Thursday, November 5, 2009

The conversation


I wanted to write something really thoughtful, something reasoned about the gay marriage issue, about how it pits people against one another, about how it divides neighborhoods and offices and even families. And about how we’ve thrown millions of dollars out the front door, not to fund a scholarship in someone’s memory, or to feed the hungry, or to help people struck by disasters get back on their feet again, but to make sure that two men or two women cannot say “I do” and have it recognized legally. On Tuesday the people of Maine voted to overturn their state legislature’s decision to allow couples to marry regardless of the gender composition. The day before that, the gay political group in Oregon announced that at some point in the future – perhaps as early as 2012 – we’re going to give it another go and see if we can’t overturn Measure 36, which was passed here in 2004 and declares that marriages in this state consist of one man and one woman. We’re going to do this, I read, by starting a conversation, by showing people who we really are.

I’m not.

Sorry if that sounds pouty, or stubborn, or whiney, but personally I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to audition for something so basic that straight people often do it more than once. If that many people in this country are so hell bent on excluding gay folk from their own little sanctuary, that’s fine with me. Like a lot of people I know – gay, straight and otherwise – I’m really sick of talking about it. It’s not that interesting when you get right down to it and it pales in comparison to other subjects we could be addressing with our time, money and energy. All I ask is that we adhere to a simple principle, one upon which I believe our country was founded. If I’m not allowed to sit at the adult table, I don’t expect to have to pay an adult fare. In other words, I want a tax break.