[Editor’s note: The astute reader will pick up on the implications of this article. The casual reader may be tempted to believe Prof. Everett is promoting bisexual marriage. Pause and consider the importance of what you read below, then comment, and then talk about it in your community.]
by L. James Everett, III
There are two types of Same-Sex Marriage advocates. The Biaphobic, and the non-Biaphobic. I don’t have statistical data on their proportions relative to each other, but my guess is that the Biaphobic Same-Sex Marriage advocates out-number their non-hateful counterparts by a ratio of 8 to 1.
Please allow me to develop this. You’ll need to be logical for a few minutes. You may want to put down any sharp objects.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the nature of Marriage, lately. I don’t mean I’ve been thinking about what makes marriages work, or how to prevent a divorce, or what the essence of a good anniversary is. I mean: I am wondering about the Nature of Marriage. What it “is” or what it “should be.” It’s awfully difficult to tell the two a part.
It’s been quite a battle in California. Starting in the 1970’s, the government or a majority of the people felt forced to spell out the following: You don’t got a Marriage unless you got at least a guy and a gal.
In 2000, California voters passed Prop 22, which amended the Family Code with 14 words to the above effect. That was overturned in May 2008 in In Re Marriage Cases (CalifSupCt). In 2008, California voters passed Prop 8, which had the identical 14 words added to the California Constitution. Judge Vaughn Walker, a Federal judge for Northern California, ruled against Prop 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (July 2010).
Some folks want to abolish legally sanctioned “homophobia.” A good way to do this is to make Marriage not necessarily heterosexual, according to this view. This view has been called by its proponents, “Marriage Equality.”
Stay with this train of thought.
Gays have always been allowed to get married in California law. To my knowledge, which is definitely finite, there has never been a law requiring an official to ask the sexual orientation of an individual before bestowing spousal-hood on them. Gay men have been able to marry women. Gay women, lesbians, have always been legally allowed to marry men. It’s true.
There is no, nor has there ever been, a “Do Not Marry” list in a vault somewhere in Sacramento, with all of the gay people listed out, like the TSA’s “Do Not Fly” list. The issue isn’t about whether gays can get married. To speak in such a way is to mask the logic of the real issue.
So, what is the logic of the real issue?
Here it is, the “Marriage Equality” claim. I warn you, it won’t fit on a bumper-sticker:
Homosexuality is one such sexual orientation (see California Fair Employment and Housing Act, search “sexual orientation” here). Therefore, the legal necessary conditions of Marriage should allow for at least two men or two women to be spouses. To disallow this, it is claimed, would be “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Question: How many sexual orientations are there? Google “APA Sexual Orientation.” Read it for yourself.
There are three distinct, legally protected sexual orientations. According to the above logic, the Marriage Equality claim is that the legal necessary conditions for Marriage need to allow for the expression of all 3, otherwise that is “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
What kind of definition would allow the expression of bisexuality among spouses? Hmm. If Bob is Bi, and so is Cheryl, they cannot express their legally protected sexual orientation with just Bob and Cheryl. They need a third. Wait, they need a fourth. Bob needs a guy, and Cheryl needs a gal. That’s four people in one marriage. Like one water molecule has three atoms, except there are four atoms in this Marriage molecule.
In other words, “couple” cannot be a necessary condition of marriage. Bisexual marriage has its needs.
But, Marriage has always meant “couple,” right?
Well, yeah. But then again, Marriage has always meant “guy and a gal” too, up until recently that is, when we were informed that Marriage Equality is more important than holding onto discriminatory Tradition.
And, it’s pretty clear that requiring Marriage to be a “couple” discriminates against bisexuals expressing bisexuality as spouses. By the way, how many in the LGBT community are marching for Bisexual Marriage?
It was claimed in In Re Marriage Cases that sexual orientation is like race. Some races can’t be more equal than others, right? Well, then the same goes for sexual orientations. But, as of right now, “Marriage Equality” appears to mean some sexual minorities are more equal than others.
Homosexuality is a marriage-ready sexual minority.
Bisexuality’s place in this new Jim Crow of “Marriage-Separate-but-Equal-Equality” is to shut up, be separate, barefoot, and illegitimately pregnant in the kitchen.