House Bill 74- Wyomings Anti-Gay Sentiment

UNLESS YOUR GAY!!!





Ask any child that resides in the state of Wyoming today about our state motto and it's fairly certain he or she will give the same answer that has been taught to them since kindergarten; Wyoming is the state of Equality due to the fact that women were given the right to vote in this state before any other state even considered them close to being capable of making such an intellectually challenging choice on election day. Apparently that was the first and last time that word "equality" meant anything other than an easy answer on a grade school government test. Right now Wyoming's Legislature is busy trying to invade our bedrooms and relationships by defining what it means to be a legalized couple in the eyes of the law.

House bill 74 is all about defining what "marriage" means and according to our constitution marriage has always been defined as that existing between "one man and one woman". Those who support this bill love to repeat this phrase over and over again..."marriage is defined as..." as if that is the end of the matter and there is nothing further to say. Here is my question regarding that long held definition. What does a definition of a word really mean at the end of the day?

We humans, in our cerebral capacity, invented language as a means of easier communication. Telling someone what you need is faster and more accurate then subjecting them to a round of charades in which they must spend precious amounts of time trying to understand your arm waving and facial contortions. While we were busy inventing language we also invented the definitions of each word our new language acquired. To have a universal definition for a word facilitated comprehension and communication.

Here is a fact about our language...it's not as set in stone as some would like to believe. We take on new words and new meanings almost as fast as we take on new fashion trends and bad habits. While we were busy inventing new words we also invented this one particular new word; redefine. Redefining a word means taking one that already exists, such as "marriage", and making it mean something similar but adding a twist so to speak. It still means basically the same thing but due to how our culture changes and how we interact with each other and with the world at large, old words have this ability to take on slightly new meanings. Now, for instance, marriage as defined by the state of Wyoming, means a union existing between one man and one woman; but we must remember that that definition was created by a culture of people that assumed heterosexuality was the only form of sexuality that mattered. Heterosexuals were the "norm" and they happened to also be the ones defining words for us as they created law. Homosexuality was viewed as deviant and abnormal and was commonly thought to be a form of criminal behavior akin to pedophilia and bestiality. Who would even consider defining marriage in such a way to include such pariahs of society? Not the writer's of our constitution obviously; or should I say not the readers of it.

However, while the writer's of our constitution may not have been invisioning a day when acceptable relationships did not mean just one man and one woman, they did make way for the possibility that marriage would some day need to be redefined by including Article 1 Section 2 that states that "all members of the human race are created equal" and Article 1 Section 3 which states that "the laws of this state affecting the political rights and privileges of its citizens shall be without distinction of race, color, or sex...". This leads us back to the definition of marriage that supporters of House Bill 74 are insisting is the only acceptable definition as stated in our constitution. To any casual reader of our constitution this claim cannot stand based only on that "evidence". When we look at the history of Wyoming, or even the history of the United States, we are well aware of how homosexuals have been viewed and treated in the past. Not only was their persecution unconstitutional, they were hounded by the religious establishment as perversions of humanity that were destined for hell and the sooner the better. We also know that most likely how religion has chosen to define words has greatly influenced how laws are made or, at the very least, written. Our forefathers and constitution writers defined marriage in such as way as to exclude and discriminate against and deem unequal in the eyes of the law a certain group of the human race. They also created law that denied them their political rights and privileges and, until now, that definition was never called into question.

We are all aware that homosexuality has come a long way since Wyoming's constitution was written. All though those that do not accept homosexuality as a normal human feeling and trait still abound and are just as busy today trying to send these "perversions of humanity" to hell as in the past, by and large Wyoming residents have accepted that homosexuals do exist and do deserve the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy. Unfortunately, residents of Wyoming apparently have no say in whether House bill 74 will become law or not.

