Features
11.18.17: a rebel alliance of quality content
our facebook page our twitter page intrepid media feature page rss feed
FEATURES  :  GALLERYhover for drop down menu  :  STUDIOhover for drop down menu  :  ABOUThover for drop down menu sign in

fresh look at gay marriage
welcome to it suckers!
by dan gonzalez
5.12.04
pop culture

All this recent supposed controversy about 'gay' marriage has given me pause to think. I don't like to pause, whenever I do, strange things happen, like this column. Maybe that's just me, but I honestly don't get it if I think about it too long.

That is to say, I honestly don't get the contraversy. Don't get me wrong, as a straight male of particularly pointed orientation, I don't pretend to really understand those of different orientations. I just simply cannot walk in their shoes, thus, I cannot think like them.

Sexuality, common to us all save perhaps a drastic few, is very basic. It goes back to our little lizard brainstems and what not, beyond the reach of consciousness. It's very difficult to wrap one's brain around a stark difference in behavior that is so fundamental. Most well-adjusted, non-homophobic straight-guys will agree. Women are everything lovely, sweet, and beautiful, and guys are not. I've never met a woman who wasn't beautiful in some way, and I've never met a man who was in any way. Men are dogs, I just can't see it.

I won't speak for straight women, I can never pretend to understand them in any case. They compliment each other on being beautiful, and say they love each other, and then go to the bathroom together. This is probably because they're more sophisticated then we afore-mentioned dogs. But, I suspect somewhere on that root level, they feel pretty much the same. Or else they wouldn't be straight.

There are seemingly unfathomable differences between the basic orientations, much less the genders. In all honesty, I've long suspected that there are more than two major orientations, but that lesbians and gay men lump themselves into to one so they can gang up on the rest of us politically. Be that as it may, and whatever things lesbians and straight males have in common, it suffices to say we do not walk the same paths. Romantic love is a two way street, and there are only certain streets any of us can really drive down.

Consequently, it boggles my mind that we have this controversy about marriage. Marriage is an ancient institution, stemming from primitive times when males and females primarily mated for procreatiion, and pleasure was just the scent that drew the hound. In those days, males didn't live so long, and often impregnated multiple mates. (Some of us still adopt that strategy.) But back then, it was just survival. The creatures who didn't were selected against. Once we got better at it, and lived longer, we started fighting like bastards over each other's mates, hence marriage. Pretty basic.

The fact is that men did most of the hunting because they were expendable; women provided the milk to nurture the young until they were something other than useless. This gave men leadership over migrations, which in turn gave them leadership over the tribe, and ultimately leadership over their spouses. The result was that women suffered a property-less existence, as secondary citizens, through the ages, until civil-rights began to mitigate it. We are, for the most part, thankfully past that now in this country. But vestiges still remain: spousal benefits, by their very nature, were designed solely for stay-at-home mothers who were being widowed, without skills, education, or property. An unfortunate arrangement, as many marriages were in the first place. Unfortunate, not only because men and women suffered under their manifest roles, but because real love must have been ever so rare in such imbalanced relationships.

Love is one of the very few truly quixotic endeavors left to us. Existentially speaking, it is difficult to overcome the absurd chains of our individual essences to embrace any part of another. But it is more than difficult, it is practically impossible, if one is attempting to embrace a subordinate as such. All one can feel for subordinates is sympathy, never love.

Peers are who we love. Peers are who inspire us, who drive us to distraction. My female peer is the one who mystifies me, sanctifies me, and also sometimes drives me to the corner bar in complete consternation. If she were an 18th-century submissive, I would be bored and sick of myself by now. I wouldn't even be married.

Marriage has somewhat evolved since older days, and although straight married guys like myself often find ourselves wondering how useful we really are, or whether or not it would be better if we just skipped town because we have nothing left of our own to truly offer, many of us grasp the falseness of those thoughts, and over half of us stay the course. Sure, we'll hit the bar and look at the other females on the menu, but we always come home for dinner, because that is where the banquet, and our hearts, truly lay. And that is marriage, to stay the course, have as much fun as possible doing it, but always be true.

