoys being enjoyed. Mutual pleasure is the best. “Sasha, Rachel, as a male who has had a terrible time with relationships...your comments and questioning are refreshing.”
Posted by Sasha on from london 08/14 at 06:42 PMSasha—I definitely understand. You must be a compassionate person for the men in your life to feel comfortable bending gender around you. For me, gender-bending is erotic. Because I’m bi? I’m not sure about that. But I know that playing with gender is much more exciting than enacting the same roles over and over again. Interestingly enough, that has made me unpopular with men in the past . . .
Posted by Rachel N H on from San Francisco, CA 08/14 at 06:43 PMIt’s SRO at CO today. The gym I go to was packed, too.
Sasha & Rachel: it’s a little off the subject, but between Gore Vidal’s “‘homosexual’ is an adjective, not a noun” and a friend’s observation that “There is human sexuality, period, and all these hair-splitting pigeonholes are bunk,” opposition to Puritanical mores is complete. The default setting for breaking out of sex and gender roles (at least in the US, Sasha) is to be wealthy and powerful and hypocritical. For me, busting out of shackles is always fun. I once had some stonewashed black jeans that *demanded* a light pink shortsleeve shirt. I got hit on by more freakin’ women when I wore that ("Hmmm..." says Zen Prole to himself, confronting fun memories), and some male classmate commented “A guy has to be very secure to wear pink.” I think I
said “Uh-huh” and went back to what I was doing.Captcha weighs in with “his.”
James and MZ: I’ve talked with Sean Gonsalves on a handful of occasions and he’s a good guy. The fact that he’s black and lives/works on Cape Cod is a stunner. Then again, working for a newspaper is one of the few things that might give racists pause (cops, rich people, business owners, etc). Drop him a line if you like. His e-mail is at the end of his posts. http://tinyurl.com/ypdo6h
Posted by Zen Prole on from Urth 08/14 at 06:46 PMSasha...it’s simply the fact you are questioning...the human mind might be interesting, what really motivates us to do what we do...why we make certain decisions. I have a feeling we need to dig down inside ourselves for the best answers.
Posted by joe of maine on from 08/14 at 07:18 PMRachel, they don’t seem to bend gender with me, they just are that way, or is that what you mean? I don’t focus on the gender, I just appreciate the qualities of the men I mentioned, ie their mind or emotions and, or beauty. I just look for certain qualities in men and they end up all being, as I mentioned, either bi or cross dressers, and usually creative and clever. Zen P: can you say all that in plain English? I’m not quite following all that intellectual U.S speak. Can you sum up the book you mention as I’ve never read it and would love a summary of points before I read it. What interested you about it? Sorry!
Posted by Sasha on from london 08/14 at 07:24 PMSasha, I should have identified it better, but that was a quote from Gore Vidal. I can steer you toward his keynote essays if you like. He’s one of the truly remarkable American voices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_vidal
What I meant about sex and gender roles in the US, is that they are intertwined with power and privilege, and often religious hypocrisy. Rejecting those barriers is a powerful sort of liberation that especially terrifies cultural overseers (who frequently prove themselves less virtuous than most). I can’t speak for what it’s like in the UK. Hope that clarifies my post.LOL! Captcha sez ‘lay.’
Posted by Zen Prole on from Urth 08/14 at 10:57 PMDear Zen Prole, Thanks for the info, though I took it upon myself to look up your text and read through what you were referring to. I have been nursing a sick child all night and this discussion has been my sanity. So thank you everyone. Now a sister will arrive and I might get some sleep. I think I’ll live my whole life never understanding my sexuality and how it fits into the box. But the secret could be to just be yourself and not try and fit into the box. I know the type of men I like. I know they have in the past appreciated my appreciation of them, and that’s what counts in the end. My Mum used to say that sexuality was a spectrum, like a rainbow, and that some people fit the masculine model at one end and some the female model at the other end and others fit somewhere in between. The men I like and even myself might be somewhere in the in between. Somewhere in those colours which is more complex than Ken and Barbie but quite fun anyway.
Posted by Sasha on from london 08/14 at 11:49 PM
Next entry: Reality bites
Previous entry: "Where perfection is not an accident"
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
