askthegaylatino

Los Angeles City College Jonathan Lopez student wasn’t about to keep his views silent at the advent of November 2008 passage of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, — especially not in his public speaking class.
But his words weren’t met with ease by his college professor. Lopez said Professor John Matteson, scolded him and refused to let him finish a speech against same-sex marriage, in which Lopez recited bible verses and a dictionary definition of marriage
The student also said Matteson cut him off and called him a “fascist bastard,” then, told students they could leave if they were offended. None of the students left, so he dismissed the class.
Recently Lopez filed a lawsuit against the community college. A student evaluation included with the lawsuit includes a statement that reads “ask God what your grade is.”
The student and his attorneys are seeking financial damages and a strike down of an LACC code forbidding students from making statements deemed “offensive.”
The school’s dean said she met with Lopez and has begun a disciplinary investigation on Matteson.
The whole incident in and of itself is offensive. As a gay-Latino journalist, I am deeply appalled at the lack of decorum on the part of the professor and the student.
I disagree with the student’s views and that of all those people who use religious mumbo-jumbo, proliferated in the name of an unknown “God” with whom no one has conversed with to seek his or her view, to deprive citizens, human beings of basic rights. But our country was founded on free-speech, so much so that we included it first in our constitution.
As much as I find religious speech archaic, ridiculous and disparaging, and as much I want all human beings to achieve equality in treatment, rights and privileges, shutting people is not the answer.
If we ever are to evolve as a species and move forward in this world we must achieve our goals through dialogue. Lawsuits to our schools only divert time and money that can used to educate the minds that may someday lead us to prosperity.

Childhood fairy tales inspire most of us to seek out a soul mate with which we could live happily ever after. But the dream-like books of fiction rarely, if at all, follow the characters for a lifetime.
Hillary and Julie Goodridge, one of the first couples to wed in Massachusetts when the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled to recognize same-sex marriages in May 17, 2004, discovered that — unlike the whimsical stories of yesteryears — “ever after” is rarely sealed with a ring, a kiss and a nuptial.
In 2001, the Goodridge’s were among the seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s gay marriage ban. Recently, the couple filed for divorce in Suffolk Probate and Family Court after announcing their separation in 2006.
I empathize with the ordeal of the Goodridge’s and the concerns about the impact of divorce — of all couples — on society.
Almost two years ago, my heart was broken. The man I planned to spend the rest of my life with decided “ever after” was not a road he wanted to travel with me. The experience was excruciating but I learned two very important lessons, among the many others you gain in a relationship.
The first is that you can’t force anyone to stay in a relationship when their heart is not invested, because relationships and commitments take more than one person.
The second lesson gave me an understanding of the love others have had for me and my own capacity to love and commit to another human being. I realized was able to spend my life committed to one person, faithfully and loyally. I also realized that commitment meant much more than monogamy.
The story-book ending, doesn’t conclude after the wedding, a step I also planned to take with my former partner. And, it isn’t always happy. But that’s what marriage and love is all about: a journey filled with potholes, hurdles and roadblocks in the company of another being, who at times challenges your perceptions and is imperfect, yet ultimately helps you grow as a person. Again, it takes the commitment and desire of two people willing to take the trek.
The women now are facing harsh criticism from opponents of same-sex marriage, who are using the Goodridge’s dissolution as a dagger to underline the divisiveness and bad taste same-sex marriage can have on the nation.
“I … can’t help but reflect on the pain this couple has caused on the commonwealth and the nation to redefine marriage,” said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute in an interview with the Boston Herald. “And now they’re getting divorced? It doesn’t make a lot of sense. Obviously, they don’t hold the institution (of marriage) in very high esteem.”
News of the Goodridge’s divorce comes at time of legal showdown in California. The California Supreme Court is scheduled, March 5, to hear arguments regarding the future of same-sex nuptials, ensuring a decision in state before the summer.
The high court set three hours on its calendar in San Francisco, considering legal challenges to voter-approved Prop. 8 that argue the November initiative is invalid.
The 2008 elections, Proposition 8 restored the ban on same-sex marriage by 52 to 48 percent vote, after the state Supreme Court in May 2008 found the prior law outlawing same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
Surprisingly, Attorney General Jerry Brown vowed to oppose the Proposition 8, stating that the measure strikes down an existing constitutional right.
The Court also will on the fate of thousands of same-sex couples who married before voters approved the measure. The justices have 90 days from the March 5 hearing to decide the case.
Several opponents of same-sex marriage threatened a political backlash against the already divided court if the justices overturn the gay-marriage ban.
The fact that a court has to decide on the matter is, in and of itself, appalling. Seems that no matter how much time we spend in school learning history, our legal system, our political system, our government and our people continues to repeat the errors of the past.

While it may have been popular views that decided slavery was morally OK, that Jim Crow laws were justified and that women shouldn’t have the right to vote and that couples different races shouldn’t marry, majority votes should never amount to fairness.

Maybe the solution should come by taking clerical rights to legal marriage from religious institutions. The fact is that separate is not equal. And, while many rights are satisfied through domestic partnerships, homosexuals, who pay taxes and contribute to society as much as heterosexuals, do not have all the rights they are entitled.

What’s in a word?

For the narrow-minded, it may just mean a capricious group whining and being sore losers. But “marriage” connotes more than a romanticized desire embedded in one word.
Unless, all the nations adopt the word “civil unions” as a legal term that entitles loving couples to all rights limited to heterosexuals. Domestic partnerships and civil unions, which for example, exclude same-sex couples from petitioning a foreign-born partner, do not include all the rights and responsibilities afforded to heterosexuals.

I do or not I do

A Court in New Jersey affirmed a lesbian couple’s right to divorce in the state, despite their Canadian marriage and the opposition of the state attorney general. La Kia Hammond, of Trenton, was able to divorce Kinyati Hammond, who she married in Victoria, British Columbia, in March 2004.
Most courts have ruled that the state would not grant the divorces because the states do not recognize same-sex marriage. New Jersey, was able to take that legal stand because it already extends the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples.

Cases like these are closely watched by advocates for and against gay marriage, partly because allowing gay couples to divorce could open the door to recognizing gay marriage.
Others states are well on their way to accomplish what Massachusetts and Connecticut already gained.

In Hawaii, the House of Representatives is expected next week to vote on same-sex civil unions in the state. The House Judiciary Committee recently made a unanimous vote to allow the civil unions after hours of public testimony.
The bill would allow same-sex partners affords the same rights, benefits and protections that state law provides to married couples. If the Legislature approves the bill, the state Senate would then have to consider the bill.
Vermont may soon take a further step in LGBT rights. After nine years since it first legalized same-sex unions, the state is introducing a bill that would make marriage legal. A similar bill is expected to be introduced later in the Vermont Senate Senate.

While many LGBT people seek the right to marry, others are seeking the right to divorce. In case bigots can’t grasp the concept and throw their red herring arguments, this doesn’t mean gays and lesbians have a low esteem of marriage.

Rather than special privileges geared at disjointing a nation, gays and lesbians seeking one thing and one thing only: equality to do with our lives as we please; the same rights that our heterosexual friends and families are able to accomplish in their lives.