All of this begs a question, that is, if marriage is truly evolving from a cold societal arrangement into an honest committment between individual peers, why is their controversy regarding who is involved? Amidst the many differences amongst those of us with differing orientations, the one common thread ought to be love -as quixotic as it is- for another human being.

The people our pea-brained so-called thinkers stupidly call homosexuals do not have a long history of marriage. Their history is but a shadow to the rest of us. Straight people don't seem to have that long of a history of true marriage either. What could unify disparate people more than entering into the same institution? To suffer similar trials, to walk a different, but somehow familiar path?

I say welcome to it, suckers. It ain't as easy as it looks, but I'm with you, my gay brothers and sisters. Nothing could ever unify us more.

You're going to mess up a lot at first, but remember, it's a marathon and not a sprint. Don't feel bad and never despair. I'll save you folks a stool at the corner bar. We can talk, you can regroup and hit the windmill that is marriage full force tomorrow. I'll even tell you about yardwork, and the other great escapes, like poker on Saturday night, where you can burp and fart loudly and others will merely laugh and never criticize.

You can give me needed advice on my appearance, explain to me what the hell Apricot Body Scrub really is. And if my nosehairs need clipped, you'll let me know and I won't be embarrassed.

You gay folks will love being married eventually, but it is an acquired taste. You will need to drown your sorrows at times, you will need a friend. And I'll be there, right by the jukebox. I'll play some Steely Dan, buy you a drink, and we'll talk.

If you're male, try to keep in mind that I'm not on your menu, and we'll be good. If you're female, I would really love to talk.

Either way, we'll be friends, which is in any case much better than false enemies.


ABOUT DAN GONZALEZ

Maybe it's you, maybe it's Dan. Things aren't quite the way they should be. And now it seems Dan's peace of mind has come up for the bidding, and those that he respects and trusts must all have been just kidding. Dan's little world has lost control, but still it keeps on spinnin'...

more about dan gonzalez

IF YOU LIKED THIS COLUMN...

for whom the boob tolls
please be the death knell of mtv
by dan gonzalez
topic: pop culture
published: 2.27.04


celebrity boors
hollywood babble-on
by dan gonzalez
topic: pop culture
published: 4.20.04





COMMENTS

lisa r
5.12.04 @ 8:49a

I won't speak for straight women, I can never pretend to understand them in any case. They compliment each other on being beautiful, and say they love each other, and then go to the bathroom together.

It's a violation of the Women's Code of Ethics to reveal what goes on during those group trips to the bathroom--just consider it girl time and give up trying to understand it unless you're really interested in a short involuntary vacation at Dorothea Dix Hospital in Raleigh.

However, for those of us who are straight, no matter how beautiful we might think our best friend looks in her new hairdo we are not turned on by the view. When it comes to the process of inserting Tab A into Slot B behind closed doors we want someone who comes equipped with a Tab A. Love handles are optional. In that respect, we're just like straight men--we want someone who's equipment works properly with ours. No great mystery there.

The real mystery in life is why men are so fascinated by breasts.


[edited]

robert melos
5.12.04 @ 11:50a

Women are everything lovely, sweet, and beautiful, and guys are not.

Not all gay men will agree with me, but this pretty much sums up my homosexuality. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And you don't want apricot body scrub, you want an aloe body wash for daily use, and a toner, and maybe a citrus scrub for rare occasions.

matt morin
5.12.04 @ 12:32p

The real mystery in life is why men are so fascinated by breasts.

