FORWARD MARCH!: CONCLUSION

                                                           Continuing after Part #3


To those who draw inspiration from the African American Civil Rights Movement, take note that their efforts failed to gain traction until they arrived at the notion that, "I would rather die on my feet, than to live on my knees." Our nation was only able to break the chains of Great Britain, the superpower of the day, and assert itself after one Georgia Colonist straightened up his backbone and declared, "Give me liberty or give me death." In both cases, their oppressors though larger and more powerful could not conquer such a resolution and was brought to their knees in surrender after so long. If we are waiting in hopes for some organization director, some mayor, some judge or some president to come along and do this for us, we will be waiting for some long untold time to finally reap what we are owed. Lately, we have already seen this initiative and self-determination on the move with Alex Wan, openly gay Atlanta City Councilman in spearheading a resolution within the city government to endorse marriage equality. Then we saw very shortly how quickly it snapped the stubborn mayor to his senses. Yes, we can make a decision to number the days and set the timeline for the end of marriage discrimination in Georgia this very moment.

Well, why haven’t we? Because cowardice comes along and ask the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency comes along and inquires, "Is it politic?" Vanity comes along and begs the question "Is it popular? And then greed comes along asking "Is it profitable?" Sloth and Habit wants to know if it’s convenient and comfortable. Mediocrity wants it easy. Moderation doesn’t want to make enemies. And Ego jumps ahead of all these and demands to know who’s going to get the credit before the work is even done. Rev. Dr. King has reminded us numerous times over his career against the injustice of his day, "Conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular..." It may not even be profitable or comfortable. You might piss some people off and then you might not even become famous, celebrated or remembered for your troubles. "but one must take it simply because it is right." He concludes. "The time is always ripe for doing right." He answers to those concerned about the best timing for taking action.

With cases like DOMA and Proposition 8 now on the docket of cases to hear by US Supreme court, many may ask, "What’s the use of investing so much time, money and energy into capsizing an already sinking ship? Wouldn’t it be easier to just sit back and wait for the ship to finally go under?" My response to this is yes, Marriage Discrimination on the national stage is a sinking ship. This is evident by the last election. Right now, it’s like watching the Titanic go under. However this is not the time to let up off the gas now that we’ve worked so hard to get this far. No, we must keep up the momentum to wear down our opponents to the point of collapse. When driving uphill, what happens if you let up off the gas too early? You roll backwards. And with 38 states still with marriage discriminatory amendments and marriage equality now in only 9 states and the District of Columbia out of 50 states, our movement has not yet crested, but it is getting close. We should be excited and elated about this. But the hopes that this could all be over for us nationally by June is a little far fetched than most people realize. This very well may happen to be our Brown Vs. Board of Education, Loving Vs. Virginia, or Lawrence Vs. Texas. If it did, I couldn’t be more happier. However, we have to be mindful that the setup of conservative judges are not in our favor by a slim margin. Nevertheless, I do believe they will sweep DOMA into the trash heap of history on our country’s mistakes and declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional by a close and reluctant decision. I cannot imagine them doing otherwise in reading the 14th amendment to our constitution for equal protections under the law. To hope that they will go the extra mile of a sweeping move, which is currently uncalled for, to invalidate all marriage discriminatory amendments nationally is unlikely and shooting for the stars. Right now with 51% nationally supporting our movement is not a strong enough mandate to require them to do such a thing. This would suffer them a tremendous backlash from states like Georgia where Marriage Discrimination is still sailing strong and unthreatened. But why not shoot for the stars? I am hopeful myself. If you play the lottery, you may very well win, but it would be foolish to quit your day job. This is the same expectations we are to have have about a SCOTUS decision affecting our laws in Georgia. We have seen what a policy of "sitting back to wait and see" has bought us in 2004. This is not the time to fall back. It is foolish to fall back when we are winning. It would be like quitting in the 8th inning, just because you have just 1 upped your opponent for the first time. Every state which does not currently have marriage equality ought to be starting something like what we are trying to build through the Love Under Fire Campaign. But right now, all we can focus on is the state in which we live. While we can hope for the best results from the 2013 SCOTUS trial, we can not afford to rest on our laurels. We must keep up the fight so that whichever way the courts go, it won't even matter, we will forge ahead regardless and not faint until victory is sealed because it is the right thing to do.

