Or, 'I'm Almost Not a Second-Class Citizen Anymore'

Wow.

Unless you've been living in a bunker with 2% milk and oatmeal cookies for the past week, I'm sure you've heard about Thursday's Supreme Court decision to strike down a Texas law banning same-sex sodomy.

I could hear the whoops and hollers in my head, as gay and lesbian people from Atlanta to Dallas to San Francisco and everywhere in between (yes, even Alabama) celebrated the landmark decision that did nothing less than get the ball rolling (finally!) on the gay civil rights movement in America.

Of course the court was going to come out and say what most of America already knew: what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is not the government's business. It's an issue of privacy, not morality. Just ask Justice Kennedy:

"...[F]or centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. 'Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.' Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850 (1992)."

Or Justice O'Connor:

"Texas' invocation of moral disapproval as a legitimate state interest proves nothing more than Texas' desire to criminalize homosexual sodomy."

Having just completed a long, harrowing year of study of our government, I would be remiss not to point out that seeking to change this law through the courts was not the proper way to do so. The change should have been made through the legislative process, and I'm not saying no one tried that, but it's like when Dad (or, if you prefer, Homophobic Texas Legislature) says you can't spend the night at your friend's house. Isn't it a little wrong to immediately go ask Mom (The United States Supreme Court) the same thing, knowing she'll say yes? That said, I'll take my legitimization in the eyes of the government however I can get it.

"To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse."

See, there's more to a relationship than sex. Quit demeaning me, dammit.

Of course, not ten minutes after the decision was handed down, the uberconservative right started in with the diatribes, all blah blah blah chipping-away-at-America's-moral-values-cakes. Whatever, uberconvervative right. If your definition of America's moral values includes discriminating against people who are different from you on the sole basis of their differences, then one of us needs to reread our Constitution. It's funny (but not really) that the same people and groups, essentially, who are at the forefront of the fight against gay and lesbian equality also fought against women's liberation in the 1960s and desegregation in our nation's infancy.

"When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. The central holding of Bowers has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons."

In deciding this case, the Court reexamined the 1986 decision in Bowers vs. Hardwick as well as the historical support cited therein.

"...[E]arly American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally. ... The longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which the Bowers decision placed such reliance is as consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character."

Okay, how ironic is it that a promo for The 700 Club came on while I was writing this? If there were a gay rights news program with as wide coverage as the religious right's 700 Club, the public's perceptions and opinions would be a lot different.

"The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals."

Ooh, the court has granted the premise of a possibility that same-sex 'personal relationships' might be entitled to recognition. That bodes well for the legalization of gay marriages, which, if gay activists, enraged Republicans, and the Court's own dissenting opinion are to be believed, will be the next major battle in the struggle for gay equality.

There is currently a Constitutional amendment before the US House of Representatives to ban gay marriage. Let me tell you why this shit will never pass. First of all, it needs the approval of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, which might actually happen. But then it needs the approval of three-fourths of all states, which is where this ridiculous amendment hits the wall.

What the good ol' boys in Washington fail to understand is that public opinion is not in their favor on this issue. If somewhere between ten and twenty percent of America is gay and for the sake of argument we assume that we can pick and choose twenty percent of the states that will not support the amendment, we would need just five other gay-friendly states to vote against it and it will be struck down. Constitutional amendments are bitches like that. It's hard to pass them for a reason.

And if there is any question that gay marriages will be legalized in America, may I point out in my cutest teenage girl voice, "But Mom, Canada is doing it!"

Anywhore, now that you've read all the hash and rehash, now that Pride Month is winding down and the whoops and hollers and footage of gay pride parades are but echoes and memories, you're probably asking yourself where I fit into all of this.

Well, somebody's got to write the letters to Congressmen. Someone has to organize the grassroots voting campaigns (go register to vote, dammit! See?). One of us has to be the positive role model who happens to be gay. Who will bitch and moan in their Internet journal about the lack of gay and lesbian rights in America? Who will do whatever it takes to further the oft-spurned 'gay agenda' in America (for the record, this 'gay agenda' consists of nothing more than having the same legal protections as everyone else in this country, and if that's going to drag the United States down into some moral sewer, well, so be it)? Who will make out with Ruth Bader Ginsberg?

I will. I will do all those things. Except maybe the last one. And as I do them, I will remember the words of (watch this) the late, great Katherine Hepburn (1907-2003): "Just being alive is a tremendous opportunity. It's what you do with it that matters."

***

Yeah, I kind of stayed up until 4:30 this morning working on this, and I'm still not completely happy with it, but it's come a damn long way. I hope you all appreciate these sacrifices I make for you. I slaved over a hot laptop all night to put this entry together. Appreciate me! I'm begging you!

Okay, stop now.