The Tiny Voice of Reason

Coming Out: There Are Other Types Of Closets

When I first met my ex-partner I thought he was a very nice guy.  I did not realised how far in the closet he was until after a month of dating he made excuse after excuse as to why I could not meet his family.  I would hear from his co-workers that his parents heard that he was dating someone but did not know who and wanted to meet the girl.

So I confronted my ex-partner with this information and he broke down.  I could never, ever meet his parents he said.  They would disown him if we were to meet.  They would never accept our relationship.  I remember thinking that this was the nineties.  Who the heck gets disowned anymore?  His parents eventually took matters into their own hands and used their keys one day to enter the house.

It does not leave a very good impression on the man who might possibly be your future pseudo father-in-law, since I was sure I was never getting married, to be wielding a Louisville Slugger and yelling "Who the fuck are you!?" when you first meet.  I smile instead of cringe at that memory because it amuses me even now.  He identified himself and carefully watched me lower the bat before calmly stating "You're black."  To which I replied quite confused "Yes...and?"  He simply shook his head and left.

I never hid from anyone that I dated outside of my race.  I am very open about it.  The opinion of my neighbours hardly mattered to me since they were complete strangers.  I have had my apartment in Brooklyn shot at for it.  I've been threatened with rape because of my daughter, who's father is actually black even though she looks Hispanic.  I've been called names, had bottles thrown at me and my apartment broken into.  Yet, I am who I am and I date whomever I please.   I live by no other dictate but my own and everyone else can get over it.

When my partner came home later that day, I said while toting laundry "I met your parents today."  He actually screamed like a six year old, dropped his pile of laundry on the floor and ran praying up the stairs.  After hiding me from them for a month his worse fears had come true.  They had found out.  Did I mention my partner was 30 to my 20 years?  He was so sure he would be disowned and from the yelling, pleading and begging I heard from his end of the conversation, it was almost a sure thing until his father put his foot down.  Yes, my partners mother wanted to disown her own son.

It's not a good thing to stand there and listen to your partner beg, plead and vow to leave you.  I started packing my bags.  If he wanted to please his parents that much then maybe he should stay single and closeted.  I was not the first person of colour he had dated and I knew I would not be the last.  I got partway to the door when his tearful conversation ended and he noticed me and my bags.  I was shocked that he actually had the nerve to ask me "Where are you going?"  I replied "Somewhere between "It was just a thing" and "It doesn't mean anything." I decided I'd rather be in my empty apartment than here with you."

What shocked me more was his next reply where he told me "But I told them you're pregnant"  Now that was news to me.  When did this happen and how was it medically possible?  I was on birth control as well as using condoms.  Well, I was pregnant I found out a few weeks later.  Life got pretty strange after that.  His sister had a christening party and he was all excited to go until she said he was welcome to come by as long as I stayed home.  That was the same for birthdays and other holidays. I thought this only happened in LGBT movies.

His mother tolerated our relationship you see.  It was his choice to stay with me so he could see his family on her terms.  I was to stay away so our relationship did not corrupt the children into thinking it was okay.  It got a little better when our son was born.  His mother quickly brought a priest over to bless the house and our son. 

I later found out what was really going on.  Our son was the first son of the first son so our son inherited his grandfather's name and the family fortunes.  My presence as his mother was tolerated until I decided I'd had enough.  I never found out how I got pregnant until the day, the mother who so quickly wanted to disowned him, dutifully paid $50k to try to end my parental rights.  My ex-partner purposefully got me pregnant in hopes of having a son so he could inherit.  His very words.

I endured negro comments, racist questions and astonishment over our son's skin colour where his sister asked "What happened? I thought black genes were dominant.  Why is the baby white?"   His immediate family were so concerned with his "dirty little secret" coming out that they didn't even invite me to my own son's christening party.  My partner kept saying to go with it, his family will eventually come around. It didn't matter most of the time since we never saw them.

The day I met the extended family was when my ex-partner's aunt showed up at their place of business unannounced.  She took one look at me, turned to her younger sister and said "The way you were carrying on you would think she was the shade of the black crayon."  Then she turned, grabbed my arm and held it up for her sister to see "She's brown."  Suddenly I was invited to Thanksgiving dinner but I was never, ever, comfortable around them.  They seemed to instantly forget what was said and done.  I never could. 

I eventually realised, after living with my ex-partner for a three more years where I mysteriously got pregnant every time I decided to leave.  Just like there is such a thing as dating a same-sex partner and being a homophobe, some can date an partner of another race and still be racist.  As far as their family is concerned, our children are not black.  To them, I do not exist.

When I Grow Up: Let's Play Pretend

I rushed out of my car to write this down.  How hilarious is that?  I have been asked the question "What do you want to do with your life?" since I was one year away from graduating high school.  I could never answer as I had all these things I wanted to be when I was little still stuck in my head.  An astronaut, a mechanic, a race car driver, a cowboy, an Apache, a cop and Spiderman.  Those where the images that flitted through my mind in rapid secession in an endless frustrating loop whenever I was asked my plans for life.

I realised on my drive home why I could never answer that simple question.  I never got the chance to fully explore my personality.  Every time I wanted to play the leader, the hero, the decisive, confident and self-assured person I was always told no.  Those roles were not for me as I was the victim, the hostage, the follower, the insecure, fragile and self-doubting person who needed to find a protector.   I felt such a disconnect from society.  Was I normal?  Why can I not stop myself from stepping into the roles they say are not for me?