Do not discount the effects of an advance in a Southern state like Georgia, to strengthen the case to those justices and the national psyche that marriage equality is inevitable and this is where America is headed and not turning back. This is a social war of attrition, y’all. We have already seen how advances in 4 states have recently impacted our state. A movement in the South and the Midwest might be the final straws needed to force their hands to strike the matter down nationally. If we are to question the righteousness of our fight, then I might suggest falling back and waiting to see what the courts have to say about it, but I am not concerned about that. A sooner victory than anticipated will just mean the biggest and best, epic GAY PRIDE ever in October of 2013 rather than October of 2017. And whether or not your actions will have a direct bearing on the outcome, wouldn’t you like to be able to say to generations unborn that you played in that game and you fought for what was right and that you just didn’t sit back and watch as a spectator as your state government was harming hundreds of thousands of innocent families? But we will win sooner or later. When it is all said and done, it is most likely that we will still have our fight to wage here in our State of Georgia as with the 37 other states which also have marriage discriminatory amendments. However, a favorable decision from SCOTUS will serve us legal weapons to attack our amendments in ways we currently can not. But it will still be up to us to take advantage of them. At best, our amendment 1 is likely to be made vulnerable after a favorable decision from SCOTUS, but it will be incumbent upon us to close in for the kill. To do that, we need to get into position and begin closing in on it now. If we decide to just sit back and wait to see what happens, we could miss this moment of golden opportunity to turn the tides here in Georgia. And why do all that you can do to end this injustice now without fainting until victory is sealed? Step up your game because the principle of justice is on trial. The notion of equality is on trial yet again. The reality of freedom is on trial. And the law of love is on trial. This is for your life. This is for your self-respect and dignity. This is for your families. This is for generations arising after our kind, and this is for the truth of your country. I’ll let you decide how important all of that is.

BAMIT! If you have paid for that slice of pizza pie, then go take your slice and let those who would be incensed about it get mad. They will get over it, but you will never get over being treated as less than by your government. If you do, then perhaps you are indeed.

                                       ((Visit our Action Plan here and please take part))

               

Q&A with Branden Mattox: Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Beastieality and Pedophilia, Oh My!

 

Q&A with The Love Under Fire Campaign?

Q: If we allow gay marriage, then what's next? Polygamy, beastieality, incestuous or pedophilic marriages? I don't mean to be rude or insensitive, but if we are to be fair in allowing alternative forms of marriage like gay marriage on the argument for the right to marry the person of choice, then we must also allow all other alternative matchups to declare marriage as well. If we do this, than our society is rolling down a slippery slope and unraveling the fabric which has held it together for millenias. I mean where would the logical boundary end with the very concept and definition of marriage? In the same way if we allow a cat to be called a dog, then what does it mean to be a dog? If we are to have the concept of dog it can not include cat. That does not mean that we should be mean to the cat or torture it or not include them in feeding time, we just should not allow it to change the definition of what it means to be a dog.

A: ::eyes glazed @_@:: Ooookay! Because I believe your questions are sincerely set forth and not in the spirit of disrespect, I will try to answer your questions...one at a time. Oh Lord Jesus it's a fire! This is a loaded one: ahem 

• "If we allow gay marriage, then what's next?" Gay people get married and live gayily ever after just like the rest of the married population. THE END.

• "Polygamy, beastieality, incestuous or pedophilic marriages?" Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered people are not asking to be involved in polygamy. Or at least the vast majority are not. They are asking to be able to partake in marriage. Now I am aware that in other parts of the world, the concept of marriage does include polygamy. Where polygamy is quite normal it is important to bear in mind, that the cultural motives are vastly different from the reasons people get married in the modern Western world. Polygamy exists for the most part in strictly patriarchal and agrarian societies and the primary motives are toward the acquisition of property and progeny. A man's social status in these societies is based largely upon not only how much land he owns but also how many wives he has who can produce him a tribe of children he would then be the highly regarded father of. While I am not judging this set up, clearly this does not work in our society where our women are equal and it is quite expensive to have so many children. In agrarian societies, having more children to work the field is actually an asset to the production and thus the wealth of a family. Clearly these things are not the concerns of most lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered people in the US and it is a logistical misfit for most Americans. This is because, not only are our women free and equal, we have child labor laws and educational requirements which would prevent our children from being used as assets to fuel production.

Because we have equal protections under the law and women are equal, if we allow men to engage in the traditional polygamous set up, we must also allow our women the same right to hold multiple marriages concurrently, even those already married to a man who is then married to other women. Then what would we have? A whole city married to itself? How would we define our families even for the purpose of inheritence? Could you imagine the brawl over inheritence at the death of a wealthy person married to people who are married to other people. And how would we determine who the children are if he is then stepfather of a whole city? Clearly this is a mess, and just does not work in our society. And this is why marriage in our culture has evolved with our economy to become only between two people partnering in life. Even then, the acquisition of property and social status was still a high motive for marrying a particular person. This has not completely gone away but clearly these concerns in today's world has taken a backseat to love, romance, affection and life partnership. At this level, the idea of polygamy throws of the romantic balance of what we have come to understand as matrimony. How many people would be just fine with their spouse going off for a honeymoon with their new spouse? They might want to retalliate and get them a new spouse and have a honeymoon? Then how are we to define married people from single people, I ask you? We have come to make the distinction by an exclusive, intimate and mutual commitment between two people which are then binded in contract. This contract then affords rights which protect and acknowledge the mutual ownership of property and the legal authority to make decisions on each other's behalf. You would only sensibly enter into such a contract if you were confident that this person is committed to you and has your best interests at heart and vice-versa and it delights you to exclusively share whatever you own with that person. This is love. This is marriage in our culture. And this is what it means to have a spouse which is expected to be the most important relationship in a person's life outside of the spiritual connection with SOURCE. Two men and two women are just as capable of participating in such a relationship as anyone because they are capable of romantic love for one another. They want marriage for the same reasons as anyone wants to be married in our society. This is why we should allow LGBT people to partake in the civil rights of marriage and can not afford to give legal legitimacy to polygamous relationships.

