Home | About | Donate

What Happens Next is More Important Than Marriage


What Happens Next is More Important Than Marriage

Miriam Zoila Pérez

I came out late, relative to a lot of my peers. I was almost through college when I finally allowed myself to really consider the other half of the population—women—as potential mates. As soon as I did, my world went from black and white to Technicolor. I remember walking around my college campus, considering the women around me with new eyes. I was on fire, finally feeling the stirrings of intense attraction I’d only read about.


"Normal" life is overrated! I chose to have a vasectomy and never became a father. My wife has a son through her first marriage and we're happy to leave it at that. Why? Because there are enough people in the world. My siblings have made up for me. I really enjoy the freedom to travel and like having fewer responsibilities, and still get to be an uncle.

There was a time when being a part of mainstream America meant owning slaves. There was a time when women were chattel property of their husbands. There's nothing inherently virtuous about being normal or mainstream.

The problem with legally defining marriage as only between one man and one women is that the subordinate terms man and women were never defined. If they were, there's no strict definition that won't inadvertantly create a class of people legally unable to marry anyone (or who have a choice of sex). The problem is that sex isn't binary at the level of personal identity. At best we can talk about the sex of individual gametes, but not all people produce them and a rare few produce both, or produce ambiguous gametes. So how do churches deal with parishoners who are intersex and who want to marry within the faith? What's the religious test to determine a proper marriage of a person with both male and female sex chromosomes and genitals? Can they marry a partner of either sex? Or are they prohibited from ever marrying?

Mormon theology is especially interesting on this point, since marriage is so central to their faith. Within the LDS doctrine, gender is a pre- and post-mortal attribute of human souls. That means if you're male, your soul was male before it incarnated, and is expected to partner with one female through this mortal life and into the next. But sometimes twin zygotes will fuse during mitosis, and the individual who is born has DNA from two siblings. In some cases there are both XX and XY sex chromosomes in the same person who is a brother/sister chimera. If you believe en-soulment happens when the sperm first fertilizes the egg, does this mean two souls are in one body? How does salvation/damnation work in such cases?


"[I take so much pride and joy in being queer.] Wha? That's just downright weird-you might as well say, I take so much pride and joy being abnormal & out of mainstream America."

I find it peculiar also, but not for that reason. Being a Nobel Prize winner would also be abnormal and out of mainstream America, and yet I can easily see that as being a source of pride, The reason I find it peculiar is pride is founded on a sense of accomplishment. To say one is proud of being gay seems as strange to me as to say I'm proud I'm white, I'm proud I was born with kidneys, or I'm proud to be subject to laws of gravity and momentum. There are some things about women that I find attractive, but I feel neither pride nor shame about that. That's just how I'm wired.

"I rejoice in the fact I will never have the joy of raising my own child"

News flash, gays can have children. Also, many straights will never have children.

"nor will I ever be able to live a normal life."

They are getting closer to being able to do that all the time, your resistance to that notwithstanding.

"[I love the freedom it affords me, to make my own meaning out of relationships, to create my own ideals of attraction, to build community through a shared experience of difference and discovery.] What in the world does that mean? ... I'm not malicious but why anyone pegs what they think of themselves with what kind of sex they enjoy must have huge holes in their psyche."

This is something different. This isn't about the author's sexual preferences but how that has shaped her relationship with society. I happen to be an atheist, and have been since before that was socially acceptable (and now, even cool). While it would not make sense to me to say I was proud of being an atheist--as it is something I have no control over--I can say that there are elements to having an outsider's perspective which I have enjoyed. It has been an interesting journey, and in retrospect, I don't think I'd want to change anything about it even if I could.

"As for what's next, we all know what the homo activists want to do. That is to remove religion, which will never approve of their abnormal lifestyle, from the public square."

There are Christian denominations which already accept gays, and acceptance is growing in others. Even deep in Bible Belt Oklahoma, more than a hundred Methodist ministers recently petitioned for allowance of same-sex marriage ceremonies. I expect this will follow the same track as transpired with interracial marriages. Christians were, and remain, divided on that issue, but the bulk of denominations have swung around to acceptance.

"They seek to make Christians pariahs."

Even in the face of religious hostility, a Pew survey from 2013 showed that the majority of the LBGT sector in the U.S. are religious, with most identifying as Christian. What they will most likely be trying to do is gain acceptance within their faiths. And as religious opposition wanes in some denominations, I expect we will see support for those denominations rise, and for the overall religiosity of LBGT's to increase.

"They will move to remove all tax exemptions for religious schools and churches."