Here is what I propose to those in our legislature that are so against allowing homosexuals the right to marry, or at the very least to have their marriage recognized in this state upon becoming residents (if they ever choose to subject themselves to that discriminatory proposed law); why not use that word we invented, "redefine", to change what the accepted definition of marrieage means into something different. Why don't you exercise this power and redefine what marriage means in the state of Wyoming to include all those who wish to find comfort in the legalized and state recognized sanctity of their union? Why is it so important to you that the definition of marriage remains that of "one man and one woman" when you are well aware that not every couple consists of that gender binary?

Our constitution declares that NO citizen of this state will be subject to unfair and discriminatory laws and will not be made to feel unequal in the eyes of the law based on race, color, or sex. House Bill 74 is an oxymoron in this regard. By continuing to define marriage in such a way as to legalize and recognize only those marriages you deem valid and acceptable you are not only diminishing and reducing the rights of those that do not conform to your "one man one woman" pair, you are declaring their relationship and desire for commitment as irrelevant and illegal; even those that were performed and legalized in other states.

To add insult to injury, Gov. Matt Mead has openly declared that he is "against gay marriage" which means that the highest elected official of this so called Equality State, obviously does not see the citizens that elected him into that illustrious post as equal in his own eyes. How is it possible he holds the position that he does then? How can we feel assured that he has our, this includes ALL citizens of Wyoming, best interests in mind when he openly declares that he does not?

You do not have to be accepting of gay marriage even while you create law that assures homosexuals equal rights under that law. Gov. Mead's personal feelings towards gay marriage is not only irrelevant when considering this House bill 74 but also crosses the line into invading ones personal lives to the point of excluding them from living a free and full filling one that entitles them to all the rights and privileges our constitution assumingly gives them. If he and other elected representatives can insist on one singular definition of one specific word despite the overwhelming discrimination to a percentage of our population because of it, and despite the fact that we can and do redefine words as the culture surrounding that word changes and flows in a different direction, and despite the fact that he and other elected officials were elected to specifically uphold the rights and privileges of every citizen on this state, they are still arrogantly assuming they and they alone have the power to declare what marriage is...and more importantly what it is not.

As citizens of this Equality State that is fast becoming anything but, it is imperative that we strongly protest this Bill 74 before it becomes a fact because, while this particular bill may not affect those of us that are not gay, the next one might. If we don't unite as citizens and defend the rights of all Wyoming residents how can we cry foul when our own rights are summarily stripped away by those who obviously do not have our collective best interests at heart?

Is There a Trevor in Your Life?

I love spending time on Ellen Degenerous's offical website (http//:ellen.warnerbros.com/ ) because, not only are the video's of her show and things she has done so funny, she also puts things on there worth watching that aren't always so funny but very important. ( I might add that I have been clicking away on her tickets calender for a year now and no luck...always full or I'm doing it wrong. Hey Ellen, could you hook a girl up pleeeeeese?)



A lot of people who "know" her have heard her speak out against bullying and she has admitted that of course she suffered that as well when she came out as a lesbian in Hollywood just when she was becoming well known and famous. She says she was shut down and nobody wanted to touch her after that. She suffered adult bullying and I happen to know personally that it hurts no matter what your age is.



She showed them though and came back bigger and better than ever. In your face Hollywood!!!



However, dealing with this bullying when you are young can be life altering...even life ending. You are made to feel different, or when people perceive you as different, their "normal" reaction is to isolate you even more. To ostracize you and make you feel that your difference is somehow your fault, your problem, your defect. You must deal with it alone, or change and become "one of them" in order to be accepted.



For a young person this forced change can be the beginning of the end for how they perceive themselves. When you are different (as judged by society) everything else connected with you appears "off" or nuanced into suggestive meanings. Your every step, word, or thought is made to feel skewed or somehow shameful. Your not "normal" and boy don't the bullies let you know it.



