FOR A MORE COLORFUL FUTURE...
The majority of businesses in this country, both small and corporate, have dress codes. Most of these codes extend beyond mere sanitation, and have nothing to do with the ability or inability of employees to perform their assigned tasks. Regulations regarding haircuts, body piercings, tattoos and hair dye reach past the workplace and into our homes; they affect the way we adorn ourselves during our private time. Since most of us need a job, this amounts to a de facto national dress code; an extremely petty and invasive one. A uniform is a different thing entirely, and not at issue here; one can remove a uniform when one gets home.
I therefore propose a legal ban on all such invasive regulations in the workplace, one that would prevent employers from taking such an aggressive interest in the private lives of their employees. The first objection to such a ban will probably go as follows: "certain forms of dress are distracting, and would interfere with an employee's ability to perform customer service". This counter-argument is easy to dispense with: there are numerous people who don't get the tattoos, body piercings, or hairstyles they would like to have, simply because they are afraid of being unemployed. The moment they are liberated from the dress code, they will begin to adorn themselves however they wish, and customers will eventually get used to it.
There is also something more profound to be gained from such a ban: people who immigrate here from other nations are currently prevented, by many companies, from wearing their native dress to work, and in liberating ourselves, we would be liberating them, as well. This would greatly enrich the cultural life of our country; it would enhance our art and fashion, and make this country a more welcoming place. Think about it.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
A LETTER TO MY LOCAL PAPER CONCERNING GAY MARRIAGE...
note: the bill that I refer to in this letter has been passed by our House of Representatives, but we have a regressive Governor, and he has a lot of influence on our often-equally-regressive Senate. So I've taken Harvey Milk's injunction seriously; everyone must "come out". In the comments section, I've posted the transcript of a speech by a Republican legislator who's in favor of the bill. I liked some of what he had to say, and he quoted James Baldwin, who happens to be one of my personal heroes as well as one of my favorite writers. Enjoy.
I write this letter in support of HB 436, the bill that would legalize gay marriage in New Hampshire. And I think it's time to get personal about it, because the struggle to legalize gay marriage impacts so many of us on a deeply personal level.
I was raised in an evangelical Christian household where the word "homosexuality" was never mentioned, except when I naively brought it up, and was greeted with uncomfortable silence on the subject. I was almost twenty by the time I encountered homosexuality in the light of day. Since I've been attracted to women since I can remember, it was always easy for me to convince myself that I was entirely, or at least largely, heterosexual. For though I rejected the religion of my youth years ago, I believe that for most of my life the impression given me by my upbringing stuck with me: that homosexual attraction was something to be feared and distrusted; a chaotic and discordant force, at best, if not a morally bankrupt one.
But now, having fallen in love with both men and women, and fully acknowledging my bisexuality, I can say for myself, from the bottom of my heart, that same-sex love has all the depth, all the poetry, all the dignity, all the mystery, all the beauty, and all the intensity of heterosexual love. I will go a step further and say that it is the same thing; it's just that the physical parts involved are a bit different.
The fact that same-sex lovemaking does not produce children does not lower it, in my eyes; it simply means that whatever energies may be involved in reproducing can flow in other ways; and in beautiful ways. Knowing these things intimately, my girlfriend and I have pledged not to marry one another until gay marriage takes a greater foothold in this country; not because we are particularly noble, but because we both know what it's like to fall in love with someone whom the state would not allow us to marry, should we choose to do so. This is about solidarity, but it is also about self-preservation; we have both been greeted with the disgust and abuse that often greets our brothers and sisters who experience only, or primarily, same-sex attraction. And so we stand with them, unable to do otherwise.
I know that some folks are entirely heterosexual, and cannot identify, on any intimate level, with those who experience same-sex attraction; and I understand that for some, this lack of ability to identify on a subjective level is a stumbling block when it comes to supporting gay rights. I ask them simply to imagine a world in which the person they love most, the person they most desire as a partner to walk with them hand-in-hand to the end of their days, is prevented from taking part, with them, in the ritual, in the sacrament, which they most desire.
The reason that gay marriage is not yet legal in this state, and the reason that it is illegal in most of our states, is simple, and I think everyone knows it: same-sex love is considered, by much of the population, to be inferior to heterosexual love; therefore, those who are involved in gay relationships are thought to be experiencing something less important, less mature, than the relationships of their heterosexual counterparts. Those of us who are capable of experiencing same-sex attraction know that nothing could be further from the truth; but how do we communicate this? For many of us, communicating it is the most frustrating struggle of our lives. Many people simply have no idea what it's like to fall in love with a person of their own gender. That is part of why civil unions are considered "good enough" even by many who aren't particularly threatened by homosexuality; but their support is a half-measure, and a condescending one, and it's time for them to realize that.
