...beyond words:

A proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was defeated today by a joint session of the Legislature by a vote of 45 to 151, eliminating any chance of getting it on the ballot in November 2008. At least 50 votes were needed to advance the measure.

-Boston Globe, 14 June 2007

...or how I learned to stop being cynical and enjoy the party

Gay men know how to throw a party. We know how to laugh out loud. We know how to enjoy a moment for all its worth. In most cases, the happiest noise at any restaurant, bar, or event emanates from the table of gay men.

Gay men also know how to suffer. We know how to cry. We learned the epistemology of the closet at an early age, and all too often suffered in silence. And in darkness. And in fear. Those of us who escaped the closet experienced a unique rebirth, but we never forget those years of darkness and fear.

More than anything, gay men know how to assimilate. Many of us keep that door ajar so that at work, weddings, and family reunions we can easily step back into the closet if necessary. That's how we get by in society. Professional sports and the country music industry aside, being gay is no longer a barrier to success, but being a proud gay man might be.

This weekend, in Boston, proud gay men and women are throwing themselves the biggest party of the year. "Gay Pride" according to the Pride Committee "Celebrates our vibrant community annually with a weeklong series of events that promote diversity and visibility throughout New England." This celebration of diversity and visibility includes parades, tree decorating, block parties, brunches, and a lot of excessive drinking.

2007 marks my 10th year in Boston, and my 10th Boston Gay Pride weekend. Over the last decade I have watched the parade shrink in size and in quality. I've been harassed by drunken out-of-towners insisting that Boston's Gay Pride "sucks". Two years, while attending one of the many parties thrown for the event, ago a drunken, seemingly underage boy vomited on my shoes.

And yet I continue to look forward to Pride. I attend the tree lighting and the parade (though I no longer attend the block parties). And I can honestly say I always feel proud. Proud to be a gay man. And it's clear that everyone around me feels much the same. What the parade lacks in quality, is made up for by the enthusiasm of the audience.

In my mind, that enthusiasm comes from something more profound than celebrating diversity and visibility. I think the events of Pride Week give us all a chance to show off a bit. To let the world know that yes, we will dress the way you want us to dress. We will act "straight" in the board room. We will pretend not to be offended by the casual homophobic references made both in the office and in the media. We will conform. BUT NOT TODAY. Today, we say "FUCK YOU" to the rest of the world, and we enjoy our Big Gay Party. We know how to throw a party.

Gay Pride. What does it mean? I ask myself this question every year. And I have never been able to follow through with an answer. Last week, I asked a number of friends what "Gay Pride" meant to them. The responses were surprising to me. A few suggested that we should celebrate and honor those who came before us, from the Stonewall rioters and Harvey Milk to Matthew Shepherd and George Michael. Some suggested that Pride has become anachronistic, while others described it as axiomatic (we celebrate it because we always have). But none of the answers helped explain the feeling of exhilaration I feel at every year when the Dykes on Bikes rev up their motors and initiate the parade. Or the truly profound joy I find when I see the PFLAG group- parents and children marching in support of their sons, daughters and friends. It is beautiful.

So, what does Gay Pride mean to me? The most elusive answers often are the least complicated. If I had the opportunity to go back to the womb and select my sexual orientation, would I? Would I choose to forego a painful childhood? Could I escape the threats and taunts from homophobic thugs? Would I actually be able to ignore politicians who use issues that are very important to my livelihood as weapons? Would I? And miss the best parties? lose out on the finest friends a man could wish for? Not to mention the lousy parade? HELL NO!!

And that's what Gay Pride means to me: I would not change a thing, if I could.

Happy Pride.

...than Peggy Noonan. Her weekly column in the Wall Street Journal is one of the highlights of my weekend. Her latest essay on the Virginia Tech killings provides, as expected, an affectionate yet stern look at modern American attitudes in the aftermath of the mass killing.