On Ellen's website she has a short film called Trevor(for some reason my copy paste abilities are suffering today, but you can find the film on her website or Google of course). This is a film about a teenage boy just coming to learn that he is possibly gay and the repercussions he suffers because of it; both from this parents and society (school mostly). It's poignant because throughout Trevor tells himself that he "looks normal" and "feels normal" but apparently everyone else can see something different about him that he can't see himself, otherwise why would they treat him as they do?



The film is almost lighthearted in it's acting but the message is strong and in your face. Not everyone is "like you" and who are you to demand that of anyone anyways. Why demand people be "normal" because what does normal mean anyhow? Normal to you (any you) means to bully people into changing themselves to suit you and make you happy. So is bullying a characteristic of "normal"?



When you look in the mirror do you see "normal" or is there always something about you that you would change, and are these changes possible; like losing weight or cutting your hair, or something impossible like changing the color of your eyes....or your sexuality? It seems bullies, both adult and children, demand we change things about ourselves to please them in some way.



If you are gay, change that because I am not gay and everyone should be like me. You might not be gay, but you're a homophobic hateful bully with a black heart that cannot accept people for who they are without taking it personal and wanting to force them to change. Why should I be like you...are you normal?



I loved this short film because it says so much in such a short time. The message is direct and easy to understand; not everyone is the same and what a better place the world is because of it. We are not all cookie cutter personalities with desires and dreams that match...what a boring world it would be if it were.



For those of you who point a finger at those of us who aren't normal (and yes I include myself because...really...there isn't too much normal about me. I'm fucked up in so many ways you don't even know), when you look in the mirror are you completely satisfied with the person looking back at you...or is there something...just a little something, you would change to better suit your idea, or societies idea, of what constitutes "normal"?



Nobody is perfect, we all have our flaws, but when you look at me (any me) with my short body, red hair, long spindly legs, stutter, freckles, pudgy belly, gangly walk, non stop tick, bad teeth and bad skin, green eyes, blue eyes, brown eyes...my sexuality... when you look at me and don't like what you see and decide you have the right to point it out and demand I change it....let me ask you this....why should I?



Do you stay awake at night unable to sleep because I wear clothes that offend you, because I have thoughts that offend you, because I dance, talk, laugh, sit, eat or do nothing at all and that still somehow offends you, or is it because I found love, the hardest of all emotions to find, keep, and cherish, with someone you don't agree with...and you find that the biggest offense of all. Why are you losing sleep over this...why are you shaking your head, clenching your fists and feeling a sense of revulsion at my happiness and gratitude that I. Found. Love.?



Why are you standing there feeling superior that you are hetero that you are "normal" and that you are doing God's work by sending me and my "type" to hell simply because I love? God created me with the ability to love...He did not create me with the ability to choose whom I love. Why should I be punished for His omission?



When we are young our parents tell us...one day you will grow up and find someone to love and who loves you. What they don't tell us is that society must first agree with our choice because society has a say in who we love...even though we ourselves have absolutely NO say in who we fall in love with. Is loving someone something we choose? Can we point at a person and say..."hey, I think I will make myself fall in love with you today"....can hetero's do that? I'm guessing they can because they seem to assume gay people can do that too.



I cannot stand people who bully, people who judge, people who spend so much time up on their "holier than thou" soapbox that they can't live among the rest of us.... without looking down.



Must we always find reasons to look down on people...why not find reasons to look up to them instead? I find that the kind of normal everyone should strive for. The world is in the fucked up condition it is today because we spend so much time looking for differences in each other that we miss all the similarities.



Speak out against bullies...even if you don't like something you see in others...neither you nor anyone else has the right to demand they change it. Even if you use God as your "excuse"...just turn a blind eye to someones "defect", to their gayness, just like you turn a blind eye and keep silent about so many other "un-religious" actions so many of your faith engage in. Just add this one to that list...won't ya?

Or does that whole...live and let live thing ... just pertain to YOU and your "lifestyle choices"?