I withdrew from pretend play as a child and sunk myself deep into my comic books.  The X-Men.  I loved the stories where the people were as different as I was.  Those who showed that I did not have to be a follower and there should be no question of my ability to lead based on gender.  Those comic books were my treasures.  I kept them in pristine condition in the plastic sleeves they came in.   They helped me do what no other adult in my life was willing to do; let me be myself.

I used what I learned from the comic books to take the information the adults provided me with, of what they thought a child of my gender should be, and I projected it.  Everyone thinks that the superhero is the creation of the citizen's imagination when it is the normal, unassuming citizen that is the creation of the superhero's imagination.  When I was myself it drew negative attention to me.  I learned how to pretend to be an empty headed idiot.  To be invisible to those who expect nothing from you.  When the adults watched I was one mirage and with my peers I was another.

My family was convinced I was a borderline imbecile and I did nothing for years to dispel that image or discourage the many lectures regarding what a horrible, disappointing child I was.  It was all part of the image.  My alter-ego.  Sometimes I wanted to shuck it all and say "I've done all this stuff that people respect me for which you know nothing about."  when the sneering laughter got a bit too much, yet I knew it all would be met with disbelief.  Almost as if I claimed to really be Rogue in disguise.  So, I buried the frustration and kept the mirage they wanted in place. 

Today I sat in my car, with the engine idling and realised a few things.  Whenever I was asked the question "What do you plan to do with your life?" there was always a preconceived idea being held up where I was found lacking.  It was never a question meant to be answered and deep down I already knew that on an unconscious level yet the frustration of knowing they kept discarding what I've done in favour of what they want me to become still rose.  Another habit I did not realise I had.

So I sat there today and I smiled.  I smiled and smiled and smiled until I believe my jaw would start to creak from the strain.  Our 4 year old chimed in from the backseat to her older sister "Mommy's happy."  Do you know she's right?  It is not necessary to toss off the cloak of my alter-ego to reveal my true identity.  Then I also realised that I may have read one too many comic books but who cares.  I mean, really?  Who cares? 

The next time I am asked that question, I will smile a smile steeped in secrets because I have finally realised that the question is unimportant.  My answer will be simply "This and that.  This and that." because my answer is unimportant too.  I already am who I am.  I have always been who I am.  I was already living my life despite the obstacles thrown my way.  Without their support.  It all started with that first breath.  I did not need to grow up to be someone else.  I was already who I was born to be.  Me.

The Non-Equality Equality Movements

There have been several civil rights movements in the United States starting with the simultaneous Black and Women's Suffrage movements for the rights of blacks and women to enter the voting sphere currently occupied only by white men.  The Black Suffrage movement included some men of colour.   From Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern and African descent, with the exclusion of Native American men, fell under the Black label due to the varied dark colours of skin pigmentation. 

In the end, the black men in the Black Suffrage movement while agreeing that every man should be equal believed it did not apply to women of any race.  Women of colour suddenly were left in limbo, not accepted within the Black Suffrage movement due to their gender and excluded from the Women's Suffrage movement due to their skin pigmentation. 

Men of all colours believed in the current gender roles of the societal binary system which held that the man was the head of the woman and above her in all financial, familial and religious decisions leaving little need, they concurred, for Women's Suffrage as women already had freedom from decision making.  The equality idea suddenly had restrictions of privilege.  What were considered rights at the beginning of the equality battle were now viewed as special privileges that women wanted.  What drew the men together, their eventual common ground, was the belief in the traditional man.

This theme carried out within the Women's Suffrage movement with traditional women who supported the traditional gender roles began campaigning against the Suffragists.  They were called The Antis or the Anti-Suffragists.  The term feminist was used to describe the militant woman who was aggressive in the fight to free women from the restrictions of the gender roles, never gave up regardless of arrest or persecution like one would believe the "fairer sex" the "weaker sex" were incapable of.  A militant woman in the fight for Women's Equality.  A Feminist.  A woman with a "man's" attitude stepping into the masculine gender role.  What many considered an "abomination".

There was no equality all around within the Women's Suffrage movement just as there is no equality all around within the LGBT movement as there will always be overly militant factions who prefer equality only for those who resemble them whether by race, class, religion, education, marital status, gender identity, gender expression and/or sexual orientation.   Just as some gay people of colour are today excluded by, or in turn exclude, gays of another race, or trans sexual/gender and gender queer are excluded by, or exclude, those of matching sex and gender, so did the women from the late 1800s to 1900s. 

It took women 72 years to get the right to vote but not full equality and while men of colour had won their right to vote 72 years earlier by breaking with the Women's Suffragists, they found that was all they won.  The second civil rights movement began the fight to end the separate but equal stipulation to both Suffrage movements. Both people of colour and women faced bias through racism, classism and sexism with separate grade schools, colleges, and employment opportunities. 

Elementary education was now compulsory since the abolishment of child labour in the 1930s where the children of the poorer classes were finally seen as more than products of their class and undeserving of the right to rise above their station.  Colleges on the other hand were still reserved for the upper and middle classes.  There were separate colleges for women and men and again for men and women of colour.  Such as Howard University, Elmira Female College of NY, Barber-Scotia College, Morehouse College and Wesleyan College, to name a few.  There was no true equality only levels of privilege.

At the same time women won the right to vote in 1920, a Eugenics policy of sterilizing certain mental patients, the poor classes of society and criminals was enacted under the guise of 'improving the human gene pool" but was initially focused on social class and intelligence.  Racial segregation, marriage restrictions, segregation of the mentally ill, and compulsory sterilisation were all part of the Eugenics movement. 