Many of the atheist LBGT's will, but that's more likely because they are atheists, not because they are LBGT's. I'm a straight and I support limiting church tax exemptions to church-specific income (and income for non-profit charitable work which would be protected anyway even if it weren't religious) and I definitely support stripping government funding from religious institutions for anything that advances their religious mission.

"They will make it impossible for anyone with a K-12 voucher to use it at a religious institution."

So long as that voucher is taxpayer funded, that should be the case anyway.

"In short, religious persecution writ large."

Cutting into the privileged and advantaged status some denominations have long improperly enjoyed is not persecution.


Quotes are necessary because for people under 30, birth out of wedlock is "normal". I don't think that's what you are advocating people should aspire to... is it?

You do your god a disservice by name-calling, which is not at all Christlike. I will not hold that against other Christians. You seem to want to be persecuted, but I won't give you that satisfaction. I am happy for you to have the joy of children and of travel. Your happiness is not antithetical to mine.

I return to my earlier point again and recommend today this TED talk: Is anatomy destiny?

In fact, we now know that sex is complicated enough that we have to admit nature doesn't draw the line for us between male and female, or between male and intersex and female and intersex; we actually draw that line on nature. So what we have is a sort of situation where the farther our science goes, the more we have to admit to ourselves that these categories that we thought of as stable anatomical categories that mapped very simply to stable identity categories are a lot more fuzzy than we thought. And it's not just in terms of sex. It's also in terms of race, which turns out to be vastly more complicated than our terminology has allowed...

The Founding Fathers were, for my point of view, the original anatomical activists, and this is why. What they rejected was an anatomical concept and replaced it with another one that was radical and beautiful and held us for 200 years. So as you all recall, what our Founding Fathers were rejecting was a concept of monarchy, and the monarchy was basically based on a very simplistic concept of anatomy. The monarchs of the old world didn't have a concept of DNA, but they did have a concept of birthright. They had a concept of blue blood. They had the idea that the people who would be in political power should be in political power because of the blood being passed down from grandfather to father to son and so forth. The Founding Fathers rejected that idea, and they replaced it with a new anatomical concept, and that concept was all men are created equal. They leveled that playing field and decided the anatomy that mattered was the commonality of anatomy, not the difference in anatomy, and that was a really radical thing to do.

So here we are, free to enter into state-sanctioned marriages without respect to differences in our anatomy. I'm more free this 4th of July than I was last, and I celebrate it!


The entire construct of "Pride" arose as a punch in the nose to the vicious shaming from "normal" society.

Essentially, "Fuck you, i'm not ashamed of who i am, of what i am. i'm proud." It makes perfect sense at this most basic level, but there is more to this pride than that.

Pride certainly can be about what you are, and not what you've done, but there is also pride in resistance to the ugliness of "normalcy," pride in survival against centuries of vicious, violent, murderous repression, pride in standing up and fighting back. Which is why Pride Week happens at the time of year that commemorates the Stonewall Riots.


Good God! The right-wing bigoted social conservatives are commenting on this site today!


"But how much we benefit, and how much those benefits outweigh the
challenges we face depends a lot on our proximity to privilege and
power. A big part of our community just took a giant step closer to that
center of privilege and power. My only hope is they use that proximity
to make room for the rest of us."

It took till the last paragraph in her article, but the author finally lets her cat out of the bag. Her gay rights movement is not about the "freedom to be me" no matter what "being me" might mean--it is about the accumulation of the raw power needed to dominate others and the culture with an avarice that rivals the inquisition decreeing and crusade prosecuting Roman Catholic church of the dark ages in Europe.
Queervangelists such as Miriam Zoila Perez will mirror the attitude and conduct of their tormenters and confirm conclusively that queer and normal (a term used in deference to the fact that at this point the overwhelming majority of humanity is still heterosexual in the orientation of its libido) can never coexist in peace. To quote the title of a film about the corrupt oil industry, "There Will Be Blood".

The trees are getting dizzy and it isn't from the heights,
The eys of dawn are bloodshot and it isn't from the light,
There is wine, too much wine, in the wind.

The weeping willow's laughing and the gladiola's sad,
The sea's asleep and peaceful and the trees are fighting mad,
There is wine, too much wine, in the wind.

A strange intoxication is being carried on the air,
The world is losing balance and nobody seems to care.

The grass is turning scarlet and there's murder in the rain,
The souls of men are dying but nobody feels the pain,
There is wine, too much wine in the wind.


I don't see it. Who is it that you think is being dominated by LGBT's and what are these dominated others being forced to do?