Because we don't have them.

erik myers
5.12.04 @ 12:41p

If I had breasts I'd never leave my apartment.

lisa r
5.12.04 @ 1:49p

Erik, that's a visual I really wish you hadn't implanted in my far too fertile imagination.

matt morin
5.12.04 @ 1:56p

If I had breasts and the ability for multiple orgasms, I'd never even get out of bed.

lisa r
5.12.04 @ 1:59p

Want the hormones, migraines, bloating and cramps that come along with that ability, too? Surely something could be arranged in the name of scientific discovery.

dan gonzalez
5.12.04 @ 1:59p

Erik, that's a visual..

No doubt, some large Viking-type guy with hooters.

lisa r
5.12.04 @ 2:18p

Gee thanks, Dan. Now that visual includes Madonna's famous metallic cone bra. I think I may need therapy.

sloan bayles
5.12.04 @ 2:19p

... I'd never even get out of bed.

I've heard some men say the same thing, while almost envying the dog or cat about being able to lick their own privates.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

robert melos
5.12.04 @ 5:22p

Matt, everyone has the ability to achieve multiple orgasm. You just have to learn the techniques of controlling your orgasm. Considering one of your recent columns, I figured you had that situation in hand. Um, well explored. Um, figured out.

Sloan, I envy my dog because he has a tail. I would love to have a tail to wag, and signal people I either like them or to stay away. And I could waste time chasing it and running in circles, instead of web surfing.



adam kraemer
5.12.04 @ 5:27p

If I had breasts and the ability for multiple orgasms, I'd never even get out of bed.

Matt, I had no idea you had a catheter installed.

sloan bayles
5.12.04 @ 5:56p

Robert, as for me, I envy my cats. Get love when you want love, lay around in the sunshine, cop an attitude any time you want. The list goes on.

juli mccarthy
5.12.04 @ 6:28p

Get love when you want love, lay around in the sunshine, cop an attitude any time you want.

My life in a nutshell.

dan gonzalez
5.13.04 @ 10:37p

My life in a nutshell

Bah. We all know you have claws, we've seen them. ;-)

sloan bayles
5.13.04 @ 10:48p

Bah. We all know you have claws, we've seen them. ;-)

That's falls under the "copping a 'tude" category.

dan gonzalez
5.13.04 @ 11:32p

It's a violation of the Women's Code of Ethics to reveal what goes on during those group trips to the bathroom

I already know the truth, and I'm going to reveal it: NOTHING GOES ON, except you giggling at the thought of us poor humps trying to figure out what you're doing. Sure you may be talking about us, but we like that and we're talking about you anyway.

Also, I should add, we're sneaking a shot of Cuervo while you're in there, and topping off your drinks, because that is our most flawless stragedy strategy.

[edited]

lisa r
5.14.04 @ 12:08a

Also, I should add, we're sneaking a shot of Cuervo while you're in there, and topping off your drinks, because that is our most flawless stragedy strategy.

Which is why we end up taking you home and pouring you into bed to sleep it off while we watch Highlander reruns.

You keep believing that NOTHING GOES ON if it makes you feel better, by the way. Ignorance is bliss.

robert melos
5.14.04 @ 12:57a

Which is why we end up taking you home and pouring you into bed to sleep it off while we watch Highlander reruns.

Da ha. Dan, they've got you. It's true. There can be only one.

lisa r
5.14.04 @ 3:49p

If I had breasts and the ability for multiple orgasms, I'd never even get out of bed.

Orgasm for men is purely reflex. Just ask any reproductive physiologist.

russ carr
5.14.04 @ 3:57p

Fle-fle-fle-fle-FLEX!

jael mchenry
5.14.04 @ 4:00p

You've gone too far this time...

russ carr
5.14.04 @ 4:03p

But...I'm dancing on the valentine!

jael mchenry
5.14.04 @ 4:06p

I'll cross that bridge when I find it.

robert melos
5.15.04 @ 2:18a

To sort of be on topic here, Massachusetts will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 17th. So if anyone is expecting the world to come to a screeching stop, or the moral fiber of society to crumble, May 17th is the current end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it deadline.

