Being against gay marriage is not a conservative position

Image from egnorance.blogspot,com

For the purposes of this blog post, let's use the word "civil union" describe the relationships between homosexual couples that are ratified by law. Quite frankly, although the government may use the word "marriage" when it comes to describing the equivalent between an man and a woman, it is essentially a civil union anyway - you get a new set of civil rules that go along with being wed. Marriage, essentially, has more to do with what Jesus, Allah or any of those boys have to say about it. Civil law is dictated by government, not anyone's particular deity (in many cases).

Plus, we only use the term "civil union" in laws about gays to keep straight people calm. States/countries where there are proper civil unions? Pretty much the same thing as where there is marriage. 

The gay marriage we want is civil. Gay marriage is not about coming into your church and taking it over, it is about the civil benefits the government gives citizens when they decide to tie the knot. 

It would include such things (these are American examples):

- joint tax returns

- taxed as a couple, not two individuals (and at a lower rate)

- next of kin (and therefore inheritance - plus you pay more in death taxes if there is no official next of kin. Where there is no gay marriage, there is no spouse, even if the couple has been together for 30 years.)

- being regarded as family (officially) entitling one to visit the other in hospital

- mutual benefits: spouse can be a dependent when it comes to medical aid/healthcare plans, work benefits, in pension plans and so on

- immigration (as the foreign half of a couple in the US, I can verify this is blatantly discriminatory)

- joint filing of bankruptcy

- custodial rights to children (and, incidentally, joint adoption) (note: this assumes that gay couples are already permitted to adopt children - legalising gay marriage and gay couples adopting are different things)

- protection against domestic violence

- Spousal privilege (spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other in court)

and so on

None of these mess with anyone's religious convictions whatsoever. These are solely civil benefits and were not passed down from Heaven or Nirvana. They came from the desk of the governor (or in South Africa's case, the President). 

Forcing people to pay higher tax rates, or not be allowed next-of-kin laws, or to visit each other in hospital purely because their genitals match: none of this is because of conservative ideals, or threats to religious freedom. It is because people dont like gays. 

Being against these civil rights is not a conservative position. It is a bigoted position. 

We suck at talking to each other

Last night I was sitting with two Yanks and two Brits chatting about South Africa. One of the things that came up was the process of getting married in Zulu culture, specifically, the practice of lobola. One of the Yanks (Called Yank 1 fro now on) worked with/knew a Zulu woman who was about to get married and had told her that cattle were being passed around (apoplogies, I don't know the ins and outs of the process) for the purpose of her being married to some oke who she had been in a relationship with for a long time.


Yank 1 - who is very pleasant and NOT AT ALL the type of typical Sarah Palin charicature you may fall back on - then said that when she had spoken to the wife-to-be, and while doing so, asked the prospective marryer how much she herself (Yank1) would be worth, and whether it would be more than a chicken. Cue laughter from the other people at the table. Yank 1 then mentioned that the Zulu woman hadn't taken what she said in jest.


My reply was that I could see the Zulu woman's point of view. Someone foreign, white American nogal, was taking the piss out of a very important ritual for Zulu people. Yank 1 certainly did NOT mean anything malicious by it, nor was she trying to make a point. It was just something she had said as a joke. The Zulu woman evidently didn't see it as such, and it showed.


Yank 1 couldn't quite understand this. In fairness, I don't think many people who aren't Zulu (or have similar rituals) would.


I also think that Yank 1 doesn't know what it is like to have been on the receiving end of prejudice. I think it is key. Being prejudiced against makes one defensive.


What may have been meant in jest, was received as some kind of light form of imperialism.
What was intended as a joke was taken as a patronising observation.
What was probably intended as something jovial, was taken as a slight.


Being gay gives me a tiny insight into what it is like being on the receiving end of preconceived ideas, and I have become incredibly defensive before when I percieve a comment to be a slight on me or my peoples - anything that could be interpreted as your way is good and mine is bad or stupid or lame or evil or whatever.


And this reaction is not confined to Zulus and gays. Try Christians, Muslims, farmers, Afrikaners, handicapped folks, people with AIDS, traditional leaders, coloured folks, Durbanites, Jews, French people, New Zealanders, anyone who has ever supported the Lions, Scottish and Welsh people... the list goes on.


(Pretty much everyone except white athiests. They're a weird exception.)


So do I think Yank1 was wrong? No. I am saying that as a white American, she may not know how she is being perceived when jokingly comparing the ancient (black - it is a notable point) process of lobola against being bought for a chicken. And perhaps if the Zulu woman had explained why she felt like she did about it, things would be clearer.


In fact, if everyone spent more time thinking AND explaining, we'd be in a healthier place.


It reinforces the notion I have that we suck at talking to each other. People are never going to understand unless you tell them things. If you just expect them to know things, you're living in La La Land.