Faceplace

At least once a day, and often times it is more than once a day, I am reminded of the fact that I was assuredly born in the wrong decade. Don't get me wrong, as a women, and especially as a gay woman, I'm grateful that I live in a time when I can freely be my hyper, nerdy, independent self...but more often than not I feel out of place and awkward in our current century.

There are lots of things that I don't understand about our modern day times...like why there are four-thousand kinds of shampoo, or why we need an automated machine to open a can of tuna, or how someone thought that casting Jack Black in a movie about the first year on Earth was a good or gainful or entertaining idea. But more than anything, the thing that makes me feel the most out of place in our current century is the technology that permeates our everyday lives. For me, technology has always had that cold and unwelcoming feeling and so I never learned how to use it or to become comfortable with it. Frankly, I find reading the paper on actual paper incredibly simple and sweet. I find that the pictures that I've developed on my own hold more value and invoke a stronger emotion than the ones I developed in Kinkos. I find sitting down for an actual cup of coffee with friends more fulfilling than an acronym-infested conversation over a computer screen.

I don't have any of those twitter/myspace/facebook accounts and I have functioned just fine...until now. In 21 days I'm moving and I'm discovering that being able to have four conversations at once could, perhaps, be productive. One of the positive things about a social networking account is that saying goodbye to your not-so-close acquaintances doesn't have to be such a big deal; you can justify your half-hearted farewell with the somewhat comforting thought that you're still cyberly connected. But because I'm not cyberly connected to my not-so-close acquaintances, I'm going on an excessive amount of one-on-one coffee dates in order to say goodbye. And as much I prefer and love the face-to-face conversations, I have 21 days left in Portland and more than 21 acquaintances.

So I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I'm not sure how much time there will be for the blogosphere over the next couple of weeks. I'll try, but my next post might just be from the big city of York.

Ouch...

Gay marriage has been a major topic of discussion in the blogosphere since Prop8 ads starting appearing on television. It's a topic of discussion that I feel ill equipped for. I'm gay, but nowhere near being married and I have a difficult time finding my footing when it comes to this conversation. Despite my weary feelings, I've thrown my blog into the depths of this discussion here and here, and I'll do it again.

This week the United States Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss in the case Smelt v. United States of America, a legal suit that challenges the Defense of Marriage Act. The plaintiffs, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, are a gay couple legally married in California that are suing the Government for the entitlement of federal benefits allotted for married couples.

DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, was signed into law in 1996, when the conversation about same-sex marriage was beginning to present itself in the courts. As a means for maintaining status quo, President Clinton signed DOMA into law in order to preserve the already existing definition of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that 1) states that do not authorize same-sex marriage do not have to uphold the same-sex marriages of other states (which is contrary to Article IV of the constitution which says that states have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states) and 2) the federal government does not have to treat same-sex "relationships" as marriage for any purpose, even if the couple's state of residence recognizes same-sex marriage. In other words, states hold jurisdiction when it comes to the laws of marriage, but through DOMA, the federal government waved the responsibility of honoring that jurisdiction. **From a legal and unbiased perspective, DOMA, in it's inception, wasn't an unreasonable or inconsistent piece of legislation. Its purpose was to create the opportunity for a "wait-and-see" approach, to allow states the freedom to explore same-sex marriage without the federal government having to get involved or sidetrack their current agenda. It didn't take away the freedom of control that states have when it comes to the laws of marriage, and helped the more conservative states to not feel as threatened by the conversation...the "wait-and-see" approach was understandable, but let's not forget that 1996 was 13 years ago. The dating stage is over, it's time to make a decision: propose or move on.**

Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer are not fighting for the generalized equality of gay marriage, they are fighting for the equality of their already existing marriage. They're not asking the courts to make an ethical, moral, or legal decision on the validity of same-sex marriage, they're asking the courts to validate the federal benefits of their current marriage. The U.S. Government's response to the same-sex suit was to file a 54-page document that 1) calls for a motion to dismiss and 2) defends DOMA as a valid piece of legislation.

The brief reads like a High School speech and debate paper. It's unorganized. It lacks focus. It has no thesis. It's as if the assistant attorney general wrote down every thought that could possibly be construed as an argument and then accidentally submitted it to the courts. Here are some points in the brief that stood out to me...

-The brief constantly uses the word "experimental marriage" when talking about same-sex marriage. Nothing pisses me off more than when people in power label homosexuality as an idea, as if it's something that exists outside of a personal realm. Homosexuality wasn't made in a science lab. Equality for the gay community isn't something that you can test out, altering variables until the laws reach the solution that everyone's happy with. We are hardly an experiment and I don't buy the excuse that the wording is "legal jargon."

-The Justice Department's most legally backed argument is that marriage isn't a fundamental right and therefore denying someone the benefits of marriage isn't unconstitutional. Ummm....like in the same way that eating at a restaurant or drinking from a water fountain isn't a fundamental right? or sitting down on a bus isn't a fundamental right? I don't understand how people don't see that it's the same thing. It might not be a life and death issue, but that doesn't mean that the legislation isn't wrong.