Nearly every state had eugenics laws on their books with California leading the way in compulsory sterilisations, which finally ended everywhere during the second Civil Rights era.  Psychiatrists used the captive gay patients, the mentally ill, and the criminals, from prisons and mental institutions as guinea pigs for shock therapy, compulsory sterilisation, and libido-suppressing medication among others.   As I said, there was no true equality for anyone just levels of privileges.  The highest privileges going to those who were traditional men and women. 

During second civil rights movement there were two groups fighting for equality.  The Black civil rights movement fighting for equality of people of colour and the Gay Liberation movement.  The first commercials against the "homosexual disease" were aired during the 1950s (Boys Beware 1950s PSA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqIIeGmhL2Q&feature=player_embedded) and the first steps to employment discrimination for gays were created when Republican President Eisenhower signed an executive order barring gays and lesbians from federal employment.  Marriage restrictions were already present due to the sodomy laws which not only made anal but also oral sex illegal.   Many today still assume that all gay men exclusively perform anal sex and the sodomy laws should be reintroduced to prevent same-sex marriage.

Many of the LGBT community were also present in the Black civil rights movement and I dismiss any clamour to say different.  You can be any race and gay, you can be any gender and gay, you can be any class and gay, and you can be any sex; gender normative or trans and gay.  Baynard Rusting, the black gay man behind the organization of the march on Wasington DC with Dr. King Jr. was right there fighting for equality for all. 

Again, there were tossed only privileges given to those who are traditional instead of full equality for all.  Men of any race are paid higher than women of any sexual orientation.  Men and women cannot be fired due to race, religion, gender granting job security.   Gay, lesbian, asexual, bisexual, trans men and trans women have no employment security due to sexual orientation yet those who are considered traditional as in heterosexual and gender normative are protected.

We might say that all this should have been covered under the civil rights, gay liberation and women's rights movements but what really happened instead was not a granting for full rights but a protection of the privilege of those who are physically, psychologically and sexually traditional.  First by the inclusion of traditional black men, then by the inclusion of traditional women and I am now watching the inclusion of traditional gays, lesbians and gender normative post-operative transsexuals only. 

When the Republicans are the only ones starting to be inclusive to this new civil rights movement, it usually means another compromise on equality is on the way.  After all, "radical" congressional Republicans backed Black Suffrage and they were also the first major political party to back Women's rights, even when they didn't fully agree on a personal level.  The new civil rights movement is already splintering again with the decisions to wait until later for some groups of non-traditional men and women to achieve equality with the delay of passage of ENDA and repeal of DADT.  The last few civil rights movements were more of a "let's toss them a few things that seem like full equality so they will vote for us" deal.

Why else would we be here again, still fighting the traditionalist men and women for the dignity to be ourselves?  Fighting to retain reproductive control, sexual freedom, marriage equality, employment security which were battles that began in the US almost 200 years ago in the 1800s.  Every attempt that is made is met with the fretful squeal of "traditionalists" against full inclusion of, what is now their privileges, so everyone can gain full equality; "Another attempt to destroy the traditional family!"

Let's not be deflected again.  Support the American Equality Bill for full inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act (I hope gender expression is included):  http://www.change.org/petitions/view/petition_for_full_equality_for_all_americans

The Study Tony Perkin's Keeps Misquoting: Reproductive Urge, Rights, Gender, Sex and Sexual Orientation

This may come as a shock. Reproductive urge is dependent upon the individual not gender, sex, or sexual orientation. Some of us have absolutely no urge to have children, which is why we have seen many relationships end due to one individual in the couple who has the reproductive urge while the other does not. Whether it is to have a child by way of sex, in-vitro, adoption, or surrogacy.

It does not matter if we are gay, straight, bisexual, trans gender, married, single, male or female (although I believe trans gender falls under male or female); some of us just need to nurture. To parent. It is devastating to realise that in many states that right to reproduce, to nurture, to be a parent, is denied.

Not due to any parental deficiency. There are disabled, addicted, incarcerated, abusive, and other biological parents with mental health issues. Nothing these parents have done, or are physically unable to do, bars them from their reproductive right, and should not, unless they have physically hurt their children. Yet some gay and straight individuals are not granted reproductive rights due to bigotry against individuals who are "socially infertile".

The current argument for barring those who are "socially infertile" is that children need two parents. I will agree that the ideal would be a two (employed) parent household. Not a specific heterosexual two parent household. Simply a two parent household regardless of sex, gender and sexual orientation that has the income along with emotional stability needed to raise a child. There is a unique difference between mother or father and parent. Anyone can be a mother or father. It takes a special person to be a parent. A parent bases all decisions due to the well being of the child.

A parent will not get married to provide a mother or a father to a child based on societal belief, or simply due to the love that person has for the parent. A parent will get married to another parent. Another person who will also base their decisions on the well being of the child. Who loves that child.

The one thing in the study everyone keeps quoting from, Charting Parenting: A Statistical Portrait of Mothers and Fathers in America, was that it had NOTHING to do with marriage. It was a study on Parenting. I had looked it up previously in 2006 while answering a man going through a heterosexual divorce in a bid to make sure his ex-wife did not cut him out of their child's life. Something for his attorney to use in court. It stated that children with two parents (divorced, single or married) do better than children who have only one parent involved in their lives. It defined a parent as:

Who is a parent? This answer is not as obvious as one might think. Definitions of parenthood can include genetic, legal, and practical criteria. Throughout this report we do not use any single definition of parenthood. For this indicator, however, we define parenthood in two ways: genetically (have you ever had a biological child), and practically (are you living with your own child under age 18, regardless of the type of relationship). Both measures have their limitations: the genetic definition does not say anything about the current relationship, and is doubtless under-reported for men; the practical definition adopted here leaves out nonresident parents of minor children, an important group. Together, however, they give us a good starting point for the report.