In other news, I'll be doing a special feature column at QBliss on the next step for same-sex marriage in New Jersey. NJ has a similar state constitution to Massachusetts, and the recent lawsuit that ended in the judge ruling marriage should be decided in the legislature is being challenged. NJ may have legalized same-sex marriage by this time next year. As for me, I'm single, gay and very happy that way. I've seen too many of my straight friends divorces to want to risk entering a state of "prelude to divorce".

robert melos
5.20.04 @ 12:46a

Bump.

Here's a link to my special feature opinion at QBliss on the issue of Same-sex Marriage in NJ Link

russ carr
5.22.04 @ 12:57p

Married for love? No! Married for lawsuits!

This galls me, and may be additional ammo for people fighting against gay marriage rights. As far as I'm concerned, this is worse than the oft-lampooned "foreigner marries an American for citizenship" deal. "Gee, sweetie...we can get our license at the clerk's office, get married in the judge's chamber, then adjourn to the courtroom to file litigation. Tomorrow, the honeymoon!"

[edited]

robert melos
5.22.04 @ 10:30p

Russ, I disagree. If they were a man and woman, there would've been a lawsuit filed and no one would've cared. The fact that this was just another right of marriage denied them as lesbians proves that not everyone in America is treated equally under the law.

A straight couple would not be questioned. In fact, most straight men would've dumped the woman the minute they figured out there was a chance the woman was going to be dead within ten years. They wouldn't have wanted the potential risk of high medical bills associated with cancer, or the emotional pain of losing someone they loved. They wouldn't have wanted to put themselves through the loss.

I think they did marry for love, because if they didn't love one another the healthy partner probably would've already split for greener pastures. Instead they stayed together, without knowing that marriage would be afforded to them two years down the road from getting such life altering news.

Granted it looks opportunistic, but then I am not an advocate of marriage in any form. It should be an option, because everyone should have the same rights, but I really don't believe in all the legal rights. Marriage and legal rights should be two seperate things.

Legal rights should be afforded all individuals. Marriage should simply be two people who love each other joining to live together until death or boredom do they part. Legality comes into play when greedy lawyers or incompetent doctors get involved in the lives of otherwise content people.

The same-sex marriage issue has been about rights from the very beginning. A couple wants all the same rights afforded heterosexual couples. This is just one of the rights. Don't forget parental rights, hospital visitation rights, rights of survivorship.

How would you feel if you were to be told you have no legal right the house you helped pay for and shared with your wife, because your marriage wasn't considered legal? And what she left you in a will is subject to a hefty inheritance tax, even though a large portion of the money was your contribution to a joint bank account?

This is just an exercise of rights that have been denied until now.

russ carr
5.22.04 @ 10:51p

I think that going out the day after they got married was pretty well opportunistic.

I'm against frivolous lawsuits in general. I'm sorry this woman has breast cancer. BUT from every indication the only reason they got married was so they could sue somebody. I can't recall when I've ever heard of a heterosexual couple doing the same thing -- and I've heard of and known hetero couples who have married for all the wrong reasons, but never to pursue litigation. I'm willing to eat my words if you can show me evidence to the contrary.

Would I be so het up if they'd waited a year, or even a month? Probably not. It's the transparency of the motive and the eagerness to milk the system that galls me. I didn't marry my wife out of economic or legal opportunism. I wouldn't marry ANYONE out of economic or legal opportunism.

I'm all for people receiving fair protection under the law, and I'm set against any discrimination that would impugn on people's rights -- harm thou none, as you would say. But in this instance, the couple in question only come off as greedy, abusing these protections they've lobbied so hard for. Another malpractice suit (call it what you will, but that's what the case will be), and those high medical bills go up higher for everyone else. They found a lump eight months earlier and the doc wouldn't do a biopsy? GET A SECOND OPINION.