-One of the arguments that Smelt and Hammer use in their case is that DOMA violates their rights under the equal protection law. The U.S. Justice Department's response to that argument is that DOMA doesn't discriminate against the "individuals" and therefore doesn't violate anyone's rights. A gay woman or a gay man can receive federal benefits, but same-sex "relationships" aren't acknowledged as marriage and so those "relationships" don't receive the same benefits. In what world is that valid logic? That it's not the "individuals" that are discriminated against, but the "relationships." Does that make it better? or is it that you can receive the federal benefits of marriage as long as you deny who you are...is that their argument? The brief also argues that gay individuals that get married are allowed the same benefits they received before they got married, "they remain eligible for every benefit they enjoyed beforehand" and therefore DOMA is not a violation of their fundamental rights. So, in other words, because gay "individuals" aren't treated as second-class citizens, we should just be happy with what we have. Stop complaining.

I'm not going to pretend to be politically naive. I understand that until the Obama administration decides, if they decide, to make a change to DOMA, they have to defend the current legislation. Obama ran a seamless campaign and has, assuredly, been aiming to run a seamless presidency, and a top-down change to legislation is a much more credible method of operation than a court battle ruling. I also understand that altering/abolishing DOMA isn't a priority for the administration and I don't fault them for that. But it's one thing to defend the legislation and motion to dismiss a case like this because it's not the right time or it's not how the administration wants to handle the issue. It's a completely different thing to write a 54-page document that explains in excruciating detail that it would be absurd for this new form of experimental marriage to be recognized by the federal government; that in no way does DOMA violate anyone's constitutional rights, and it's ridiculous that anyone would assume that it does. There was no need for that brief to be as vulgar and contemptuous as it was. There aren't very many times in my life when I feel inconsequential and this was one of those times.

P.S. I don't trust people that strive to appear perfect; I think that to actualize the appearance of perfection you have to sacrifice the things that brought you integrity in the first place. And I don't mean to cut down the president, but now might be the time for me to say, "told you so." It's more than likely that our president didn't read this brief before it was submitted, so it's hard to hold too much against him, but if he wants to keep his perfect-esque stature, he might want to send out a memo to get everyone on the same page. Or maybe he could hold one of those meetings in a movie theater. Or make a power-point presentation. Mr. President, I'm throwing out gold here.

The Great Equalizer

In less than six weeks I move to New York City and recently I realized that I am not anywhere near being ready to pack up my life and head out east. It feels as if my "to do list" has been mysteriously enchanted, because every time I cross an item off that said list, ten more items magically appear. So I decided to take a little trip to The Big Apple in the hopes that I could...
1)get some of the residency paperwork out of the way;
2)get a more accurate, less media-driven sense of what life in NYC will be like, and therefore alleviate some of the relentless anxiety that has been creeping into my packing process;
3)get a sneak-peak of my temporary living situation and, again, alleviate some of that incessant anxiety; and
4)further cement the idea into my mind, that this move IS actually happening.

I flew out for Laguardia on Monday at noon and headed back to Portland on Tuesday at 6:30pm; in other words, I was in New York City for less than 24 hours, half of which were spent in the airport or the hotel room. My momentary trip was so brief mostly because I am in the middle of finals and couldn't afford to miss any school, and while my trip was productive and goal-achieving...it equally blew up in my face.

I'll start with the bad news. My trip was productive, but the remainder of my week back home was not. My glimpse into life in the big city has seemed to put me into a sort-of trance and I can't manage to get anything done. I am more than ready to start the next chapter of my life, but part of the moving process includes creating closure in life's current chapter. I still have six weeks in Portland; I have finals, I have work to wrap-up, I have people to say goodbye to, and more than anything, I want this move to be about creating new things, not running away from old ones. Seeing New York has put me in a new york state of mind and I can't seem to keep my head in Portland, but the couch isn't going to create closure and I refuse to leave with the possibility of regrets.

While my trip did leave me with idle hands, it additionally brought about an unexpected revelation. One of my biggest fears about moving to New York City is the somewhat trivial fear that I'm not fashionable enough to live in New York City. After I had taken care of all the things on my itinerary, I had about an hour or so to kill before I had to head back to the airport. I decided that I'd take a stab at navigating the subway system, so I found stairs leading to a shuttle, which lead me to an express train to midtown, which lead me to 42nd and Broadway. At first I was incredibly intimidated and overwhelmed; you come out from that subway station and you walk right into Macy's (THE Macy's) and you look down Broadway and the Times Square sign is staring you in the face. And then I started walking around. And then I started noticing something.

The city is big. The city is overwhelming. The city is chaotic. All of that is undeniable, but because the city itself is so big, the people in it seem small. Everyone walks amongst the same skyscrapers and stops at the same crosswalk. The enormity of the city encapsulates everyone. It's as if the city is the great equalizer. While I was walking down Broadway, towards Times Square, I noticed people sitting in the middle of the street drinking coffee and I had the thought "I do that. I drink coffee with my friends after work." Maybe not in the middle of the biggest, most notorious street in the country, but none the less, the action is the same. The buildings might be taller and the streets might extend farther, but people are people, and that doesn't change just because you change a location.

P.S. My mother didn't believe that people sit in the middle of the street in midtown (or at least she insisted that it was for a parade, in which I offered the rebuttal that the middle of the street might not be where you'd want to sit during a parade.) In case you also don't believe me, here's the proof.