The part that is taken out of context states that:

Marriage is one of the most beneficial resources for adults and children alike. Children in married parent families tend to have fewer behavior problems, better emotional well-being, and better academic outcomes, on average, than children in single parent or divorced families.

Gay couples are NOT single parents or parents in a divided and/or conflicted household. In the same paragraph it also states:

Marriage is less beneficial for children’s emotional and behavioral well-being in families marked by high parental conflict. Fathers’ attachments to their children are often contingent upon marriage - fathers tend to disengage from children they no longer live with, making less frequent visits and calls to them over time.

And in regards to Divorce:

Divorce is linked to behavior problems among children, including depression, antisocial behavior,
impulsive/hyperactive behavior, and school behavior problems. It places daughters at greater risk of having nonmarital births. Often these outcomes are the result of the processes that are set into motion when parents divorce.

Children living with one parent are more likely to have household income below the poverty line than children living with both parents, and these children are often uprooted to new neighborhoods and schools supported by fewer financial resources. Spending time in a family that is not headed by two married parents increases the likelihood that a child will experience subsequent changes in his or her family status. Thus, changes in a child’s family situation can cause short-term instability and also interrupt important pathways for a child’s social-economic well-being in adulthood.

I would love to suggest reading the study in it's entirety.

Charting Parenting: A Statistical Portrait of Mothers and Fathers in America
http://www.childtrends.org/files/ParenthoodRpt2002.pdf

Marriage Is Either Civil Monogamy or Civil Polygamy Nothing More

In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Merrill Anti-Polygamy Act which made the United States a Monogamous nation. In 1878, the Anti-Polygamy law was taken to the US Supreme Court with the case Reynolds vs United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145).

In Reynolds vs United States, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US was a monogamous country and the civil marriage contract would consist of only two persons. This civil marriage contract could only be terminated by death or divorce before another civil marriage contract could be issued. In regards to religious freedom, the US Supreme Court said that the government could not regulate religious belief which would be in violation of the First Amendment.

The government can, however, regulate the actions of its inhabitants. The court then used ritual human sacrifice as an example. If a person believes that the sacrifice of another is part of their religion, there is no crime committed as it is still a belief. When this person carries out the actions of this belief it is no longer protected under religious freedom as it has gone from idea to action; the civil crime of murder. Religious freedom is protected, as we can believe anything we want, we simply cannot harm another living creature in accordance to the laws of the Nation.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s laws preventing the marriage of those considered mentally ill began to appear on the legal books. These laws were in response to the Naturalization Law of 1790 which stated that the privilege of US Citizenship was for free white citizens only. Then they realised that law did not prevent the socially undesirables, such as the mentally ill, criminals, the sick and poor, from entering the country.

The government built Ellis Island to process these immigrants initially to make sure they could financially take care of themselves without risk of becoming dependent upon the government. Everything evolved from there. Soon they were testing for potential sicknesses, then someone suggested a literacy test, then the Eugenic scientists stepped in to provide a biological reason for preventing immigration. The state of Indiana was the first to pass an Eugenics law in 1907 although it was repealed in 1921. (1907 Indiana Eugenics Law: http://www.in.gov/history/markers/524.htm) So it began.

The Eugenics laws led to the commitment and compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill, the disabled, homosexuals, the poor, socially inadequate and criminals. While created in the United States to initially combat immigration, this idea was later adopted by Hitler's Nazi Army. You can read the history of US Eugenics here (http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay9text.html) The Eugenics Act would not be repealed until 1965 with the US Immigration and Nationality Act (http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/1965_immigration_and_nationality_act.html). Marriage is a step to citizenship.

In 1962 Loving vs. Virginia overturned the miscegenation laws. The laws prevented non-whites from entering a monogamous civil marriage contract with a white person, based on the religious belief that the races should not mix. The State of Virginia argued that since it's law equally punished whites and non-whites for marrying, that their statutes were not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The US Supreme Court countered, that since the State of Virginia only punished marriages involving whites, their logic was incorrect. The law only protected whites, as whites and non-whites could still marry. They were only being punished for marrying each other. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1)

During the Reformation of the Catholic Church, the laws of the Church were transferred to the Civil Courts. and the first law against sodomy was issued. During the Ratification of the Bill of Rights most of the new states had adopted some form of the English common law and/or statutes. The state of Rhode Island was the first state to pass an anti-sodomy law in 1662. The anti-sodomy laws were part of the morality laws of the Church of England targeting the sexual behaviour of the citizens. When the US States began tailoring the Anti-Sodomy laws to target only one group of citizens, violating their privacy to enforce it and using it to prevent them from entering a civil monogamous marriage; it culminated in the US Supreme Court hearing Lawrence vs Texas in 2003. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102).

