Dallas Voice (Dallas, Tex.), Vol. 20, No. 44, Ed. 1 Friday, March 5, 2004 Page: 25 of 72
seventy two pages : ill.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Next Week
Michael Alvear on how wrong
Barney Frank is in judging the New
Stonewall —San Francisco.
in New Mexico and New York, and now
Portland, Oregon. I wouldn't be surprised if other
places have started giving out the much-sought-
after slips of paper by the time this column sees
print. Who knows how many cities will be doing
it in another week, another month, another year.
Even where licenses haven't been issued, gay
and lesbian couples have been showing up at
clerk's offices demanding the right to walk down
the aisle together. While these couples may not
have walked away with the government's seal of
approval, they have started in motion a national
clamor about a simple and basic right that has
been denied us way too long.
The whole thing has been thrilling to watch.
One of the most satisfying aspects of this new
wave of "love activism" is that it has been aided
and abetted by straight allies who understand that
this is about more than that little piece of paper,
or even all the legal benefits it brings.
It's about the recognition that our love is just as
«
"Thirty years ago, many of the moms
and pops who are watching gay and
lesbian couples line up to get hitched
were fighting for the social right to not
get married. Funny how the notion of
what is radical changes with time."
valid, just as much worth celebrating as anyone
else's.
That's why I remain stunned and disheartened
when I hear gay and lesbian people themselves
disparaging these valiant acts of marital civil dis-
obedience. I'm sorry to say, the voices against
marriage from within our own community are
louder and more frequent than I would ever have
imagined.
The refrain I seem to be hearing from the
naysayers is that the rash of love breaking out
across the country is a bad thing because it might
engender a "backlash" against us.
To me, that argument seems like the classic
example of gay and lesbian people so desperate-
ly wanting to be "accepted" by straight people,
that they will be willing to do anything to assim-
ilate: watch football, wear lipstick, hide their
rainbow flags, and just generally be good boys
and girls so they will be invited to the big party
of heterosexual approval.
They will tell you that Middle America—
whoever that is — is not ready for gay and les-
bian marriages. They will tell you that we are
doing ourselves more harm than good. They will
tell you we are shocking the country and thus
jump-starting a movement by the conservative
right that can't be held back, a fight we are
bound to lose.
But what they will tell you is hogwash.
Whether we like it or not, being gay and les-
bian in America today is political. We have no
choice in that.
What we have a choice in is how we act on it
— or how we fail to act on it.
The conservative right is already mobilized
against us. They always will be. Standing down
and refusing to take on the fight won't get us
anywhere. Pat Buchanan was correct when he
said there is a culture war going on in America.
We can choose to take part in winning that cul-
ture war, or we can sit back and ignore it and pre-
tend it isn't here and hope that if we are good lit-
tle boys and girls everything will be fine.
If we don't ask for marriage, will the right-
wingers stop bullying gay and lesbian children?
Will they stop trying to "cure" us? Will they all
of a sudden stop discriminating against us in our
jobs? Will they take us back in as their family
members, and let us join the armed forces and
welcome us into their churches?
No, because these are the people who have
already decided we are sinners and perverts, and
nothing we say or do will stop them from trying
to keep us in our collective closets.
As for "Middle America"— well they might
not be "ready" for gay and lesbian marriages
now. But without a little bit of a push, they never
will be.
In fact, the outbreak of gay marriages is likely
to help "Middle America" come to terms with
the idea of gay and lesbian marriages. After all,
what we're asking for is hardly radical. Thirty
years ago, many of the moms and pops who are
watching gay and lesbian couples line up to get
hitched were fighting for the social right to not
get married. Funny, isn't it, how the notion of
what is radical changes with time.
But even if the straight people watching the
news in their living room homes never let their
hair grow long or never smoked a joint or never
went to Woodstock, they can understand why
marriage is so important to us — because it is
something that is equally important to most of
them.
We shouldn't be afraid of taking on the chal-
lenge of showing Middle America how much it
means to us to be allowed to legally love one
another. After all, if we don't invite them to the
wedding, how can we expect them to attend. You
might be surprised just how many of them end
up throwing rice.
E-mail mubarakdah@aoi.com
«
"Never in the history of this country
has there been a threat to write
discrimination into the Constitution.
If discrimination is written into the
Constitution, we put our families
in jeopardy."
Dennis Coleman, director of the Dallas office
of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
«
"We may have administrations come
and go, but the people of America are
very progressive. Certainly, the people
of Chicago welcome the Gay Games."
Tracy Bairn, co-vice chairwoman of
Chicago Games Inc., responding to the
announcement that the organization's bid
to host the 2006 Gay Games'was accepted
THE ECONOMY, THE DEFICIT, AND \\
' SADDAM'S NONEXISTENT WEAPONS OF f
MASS DESTRUCTION HAVEN'T BEEN >
HELPING YOUR RE-ELECTION EFFORT, SIR...