Quote of Note

There seems to me a sort of broad national diminution of common sense in our country that we don't notice in the day-to-day but that become obvious after a story like this. Common sense says a person like Cho Seung-hui, who was obviously dangerous and unstable, should have been separated from the college population. Common sense says someone should have stepped in like an adult, like a person in authority, and taken him away. It is only common sense that if a person like Cho leaves a self-aggrandizing, self-celebrating, self-pitying video diary of himself to be played by the mass media, the mass media should not play it and not publicize it, not make it famous. Common sense says that won't help.

....

The anxiety of our politicians that there may be an issue that goes unexploited was almost--almost--comic. They mean to seem sensitive, and yet wind up only stroking their supporters. I believe Rep. Jim Moran was first out of the gate with the charge that what Cho did was President Bush's fault. I believe Sen. Barack Obama was second, equating the literal killing of humans with verbal coarseness. Wednesday there was Sen. Barbara Boxer equating the violence of the shootings with the "global warming challenge" and "today's Supreme Court decision" upholding a ban on partial-birth abortion.

One watches all of this and wonders: Where are the grown-ups?

Jeff Jacoby's latest opinion piece in the Boston Sunday Globe provides a spot-on analysis of the recent decision / dismissal of a suit regarding the right of public schools to control their own curriculum. As always Mr. Jacoby does an excellent job identifying the root of the problem: Government control over our daily lives. A summary of Parker v. Hurley can be found here and here.

Time and again, on most topics Mr. Jacoby illuminates the issue behind the issue. In this case, 4 parents attempted to sue the Lexington Public Schools for a curriculum that attempted to show same-sex families as normal and healthy. The parents asserted that the curriculum violated their rights to teach their children that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. While the issue on the surface seemed to be weather or not we should be discussing homosexuality in elementary classrooms, Mr. Jacoby identified the real issue at stake:

Parents should have the same freedom in educating their kids that they have in clothing, housing, and feeding them. You wouldn't let the government decide what time your kids should go to bed, or which doctor should treat their chicken pox, or how they should spend their summer vacation, or which religion they should be instructed in. On matters serious and not so serious, parents are entrusted with their children's well-being. Why should schooling be an exception?

Get government out of the business of running schools, and a range of alternatives will emerge. Freedom, innovation, and competition will do for education what they do for so much else in American life: increase choices, lower costs, improve performance -- and eliminate conflict. So long as education is controlled by the state, the battles and bad blood will continue. With more liberty will come more tolerance -- and more resources spent on learning than on litigation.

So, why can't Mr. Jacoby apply the same principles of reason and liberty to the on-going debate on gay marriage (and by gay marriage I mean, simply, the right of two consenting adults to enter into a contract that is protected by the state)? Over the last 3 years, the normally reasonable and conservative writer has become increasingly shrill over the prospect of allowing gays and lesbians into the marriage fold.

Mr. Jacoby continually refuses to admit that the exclusion of any individuals from state protection, and the application of a special category of rights (in this case the "right" to marry) is detrimental to democracy and severely limits individual freedom. He argues that the current definition of marriage has been a staple of civil society and that only heterosexual marriage is a reliable environment for raising children. In short, America will not survive and children will be the collateral damage if gays and lesbians are allowed to receive the same state-funded protection that their heterosexual counterparts receive.

Further, Mr. Jacoby clearly states that the wishes of the majority in this case outweigh the rights of the minority. Additionally, he condemns the courts that applied their own reason and did the job they were hired to do.

The only valid civil rights are those that have the consent of the governed. Their legitimacy comes from the democratic process, not from judicial fiat or political correctness.

That statement is a contradiction to his current opinion of Judge Mark Wolfe's decision in Parker v. Hurley.

Mr. Jacoby, if you apply the same principles, you must wonder: what role does government have in marriage anyway? The federal government should not be involved in any way. The local and state government should only offer a means of protecting the contract between two individuals.

In both cases, government is doing nothing more than limiting or defining the rights of U.S. citizens. Both sides of the marriage debate should be wary of allowing the government to define marriage in any way. We have given our government control, via taxes, of almost every aspect of our lives. Add yet we gasp and cry foul when that power is used.

-JHB