The US Supreme Court concluded that the Anti-Sodomy laws were unconstitutional and stated in the opinion that the Constitution offers it's citizens the liberty to enter into relationships in the privacy of their homes, private lives and still retain their dignity as free citizens. Today we are waiting on another case to be tried, not at the US Supreme Court level but on the Federal level in regards to Proposition 8. Proposition 8 does not punish with jail time or a fine as the bigamy and miscegenation laws did. Proposition 8 prevented marriage based on the religious definition of gender; one man and one woman and was the result of the Lawrence vs. Texas decision opening the way for same-sex marriages within the nation. It punished individuals and their families by denying equal protections in family court, health insurance, and other benefits simply due to the gender of the couple/parents involved. (1138 Benefits and Legal Protections of Marriage: http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons and the UAFA Act http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111%3AH.R.2709:)

What the State of California's Proposition 8, and the Federal government's DOMA legislature, have in common with the Miscegenation laws is that it prevents, and punishes, certain civil monogamous marriage contracts by gender. Where the gender of the persons who wish to enter into a consensual monogamous civil marriage contract are prevented only if the people involved meet the religious definition of gender.

The religious definition of gender in the US is based on the book of Genesis in the Bible where it states that God made man then made woman as his helper through life. This religious belief states that God gave man a woman to marry and produce children therefore a civil marriage must be between opposite gender heterosexual couples. The states claim constitutionality of the law as it seems to equally ban both men and women from marrying. Yet, it does not ban men and women from marrying each other. It only bans homosexual and/or transgender men and women, in essence protecting only heterosexual couples.

The religious definition of gender should never be allowed within our civil statutes as there are so many gender anomalies. The religious definition of gender is inaccurate and based on the visual physical sex of the individuals involved (i.e. gender observed at birth by viewing genitalia). Which is why there is such different legislature in place when it comes to those of indeterminate gender, where their birth certificate does not match, or questions, the gender that was observed at birth. I say observed, as there are genetic anomalies that present after birth. For example, a person who presents as female at birth, can be chromosomally male or, though it is rare, spontaneously change physical gender without medical intervention later in life. There can be no legal definition of gender as it is impossible to determine without asking the individual. (Intersex Initiative: http://www.intersexinitiative.org/articles/intersex-faq.html)

Therefore, in my opinion and hopefully the Federal government's, the Anti-Gay laws are all unconstitutional.

Why Marriage Equality Matters

The opposition to same sex marriage states that marriage is between one man and one women in compliance of society's gender binary rules. This law was based on the idea that gender is determined by society instead of by the individual and this concept was the idea behind Proposition 8. So how exactly does society determine gender? By physical attributes, such as facial features, width of shoulders, Adam's apple, timbre of voice, jaw line and clothing. This determination, of course, is only visual. After all how else would you determine gender? Everyone knows what a man looks like and that is remarkably different from a woman, correct? Not exactly.

We know that in order to obtain a marriage license, one must provide documentation to prove we are whom we say we are. This was to prevent bigamy and incest yet now it's causing quite a stir when it comes to gender and the birth certificate. There is an individual who wants to be married to their partner; visually they are the opposite gender yet the birth certificate says they are a same gender couple. What to do? What to do? Which gender does the government official go by and why? The visual determination of the adult in front of them or the visual determination of the doctor at birth?

The gay marriage ban sought to take care of visually same sex couples from being included in civil federal marriage and make issuing a marriage certificate easier. If a clerk sees two of the same gender at the counter asking for a marriage certificate it is an automatic "NO!" Viola! Danger to the binary eliminated! Now this birth certificate is telling the clerk that they have no idea what gender is? How is this possible?

Laws written using gender determination are based on visual input, yet gender is much more complex than that. There is no way to visually or genetically determine gender. There are so many individual interpretations of gender only the individual knows how they identify. Male, female, intersex, androgynous etc. So how can they write a law based on a concept that is shown to be medically incorrect?

Society's way of determining sexual orientation is by looking at the visual gender of the couple. If the visual gender says one thing and the birth certificate says another then how does one determine sexual orientation of couples applying for marriage? Is the couple's sexual orientation gay due to visual gender or straight due to birth gender or vice versa? How can you legally discriminate?

The only way to be fair and just is to let all consenting adults who aren't committing a crime be allowed to marry. At this time the only crimes that can be committed by marriage are bigamy, incest and statutory rape.

Gender Elitism: Binary Desperation

What did gay mean, historically, in the eyes of ancient society? Anyone outside of the social gender binary. It was incorrectly determined that physical sex determined gender which therefore determined sexual orientation. A same sex pairing was, and is, still viewed in terms of the gender binary. It was concluded that if a male wished to become the receptive sex, therefore that male identified as the opposite gender; female.

Most cis gays struggle with society's gender binary the minute we realise we are attracted to the same sex. The struggle centers around gender identity amazingly. Look closely at the "gay stereotype", everything that is on society's checklist for gay men is stereotypically feminine. Stereotypically on the female wing of the gender binary. This is what part of the closeted crisis is about. Suddenly we go from "virile man" to "sterile female" (fertile woman to sterile man if you're lesbian), in the eyes of society. Family and friends begin to mourn the death of our gender while wailing about "lack of offspring" and future pronoun changes. Such utter nonsense.

Modern society is still in the infancy of acknowledging that sex, gender and sexual orientation are three separate things. Therefore the societal term "straight-acting gay" is ludicrous, as the implications behind the term, by binary definition, would be "masculine woman" which is inaccurate. The correct definition of a "straight acting gay" would be any gay person who continues to live life as straight while denying our true orientation. That is a straight acting gay; closeted. I would hazard a guess that anyone who calls themselves "straight-acting" means to imply they are cis gay, meaning they are quite comfortable with the gender norms of their physical sex.