Consider this: no matter which way the members of our Senate vote, and no matter what our Governor does with HB 436 when and if it reaches his desk, they are going to offend many. But there is a large difference. If they vote for gay marriage, straight couples will still have all the rights and legal abilities that they had before; whereas if they vote against it, gay couples will still be dishonored and degraded by our laws, as they presently are. HB 436 will not force anyone who doesn't wish to marry same-sex couples to do so; nor will it force anyone to alter their religious tradition to accomodate such marriages. It will simply allow those who are heartbroken in their desire to walk the aisle together to do so in the full light of day, without being saddled with the colder, less weighty term "civil union".
And so we are at a very serious crossroads: the full force of the law may uplift and heal those who are already a threatened minority, or it may reject and disown them yet again, as they have already been rejected and disowned so many times before. The choice is yours, members of the Senate; the choice is yours, Governor Lynch. And I hope you make the only right one.
note: the bill that I refer to in this letter has been passed by our House of Representatives, but we have a regressive Governor, and he has a lot of influence on our often-equally-regressive Senate. So I've taken Harvey Milk's injunction seriously; everyone must "come out". In the comments section, I've posted the transcript of a speech by a Republican legislator who's in favor of the bill. I liked some of what he had to say, and he quoted James Baldwin, who happens to be one of my personal heroes as well as one of my favorite writers. Enjoy.
I write this letter in support of HB 436, the bill that would legalize gay marriage in New Hampshire. And I think it's time to get personal about it, because the struggle to legalize gay marriage impacts so many of us on a deeply personal level.
I was raised in an evangelical Christian household where the word "homosexuality" was never mentioned, except when I naively brought it up, and was greeted with uncomfortable silence on the subject. I was almost twenty by the time I encountered homosexuality in the light of day. Since I've been attracted to women since I can remember, it was always easy for me to convince myself that I was entirely, or at least largely, heterosexual. For though I rejected the religion of my youth years ago, I believe that for most of my life the impression given me by my upbringing stuck with me: that homosexual attraction was something to be feared and distrusted; a chaotic and discordant force, at best, if not a morally bankrupt one.
But now, having fallen in love with both men and women, and fully acknowledging my bisexuality, I can say for myself, from the bottom of my heart, that same-sex love has all the depth, all the poetry, all the dignity, all the mystery, all the beauty, and all the intensity of heterosexual love. I will go a step further and say that it is the same thing; it's just that the physical parts involved are a bit different.
The fact that same-sex lovemaking does not produce children does not lower it, in my eyes; it simply means that whatever energies may be involved in reproducing can flow in other ways; and in beautiful ways. Knowing these things intimately, my girlfriend and I have pledged not to marry one another until gay marriage takes a greater foothold in this country; not because we are particularly noble, but because we both know what it's like to fall in love with someone whom the state would not allow us to marry, should we choose to do so. This is about solidarity, but it is also about self-preservation; we have both been greeted with the disgust and abuse that often greets our brothers and sisters who experience only, or primarily, same-sex attraction. And so we stand with them, unable to do otherwise.
I know that some folks are entirely heterosexual, and cannot identify, on any intimate level, with those who experience same-sex attraction; and I understand that for some, this lack of ability to identify on a subjective level is a stumbling block when it comes to supporting gay rights. I ask them simply to imagine a world in which the person they love most, the person they most desire as a partner to walk with them hand-in-hand to the end of their days, is prevented from taking part, with them, in the ritual, in the sacrament, which they most desire.
The reason that gay marriage is not yet legal in this state, and the reason that it is illegal in most of our states, is simple, and I think everyone knows it: same-sex love is considered, by much of the population, to be inferior to heterosexual love; therefore, those who are involved in gay relationships are thought to be experiencing something less important, less mature, than the relationships of their heterosexual counterparts. Those of us who are capable of experiencing same-sex attraction know that nothing could be further from the truth; but how do we communicate this? For many of us, communicating it is the most frustrating struggle of our lives. Many people simply have no idea what it's like to fall in love with a person of their own gender. That is part of why civil unions are considered "good enough" even by many who aren't particularly threatened by homosexuality; but their support is a half-measure, and a condescending one, and it's time for them to realize that.
Consider this: no matter which way the members of our Senate vote, and no matter what our Governor does with HB 436 when and if it reaches his desk, they are going to offend many. But there is a large difference. If they vote for gay marriage, straight couples will still have all the rights and legal abilities that they had before; whereas if they vote against it, gay couples will still be dishonored and degraded by our laws, as they presently are. HB 436 will not force anyone who doesn't wish to marry same-sex couples to do so; nor will it force anyone to alter their religious tradition to accomodate such marriages. It will simply allow those who are heartbroken in their desire to walk the aisle together to do so in the full light of day, without being saddled with the colder, less weighty term "civil union".
And so we are at a very serious crossroads: the full force of the law may uplift and heal those who are already a threatened minority, or it may reject and disown them yet again, as they have already been rejected and disowned so many times before. The choice is yours, members of the Senate; the choice is yours, Governor Lynch. And I hope you make the only right one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)