\ BUT THEY'RE
V. NOT THE
ALL THIS TALK ABOUT YOUR
MILITARY SERVICE RECORDS IS
KILLING US! WE'VE JOT TO
GET THE MEDIA TO STOP
TALKING ABOUT
itr
nfi
fAl
L-
Iw ;
n
IBN ryfflCOMTIfVTION
MISSION
ACCOMPLISHED.'
TOOOUAVI
1
™mXML
letters
Dean down but not out
Thanks for the excellent article last Friday concerning
Howard Dean. He definitely has energized the Democratic
Party by not being afraid to stand up to George Bush. But
although Dean has suspended active campaigning, he
remains on the ballot and is continuing to win delegates to
send to the convention in July, in order to make sure the
"spine transplant" is not rejected. A vote for Dean in the
primary now is a vote for progressive ideals and in no way
will dilute your vote to defeat Bush in November. And
remember to attend your precinct caucus at 7:15 p.m. on
March 9th at your local polling location so you can caucus
for Dean.
Noel Pullam and Darryl Clement
Dallas
Marriage amendment opposed
I'm not homosexual. I'm married with three children.
But I have lots of friends who are homosexual. Even if I
didn't know any gay couples personally, I would feel the
same way. We live in a country that is supposed to be all
about freedom — notice I didn't say, "freedom for all
except homosexuals."
The president says he endorsed the federal marriage
amendment to protect the meaning of marriage. It seems
to me that marriage is the union of two people who love
each other. Who is to say that two men can't vow the
same?
I think it is President Bush who is trying to take away
from the true meaning of marriage. Love, plain and sim-
ple, should be the standard. We have sent troops to Iraq,
and many American soldiers have died. I know a few who
are over there, and guess what? There are homosexuals
and bisexuals among them. They are fighting for the rights
of other people, and yet they don't have one of the most
important rights in their own country — the right to marry
the person they love.
Sara Low
Burkeville, TX
The Constitution and its amendments were designed to
protect and expand individual liberties, such as granting
women the right to vote. The Constitution was not
designed to revoke or restrict these liberties.
If the marriage limitation amendment makes it through
the difficult process necessary to amend the Constitution,
this would be the first time in history that the document
was amended to restrict the rights of a whole class of peo-
ple, in conflict with its guiding principle to provide equal
protection for all.
Marriage, other forms of relationship recognition and
TO SEND A LETTER
We welcome letters from readers. Shorter letters are more
likely to be printed, as are those that address only a sin-
gle issue. On some weeks we receive more letters than we
can print. In that case, we print a representative sample.
Letters are subject to editing for length and clarity, but we
attempt to maintain the writer's substance and tone.
Include your home address and a daytime phone number
for verification. Send letters to the senior editor, preferably
by e-mail (editor@dallasvoice.com). Letters also may be
faxed (214-969-7271) or mailed (Dallas Voice, 4145 Travis
St., Third Floor, Dallas TX 75204).
basic civil rights protections are essential components that
make all families, including families headed by same-sex
couples, safer and more secure.
Robby L. Mason
Irving
Does anyone else remember George W. Bush's cam-
paign promise to be "a uniter, not a divider," to be a "com-
passionate conservative" and to support state's rights?
This country is more divided than ever, we've seen lit-
tle or no compassion, and now Bush supports the Federal
Marriage Amendment, which would overrule state's rights
and write discrimination into the Constitution.
This amendment isn't about protecting the "sanctity of
marriage" or "activist judges," it's about politics. The tim-
ing is a sign of the desperation of his re-election campaign.
The president has to distract the American public from the
problems he has created or made worse: The war in Iraq,
jobs and the economy, health care, the environment and
many others. It's a desperate attempt to salvage his cam-
paign by pitting one group of Americans against another.
Alan L. Light
Iowa City, IA
Why not same-sex marriage?
The United States was founded on the principles of
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The right to
marry is fundamental. Regulating marriage is tantamount
to restricting these sacred principles.
Just as the courts ruled against prohibition of mixed-
race marriages in 1967, today we as a society should be
willing to extend the privileges and protection now only
enjoyed by legally married couples to all couples, regard-
less of sexual orientation. These include such benefits as
property rights, availability of company benefits, rights of
survivorship and the privileges of next of kin.
Extending these rights to all consenting adults does not
infringe on the rights of others but enforces equal rights
for all.
Sheena Charanza
College Station, TX
03.05.04 I da I las voice I 25
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Vercher, Dennis. Dallas Voice (Dallas, Tex.), Vol. 20, No. 44, Ed. 1 Friday, March 5, 2004, newspaper, March 5, 2004; Dallas, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth238884/m1/25/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Special Collections.