There is the gender binary; cis/gender normative and those beyond the binary; trans. While most trans men and women do not struggle with gender identity we do struggle with physical sex. Again, many seek to embrace the very gender binary we defy with our very existence as it has been all we have ever known and the comfort is enticing. It is the reason why those whom we judge as successful in reclaiming part of the binary embrace the status of such a classification.

Some gender normative trans men and women, (I know it sounds like an oxymoron) along with some cis gays, see no reason for legislation as everyday life poses no outward risk due to the claim held on the binary. In other words, "my physical sex not only now matches my gender identity, it also matches my gender expression, therefore any legislation would be tantamount to saying that "I am fake."" Ego can be a dangerous thing to have too much of as it eliminates the ability to view the entire picture down to a single pixel.

There are some of us who will never become, or wish to be, gender normative and are quite happy this way. It is disheartening to witness those in our community who identify as cis request that WE conform to THEIR self identity. Asking any man or woman to tone down their gender expression so both the cis identified gay and straight communities, along with cis identified trans men and women, can feel comfortable is insulting. Many cis identified people refuse to acknowledge that the gender binary is outdated; limiting.

Fighting to be whom we are is not limited to physical sex (gender reassignment) or sexual orientation (gay marriage). Many miss the point when they exclude gender expression. This entire movement began with gender expression during the Stonewall Riots; this entire movement is still about gender expression. To be allowed to define our own masculinity, femininity and/or a blend of both without persecution.

There is a deep seated fear that the movement is mobilized to destroy gender and that is not so. The movement is about freeing gender from the current constraints. There never was a binary; there is only gender. Gender is your personal make-up, just as all offspring of two separate individuals receive 50% of our DNA from each parent, the way we utilize that DNA is never the same unless we are identical and even that is limited to external physical qualities.

Gender is not only how you identify, it is also how you express that identity. Every person; cis or trans, sexual or asexual, religious or non, of any race young or old should be concerned about gender expression and discrimination legislation as it applies to us all.

Continuing the Mission: The Fight To Include God and Christian Religion In Public Education

Very few are wont to remember those myriad dusty tomes that contain the histories of civilization. The few who were literate enough to read and write were Priests and Nuns. If we look back with an unbiased eye we will see that next to the royals, before the merchant class gained access to higher society, the Church was equal to the monarchy. (http://medievaleurope.mrdonn.org/bishops.html) Whenever we look back at history we see a religious representative during almost every colonization attempt. The missionaries. The mission was to bring civilization to the heathens and that civility was God. (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/texas/missions.htm)

The first schools in the New World were opened and run by the missionaries. The boarding schools that assimilated the Native Americans, the schools that "civilized" the Mexicans, the African continent, Asia and the West Indies. Literacy was not deemed necessary to shod horses, build houses, or churn butter. Literacy was needed in diplomatic situations, upper class business dealings and in learning the teachings of the Church. (http://www.oberlin.edu/external/EOG/Dube/DubeMiss.htm)

Education and Christianity were very intertwined until the world began to change from a religious society to a secular one. Slowly society began to separate from religion, with the help of scientific exploration and discoveries, regulating worship to Sunday in a one building and education to another. The First Amendment was established to promote the further separation of religion from government. A break from the history of civilization where everyone was required to have only ONE religion and were educated under the text of that ONE religion. The freedom of religion clause was to have secular freedom in life without fear of persecution from the Church. Society was still reeling from the "Spanish" Inquisition (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html) and other areas in civil life that the Church sought to influence. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm)

Society began to thirst for true knowledge in lieu of religious dogma and the church began to lose power. Thus the Enlightenment began (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html) When schools were in the control of the church, the church was able to swell it's membership and indoctrinate another generation of followers. Mission schools became private schools that catered to those of the faith.

Today the fight to return religion to education, and civil society, continues. It was thought that one was not civilized until one knew God. From the assimilation of the Saxons during the Norman-Saxon War and the ban on Paganism where the punishment for practicing the religion was death by burning at the stake (http://www.heretication.info/_pagans.html); to the attempted assimilation of the Middle-East during The Crusades. (http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/the-crusades.htm) Many protesters of our current educational system cite a descent into immorality the more secular the world becomes and the belief that Christianity is beginning to lose power. All those cultures, races and sexually free peoples that were oppressed and assimilated will somehow be liberated.

Arguing Over Curriculum: How Soon We Forget

From the time the first kid attended school I would guess there has been a parent somewhere protesting the curriculum. Once upon a time only male royalty, and those who were so disgusting as to earn their own wealth, were educated. There was a wet nurse for feeding, a nanny for child care and many tutors who were paid quite handsomely to teach in the home. There were no schools. If you wanted an educated child, you paid a tutor. Even so, respect and equality within class took time to achieve. It was only when it was realised that the royals had only titles but no cash and the merchant class had cash but no title that the situation became mutually beneficial.

Uneducated, poor children were put to work at an early age to help earn an income to support the family. Chimney sweeps, maids, stable boys, kitchen helpers, miners etc. The lower class also had no legal recourse against the upper class. The upper class owned the land their homes sat upon and the lower class was required to pay for their continual inhabitation. Have anyone in the household do something untoward and you could find your family in the streets without a penny.

It was only in the Industrial Age that finally saw sweeping reform and the enactment of the Child Labour Laws. Yes, it was not a considered a right for poor Caucasian children to be educated; literate. Their parents fought for the right to learn about the world. They fought for the right to learn how to socialise with the upper class in the hopes of gaining a better position in life. The fought for the right to be educated into a brighter future for the generations to come. The day the first child attended school was the day poor whites gained a light at the end of the tunnel where the future did not seem quite so bleak. Thus is history. It seems to have been forgotten in some households that education was not a RACE privilege but a CLASS privilege.