I also take personal umbrage, on behalf of straight, married men everywhere, at your suggestion that "most straight men would've dumped the woman the minute they figured out there wa a chance the woman was going to be dead within ten years." That's just bullshit, it's blatant, ignorant supposition, and I think it's offensive to couples I know who have suffered through cancer together and come out the other side with a stronger love than ever.

The icing on the cake here? Divorce a Benefit of Gay Marriage. Hey, now all those gay men can dump their partners easily and legally when they find out they've got cancer, too! How about that!

dan gonzalez
5.22.04 @ 11:18p

A straight couple would not be questioned

Not quite true, their sex life would be invasively examined during the suit to prove the damages. Also, they couldn't file the suit if they were not married prior to the damages being inflicted. This couple is exempted because they couldn't have legally married any earlier.

In fact, most straight men would've dumped the woman the minute they figured out there was a chance the woman was going to be dead within ten years.

This strikes me as a bit pointed, man. You could have said "most spouses", or "most people", etc. Gay people bail on each other all the time. Women leave men all the time. But you aimed directly for straight males.

I agree with your comments on the somewhat blurry distinctions between Marriage/Legal rights.

As far as the lawsuit goes, it's a little odd timing wise. "Loss of Consortium" suits are only to obtain monetary damages for defective products/procedures that impair a relationship, i.e., sexually and care wise. But apparently it didn't impair the relationship enough to stop them from marrying. It's a tad difficult to visualize them proving this considering the order of events. I'm a layman, we need a law dog like Walker for an informed opinion.

robert melos
5.23.04 @ 12:47a

Sorry for attacking straight men as being jerks. You're right it was an unfair attack. I mean, going after someone just because of their sexuality, that's just wrong. (But don't ya love the irony of it?)

At first I didn't get the loss of consortium, but then I realized that is probably the only way they can file at the present. Malpractice wouldn't be as practical, or may not be an option at this point, given the amount of time since the cancer was discovered.

We do need a more legal mind to answer the budding questions. Where is Lawyerman when we need him?

russ carr
5.23.04 @ 8:33a

given the amount of time since the cancer was discovered

They can wait 8 months for a biopsy on a lump they knew was there -- when the woman's health and perhaps life was at risk -- but they can't wait 24 hours to file suit! That's irresponsible. If they'd acted as promptly with the former, there would have been no reason for the latter.

According to Law.com, loss of consortium is:

"the inability of one's spouse to have normal marital relations, which is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Such loss arises as a claim for damages when a spouse has been injured and cannot participate in sexual relations for a period of time or permanently due to the injury, or suffers from mental distress, due to a defendant's wrongdoing, which interferes with usual sexual activity. Thus, the uninjured spouse can join in the injured mate's lawsuit on a claim of loss of consortium, the value of which is speculative, but can be awarded if the jury (or judge sitting as trier of fact) is sufficiently impressed by the deprivation."


dan gonzalez
5.23.04 @ 10:22a

Sorry for attacking straight men as being jerks. But don't ya love the irony of it?

That's alright, though, straight guys deserve it for one reason or another, we can take it. ;-) Touche on the irony. Also, it wasn't completely unfair since the hetero plaintiff in a similar case would be a man. It was just a bit loaded.

They can wait 8 months for a biopsy

I read on about.com that the suits are invasive, so I think they'll cover the timeframes involved thoroughly. I think it's a bit suspicious, but then again I'm a skeptic.


robert melos
5.23.04 @ 9:49p

Okay, now that I've attack the straight men, I'll step forward and say I'm against the law suit. If a relationship is based on sex and the lose of sexual activity is so great that one feels the need to sue because they aren't getting laid, then I have little sympathy. Sex is not nor should it be the be all and end all of a relationship. If sex is more important than sharing a loving relationship without sex, then the people involved are immature.

On the other hand, people were reported as having contacted their lawyers while the World Trade Center was still standing and burning to see about lawsuits, so waiting a whole day seems lax.



Intrepid Media is built by Intrepid Company and runs on Dash