A Little on Gay Rights

Yesterday afternoon I participated in our statewide Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry meeting where we decided which issues we would be addressing at this year’s legislative session.

Can’t do ’em all, that’s for sure.

We had presentations from six or seven areas of common concern.

But there was some confusion. In this project we’ve long struggled with taking on too many issues and therefore being not particularly useful in any. But as the meeting progressed we never actually said how many we would take on. The phrasing ahead of the voting used by our facilitator was we would support two or three.

The facilitator announced we each had two votes, and we voted. The most votes went to the issue of taxation and expenditure, which was modeled intentionally and openly by the steering committee. And, as a member of the steering committee, I felt with good cause. This year basic services are in danger and new expenditures are almost impossibly Quixotic. The second area of concern we voted to support was homelessness and housing, following a particularly eloquent plea by one of our members who has been closely involved in the area of Housing First.

I had been the advocate for Marriage Equality. I was solidly prepared on the legislation, but didn’t especially make a great presentation. I was aware of the press of time and spoke too quickly. Also I pushed how we need to stand for the normalcy of the BGLT community and their basic human right to marriage. Tactically not so good. It didn’t fire people. And it was obvious I didn’t press the right rhetorical buttons.

Although it came up third in the voting, anyway.

Then there was an awkward moment, when our facilitator asked whether we had two or three issues.

Immediately from my seat I loudly said “three!”

There was laughter as I was obviously the advocate.

Then one of our number said he didn’t feel it was necessary to take on this issue this year as there was no doubt marriage equality would be bottled up in committee. And besides the governor will veto it and there’s no chance of an override.

I said we also needed to stand against the DOMA legislation in play. DOMA for the uninitiated is Defense of Marriage Act and stands for those bills that state marriage may only take place between a single man and a single woman.

The other fellow said there was no chance it would pass.

I just wasn’t going to let this go. And I replied true, but only if we continue to push.

There was an awkward silence in the room.

I became painfully aware of how quiet the people I knew to be gay in the room all had been.

Sort of watching their own humanity being debated.

I felt shame, for all of us…