In early American history, the plight of the lower class was not over. The slave owners were part of the upper class and poor whites were treated just one step above a slave. When the slavery laws were first enacted if a white woman married a black slave she too became a slave and any child of their union was a slave. It was only when the law was clarified that only any person of African descent could be considered a slave was this status lifted legally but the treatment still occurred. It is one of the origins of "nigger lover". Many lower class whites could not afford to send their children to school as consistently as upper class whites. Children were needed to help out at home with chores and siblings. It took the US government making school mandatory for lower class whites to finally achieve educational equality with the upper class. This is history that has been forgotten.

During segregation, lower class whites were finally receiving equal education with middle class whites while the upper class whites continued with private schools and tutors. Now that the fight for equality of class was over, they forgot how hard their forebears fought for what was now becoming common place. Some became part of the IN crowd and forgot what it was like to be on the outside looking in, having to fight for the right to dignity and pride of self. Now that there was finally a tentative equality within race, many sided against people of colour who were now demanding their right to equality.

Before the civil rights movement, it was illegal for anyone of African origin/descent to be educated, yet, in order to quell any uprising within the Native American community it was thought prudent to assimilate their children into society. To "Americanize" them and educate out any affiliation with their native culture. Length of hair, language, clothing, and yes, religion. Anything a child did that might be construed as remotely Native American was met with punishment. The Indian Citizenship Act took it all one step further and granted Native Americans US citizenship to make sure they did not legally have any standing as separate nations and ensuring that any hostile action would be treason. This is history that has been forgotten.

Education for women, while not outlawed, was not encouraged. Young girls were usually only educated to a certain level, taught curriculum society thought was appropriate for women such as sewing, household management, child rearing and cooking then returned home or sent to a finishing school.. Finishing school was unlike the colleges where men attended as the curriculum for women contained only deportment, dancing, formal dining skills, hosting skills and other skills necessary for upper class society. Women were sent to finishing schools by parents hoping to attract the eye of a wealthy, and perhaps titled, husband. Young girls were quickly married off and the cycle began anew. As long as the curriculum reflected society's view of a woman's place, there was no gender equality. It took the Women's Suffrage Movement to finally start American on the road to equality in education, voting, employment etc. Unfortunately, women have still not achieved this goal. If not for the Women's Movement there would be no girls in school.

Before the civil rights movement, though there was equality in race with the white community and quality teaching materials, the communities of people of colour had a shortage of materials. Chalk was a precious commodity along with text books, paper and other necessities. Sometimes even a school house was not available so a church would be used. These two communities did not live in separate states, they lived a block or two away from each other so children and parents were able to see the inequalities of education. The fight for equal education began with Brown vs. Board of Education that struck down the previous US Supreme Court ruling of "separate but equal" of Plessey vs. Ferguson and school integration began. Or tried to begin.

Two different groups of children attending the same institution with the same goal of education yet so different. There are so many different groups of people of colour; Native Americans, African, Asian, European, Middle-Eastern and Latin Americans. Different family structures, different languages, different cultures. Regular school curriculum consisted of Math, English, History and Science. If a teacher was so learned as to fluently speak a foreign language that language was offered for study. Social Studies classes evolved to compensate and to teach the newly integrated students about each other to achieve the equality within community that occurred during the struggle for equality within race. America was now a nation of races, religions and cultures descended from multiple nations. In order to maintain equality and respect, no one race, creed, or religion was elevated above all else.

We have classes on culture due to the descendants of the many nations of people that immigrated, willingly or not, whether in the 1600s, 1800s or 1900s. These classes on culture are not about teaching the culture of foreign countries but about teaching the many different cultures that MAKE America. Erasing any culture out of an American textbook is erasing a part of American History. From the Asian immigrants who died creating the first trans-continental railroad; to the immigrants from the Mediterranean who died erecting the skyscrapers of New York; to the Native American code breakers in WWII and the African slaves who fought the British during the Revolutionary War. These classes are to promote awareness that regardless of differences between class, race, wealth, religion, and culture; everyone is American.

Today the fight now is for equality in sexual orientation and the continued call for equality of gender (identity and expression). The opposition to this are stuck fast within the "differences not allowed" genre of history. Again we see inequality and a distinct lack of respect. Today, unlike yesteryear, we can no longer exclude and ostracize a group as unworthy of an education so we protest the curriculum instead. We have learned from history that the quickest way to diffuse hostility to any societal difference, is education about those differences, which in turn promote respect instead of distaste. No one remembers the reverence towards hatred of the lower class, women, and people of colour. What history remembers is the atrocities committed by those who deemed such hatred worthy of their embrace.

Dying for Dignity: Transgender Fight for Recognition

We are among those whom we consider most like us for the majority of our private and social lives. Our family. Our group. Our people, we consider them to be. We know we belong to, and associate with, bigger groups of people we may not understand completely. Personally, culturally or linguistically. We never attempt to speak a foreign language without understanding what those words mean, the correct pronunciations and grammar; we learn first. We never attempt to participate in a culture without understanding the social rules and the correct way of addressing members of this new cultural society; we learn first. When first meeting a new associate we do not hop right into intimate questions regarding their sexual habits; we get to know them and their boundaries first. So why do we do this with complete strangers in our own society, our own culture?