Don't Ask Don't Tell...a letter to the paper

I will be the first to admit I know very little about the political process and what is required to make a law a law...or to reject a proposed one etc., but I do know what "separation of church and state" means and I do know that BECAUSE of separation of church and state, religion shouldn't play any part in law making in THIS country based on that fact.

I know...try telling THAT to the Christians. *sigh*

Now, due in part to my boring night job, and my new found interest in my politics class...I have been reading the paper more in hopes that all that is confusing will become more clear.

I chanced upon this letter in yesterday's Casper Star Tribune (I'm starting to see a trend here) and it really made my blood boil. (another crappy pic, sorry) Now, according to this gentleman (and I use the term in the loosest possible way) he is quite happy that the Don't Ask/Don't Tell rule in the military was upheld. According to him, the military is NO place for homosexuals anyhow.

In case it's too small to read (I'm sure) his words are, "I am a veteran who shared open showers. It is uncomfortable knowing of a gay man showering in the same 12 shower room. If heterosexual soldiers are attracted to females and forbidden to shower with them, how could it be acceptable for a gay soldier, attracted to men, to be allowed to share showers with other male soldiers?"

Now here's what I'm thinking...see if this makes sense. Gay men are attracted to...oh say...OTHER gay men. If YOU are not gay, chances are other gay men will know it and not bother themselves checking out your "goods". Having said that...who the fuck cares if they do check out your goods....men have been subjecting women to the lecherous male gaze since the beginning of time so why cry foul at the very thought that it might get turned on them in some way?

Not to mention, chances are this particular man shared many many showers with gay men while in the military...and just didn't know it. You know why he didn't know it? Cause gay men look just like everyone else...naked..and with their clothes on too for the most part. Also, as far as I know...gay men don't make it a point to proclaim their homosexuality while in showers with 12 other men. Just doesn't sound like "good manners"...or even safe for him to do.

This man also goes on to claim that allowing gays in the military (as if there aren't any right now) would require "separate showers, bathing schedules, and living quarters". He claims then gays would claim "discrimination". Ya think?

My question is...why would it require those things? A gay man is still a man...still got the penis and absence of breasts (generally speaking) so he is, in fact, still male...he just happens to like males and not females. How does that translate into requiring separate everything to accommodate them?

His last line is quite the doozy actually. It's the one that really pissed me off. He says...and I QUOTE, "If they don't announce their homosexuality, then I won't announce my heterosexuality."

I was like...huh?

You just announced you heterosexuality by writing this letter. You announced it by declaring NOT being a heterosexual is somehow wrong. Heterosexuals announce it every single time they try (or do) pass a law that makes being hetero the norm and being gay abnormal. By allowing religious thought to invade our political process to the extent that laws are formed and enforced based on some biblical proclamation that being gay is wrong and deserving of punishment is DECLARING your heterosexuality every single day and forcing that declaration down the throat of every citizen of this country whether they like it or not.

Heterosexual Christians (of which this particular writer doesn't claim to be a Christian but I sort of read it in there...maybe that's just me) believe they have the God given right to enforce their ideas of what is normal and what is sinful onto the rest of us...and by prohibiting gay soldiers from declaring themselves as gay...they are, in fact forcing govt to accept church into every little facet of the political process.

To me that sounds anti American govt. Why do we allow it to happen? Why have we allowed Christians to take over the law making decisions of this country when clearly not everyone who lives and are forced to obey those same laws are not Christian and probably don't believe the same things that the Bible claims is true?

If the American Constitution declares that there will be "separation of church and state"...and we are governed by that constitution...why do we have laws that make being gay illegal? Or somehow sinful? Or that forbid them certain rights that heteros enjoy? or? or? or?

Possibly I still have a lot to learn about politics but could someone explain this to me....I'm not getting it.

btw..back to this ex-veteran..he is a homophobe...and THOSE are the sorts of men that shouldn't be allowed in the military...wonder how many of them are though?

grrr...for some reason my paragraphs won't ....paragraph...sorry for the looooong "paragraph"