 

Denying legal acknowledgement of polygamous relationships is not discrimination because no one is allowed to legally partake in such a relationship, just as no one is allowed to steal. Now if you feel that exclusive heterosexual marriage is also not discrimination because no one is allowed to engage in same-sex marriage in Georgia, then you fail to acknowledge the findings of professional science of the American Psycological Association giving legitimacy and validity to the natural conditions of the same-sex attractions of those who want to. If you believe that homosexuality is a valid and natural condition which is immutable in most people and that we are citizens, then you can not claim rights for yourself that are not afforded to homosexuals and not consider it discrimination. The 14th amendment outlaws legal discrimination. So not only as a gay man, I am telling you that you just don't get it, I don't need you to get it. The American Psychological Associaton has clinically determined homosexuality not to be a mental disorder, so then it must be natural, I am a citizen, and thus I must have access to every legal right that is available to you. Like it or not. In this case, that right is to hold marriage rights with the person I love and choose as a spouse. Oppose this notion and you are opposing your constitution. Now take that to the courts.

• Beastieality? While some are stricken with the urge, the American Psychological Association has not determined this to be sane disposition. Let's pretend it was though, if you find me a horse who is a citizen who pays taxes, votes and can read, understand and sign a contract, then you might have a point. Until then, case closed.

• Incest? While intimate attractions can occur between siblings or very closely related people on rare occasions, there is no known sexuality which predisposes people to being attracted exclusively to people they are closely related to. What would such a person do if they had no siblings, first cousins, parents or children to be sexually attracted to? So, incestuous attractions are illegitimate as a sexuality and a class of people and thus the 14th amendment does not pertain to such relationships. Because no incestuous relationships, straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or otherwise can gain legal marriage rights, this is not discrimination either. Also if heterosexual siblings or parent and child were to mate, they are very likely to produce genetically disordered offspring. They would have to be barred from mating which would not make for a functional marriage. And while homosexual siblings can not mutually produce offspring, it is discrimination to allow homosexual siblings to get married and not heterosexual siblings. So, no closely related people should be allowed to marry. Nevertheless, find me a class of sibling-lovers, those who clinically can not be attracted to others unless they are known to be their siblings and you might again have an argument which holds water. Until then, case closed.

• Pedophilic marriages? Minors can't sign contracts. When it comes to understanding and accepting the commitment of marriage, this is for good reasons. Case closed.

• "I don't mean to be rude or insensitive, but if we are to be fair in allowing alternative forms of marriage like gay marriage on the argument for the right to marry the person of choice, then we must allow all other alternative matchups to declare marriage as well. If we do this, than our society is rolling down a slippery slope and unraveling the fabric which has held it together for millenias." If LGBT couples are allowed to partake in marriage rights, straight people will continue to get married just as they did before and society will march on. I promise you.

• "I mean where would the logical boundary end with the very concept and definition of marriage?" Two adult citizens, unrelated who are commited to each other as intimate life partners.

• "In the same way if we allow a cat to be called a dog, then what does it mean to be a dog?" Now this is your best rhetorical question yet. The reasons we have names for things is to differentiate between those things when referring to them and not as an instrument of discrimination. Just like you said, "That does not mean that we should be mean to the cat or torture it or not include them in feeding time. We just should not allow it to change the definition of what it means to be a dog." I agree. A definition of marriage that can fit all loving and intimate couples is exactly what I stated above, "Two adult citizens, unrelated who are commited to each other as intimate life partners." Now if you want to make specific reference to heterosexual spouses than just say husband and wife, and we will know exactly what you mean. If you want to make reference to LGBT spouses than say husband and husband, wife and wife or simply, same-sex spouses and we will get the picture. Allowing LGBT couples to marry can never change the specific definition of what it means for a man and woman to be married to each other. So in that sense, we are not trying to call a cat a dog. But when it comes to legal rights and feeding time, both cat and dog, straights and gays get treated equally. In 2013, there is still a distinction in the notion of what it means to be a white person and what it means to be a black person but the persons shall be treated fairly and equally under the law and they can now be both described as citizens, so says the constitution. When Blacks gained citizenship rights, they did not change the definition and the obligations of what it means to be a citizen. They got included in the definition. Nor did they change the definition of what it means to be White, other than a superior race. The institution of marriage itself is not defined by who it is denied to. 

Have anymore burning questions? E-mail to Dir.LoveUnderFire@aol.com