When Harry Met Harry

When my late father was alive, we would have raucous arguments over gay marriage. My dad was nominally a Democrat but considered himself a real law and order traditionalist. He was not your typical bigot - and he believed in some notion of civil unions - but claimed that "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals. His arguments were, of course, illogical and inconsistent, never mind that we were essentially arguing over a word. A big one for him had to do with nature. "If everyone were to become gay, the species would cease to exist". I pointed out to him, not always calmly, that his arguments were horse shit. Obviously, the whole world wasn't suddenly going to become gay and legalizing gay marriage wouldn't do anything to swell the number of homosexuals already extant. Further, homosexuality, since it existed in nature, was by definition natural. And regardless, none of these was a constitutional argument about governments and benefits and who may or may not register with the state as a couple. And on and on. Despite my relentless logic - and his offering no rebuttal argument other than "this is how I feel" - I made no inroads; on this issue he was hopelessly stubborn. (I have no doubt, but cannot prove, that had he lived to see this epic court battle in California, and had read any of arch-conservative Ted Olson's cogent articles, such as this one, he would have finally turned a corner). But here's the wild inconsistency that bothered me most. My whole childhood, whenever I would defend homosexuality (I was a precocious kid and quite literally grew up in the theater), my dad would complain about how promiscuous and indiscriminate gays were. "They'll stick their penises in a hole in the wall and not care who's on the other side," he told me on more than one occasion. He was appalled by this behavior. And yet he later saw no irony in the fact that when gays and lesbians wanted to settle down, get married, be monogamous - all the virtues of American life that he most propounded - that he wanted to discourage this behavior as well.

This very irony is the thing that strikes me most as I look at the arguments against marriage equality and against gays in the military. There is no doubt that these bans are based almost solely on animus toward a suspect class, because what the bigots clearly want more than anything is to deny those whose behavior they despise any semblance of a traditional American life with all its attendant perks and pleasures. After all, how can they convince the rest of us that homosexuality is an abnormal, aberrant, perverse and anti-social undermining of America's traditions if gays and lesbians are allowed to embrace those traditions? How will we ever continue to believe that homosexuals are all just a bunch of mincing girly-men or man hating shrews who hate American values if they are allowed to prove their mettle and their patriotism on the battlefield? Wanting the same traditional things the rest of us want goes against the narrative about homosexuals that their detractors have labored so long and hard to create. The only way for the opponents of equality to prevent widespread societal acceptance of homosexuality is to try and force gays and lesbians - by hook or by crook - to adopt the very behavior and lifestyle the bigots claim to despise. The irony is as deep as it is painful. "This isn't who you are," the haters seem to claim, "this is who you are! And don't you dare try to change one bit!"

It is a bedrock of conservative thought that marriage is one of our most important institutions and that when it is widespread, it is a net gain for society. It is also a conservative no-brainer that serving one's country is one of the most noble things one can do. To oppose gay marriage and gay military service, then, is to intentionally try to deny some American citizens those very things which you yourself believe are good for society and to force them to live what is in your own view a less virtuous, less honorable, less courageous, less noble, less fulfilling life than you are allowed to pursue. But what else is a gay hater to do? Without this self-fulfilling prophecy of a "degenerate" homosexual lifestyle, anti-gay sentiment loses a huge chunk of its raison d'etre, and naturally, committed homophobes just can't have that.

I'm reminded, bizarrely enough, of When Harry Met Sally. There's that scene in the deli, where Meg Ryan has the loud orgasm and Estelle Reiner, watching, envious, announces "I'll have what she's having". But what if Sally turned and yelled "No, I don't want you to have what I'm having, because old people having sex is gross and you don't deserve to have something that feels this good! That's reserved for us young, beautiful people! Fuck off, you old bag!" We would think she was a cold, heartless, selfish, mean-spirited bitch. And we would be right. But this is, in fact, exactly what the anti-gay forces are saying: "Hell yes, it feels fantastic... but we don't want you to have what we're having".

In light of all of this, I can't imagine how the Supreme Court can get around the fact that California's ban on gay marriage is based almost solely on the hatred of a specific class of people, which makes it a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. Because rather than celebrate that gays want to reform their alleged historical promiscuity and embrace a conservative ideal, which by all rights they should, the bigots are hellbent on making gays continue to sit in the back of the societal bus - all the while raving about the glorious view from the front.

Well sorry guys... it just doesn't work that way. What's good for the straight goose is good for the queer gander.