It is almost as if we have cannot forget the taunts at school or the streets where our bullies once believed that in order to be gay, a person wanted to transition to the other side of the gender binary. Where we were asked, if we are boys, "Where's your barbie?" or "Where's your Easy Bake Oven?" Or, if we are girls "Where's your dick? We fought back because for a moment there we did ask ourselves that question. Do I unconsciously wish to be the opposite gender because I am attracted to what the opposite gender is attracted to? We would say, no.

We fought back by being the best physical example of the gender binary as we could get. You could look up male or female and find our picture as the definition. We would beat the crap out of anyone who dared say we were pretending to be anything we are not. We held onto that like a shield. To us that is what our sexual orientation meant. It is what society said sexual orientation meant. We adopted this belief because it kinda made sense. We are one gender that falls in love with that same gender. We love everything about that gender. If that gender "changed" then our sexual orientation "changes" and that is not possible since we have been fighting against the idea that our sexual orientation can "change" for years.

Why are we so afraid of embracing the transgender community? Is our certainty of our personal truth so shaky that the truth of another makes us question ourselves? Have we really recovered from being bullied with some false idea that in order to be gay one must want to be the opposite gender? Before anyone knew we were gay or straight we were just our name or familial relationship. Our visual gender, and no one questioned it. We were so and so's son or daughter. The boy or girl down the street. It is the reason why so many of us question our sexual orientation. Are we really that insecure? The transgender community is not "proving them right", they are helping to prove that our detractors are wrong.

Take the case in Texas where an intersex woman transitioned from the male body she was assigned and has now married a woman, yet gay marriage is not legal in Texas. The gay marriage bans are all based on gender. Only those of opposite GENDER can marry; not sexual orientation. The law was based on the idea that "legal" gender does not change no matter what surgical procedures are done to alter the physical body. When, ironically, it is true gender that does not change, not visual gender. This is what the opponents of gay marriage believe they have done in banning gay marriage. Banning the same gender from marrying each other yet basing the law solely on visual sex/genitalia. Now they are realising the error with this case.

They based the law on visual gender alone, thinking that is what governed sexual orientation. Yet, here is a couple that is by all means gay to societal eyes but the government must allow the marriage because in the governmental perception of gender, it cannot change therefore sexual orientation does not. Society says, if you are male and attracted to men you are gay. If you are male and attracted to females, you are straight. Born one visual gender; always that gender. The perception of gender through visual attributes or genitalia.

If the government now tries to change the law to say that gender cannot be distinguished visually in order to disallow these transgender couples, on what level can they prove whom is male and whom is female? We all know the different types of intersex conditions, (http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex), and many intersex conditions are not visual. Will everyone have to prove their hormonal, chromosomal, internal reproductive organ, genital etc. gender in order to marry? Or will the government simply do what is right and not interfere as long as it is two consenting adults? Hetero-sexism and homophobia, internal and external, is based on perception of gender. The perception of a gender binary in particular. If those who made these arguments against gay rights finally realise that no one can determine gender except the individual, their arguments are baseless.

We are afraid of the transgender community because we see gender as the reason behind our sexual orientation. We believe that men are men and women are women and never the two should be "changed" or "altered". We are gay, or straight, and we believe it is those visual attributes of gender that drives our orientation. If we loved someone who we then came to believe "altered" or "changed" from that physical representation of gender we begin to question our sexual orientation. We start doubting our sexual orientation because we base it on love of visual gender than person.

We distrust those who are bi-sexual since, from society's perspective, their sexual orientation changes. When they are with the same visual gender they are gay yet when they are with the opposite visual gender they are straight. We do not trust our relationships with our bi-sexual partners because in the back of our mind we are saying "How do we know they will STAY straight or gay?" Refusing to acknowledge that they are not fixated on visual gender but us. We refuse to see that they love us, the person, the one who listens, who likes whatever genre of music we love, who's always there for support; us.

We believe that is not possible because to us visual gender is the focus of sexual orientation. We simply cannot let go of our grip on visual gender. One or the other. It is the reason for bi and trans-phobia. The trans-panic defense can also be tied to the gay community not just the straight. Trans-panic means "I'm not straight!" as much as it means "I'm not gay!" and "I'm not Bi!"

I'll go as far as to say this. If an effeminate gay man stood still and did not talk the gay men who say they do not like effeminate men would want to date him. It's not the physical man they are not attracted to, it is the "feminine" personality. The blurring of that gender perception line. The perception that a breathy tone, self-conscious giggles, emotional displays and a sensual walk is inherent to the visually feminine gender only. It makes them question "Am I really gay if I like this guy?" To many, that "feminine" personality should not exist in a "masculine" body. When will they realise it is the person they are attracted to? We can lust after a body all we want but we know that no matter how hot the body if the personality, the person, isn't what we are looking for the body loses it's attraction.

Visual gender and sexual orientation are simply societal perceptions of human relationships. We are always the gender society sees unless we tell society who we truly are. Our sexual orientation is always what society sees, by way of our perceived relationships, unless we tell society who we truly are. Only we know who we are, who we are attracted to, and whom we love. Only we can define our relationships.

That is why we have such a hard time understanding the transgender community since we base everything on our perceptions instead of letting people introduce themselves. If the couple that is involved in the ongoing legal determination of marriage in Texas were still visually man and woman, we would say they were heterosexual, now that they are trans-woman and woman we perceive them to be lesbian. I'm sure they only see themselves as partners and lovers. The rest can go hang.