1
It’s winter. Or, at least, it’s wintery. I’m wearing my pajamas, just out of bed. I’m also wearing jeans and a sweater with a green Christmas tree on it. It’s Saturday morning. It’s Christmas morning. It’s any day of any week and I am 5 years old. The constant is the house. Well, not so much a house. In reality, it’s one of three apartments that make up the small building on May Street. The building is constructed of graying brick, and a collective stoop stretches across the front of it giving way to three equally spaced doors. The door on the farthest right is ours.
I’m lying on my stomach across the hardwood floor of the kitchen. He is sitting on a chair pulled out and away from the table. Between is a slot car track, each of its wired controllers in our possession. It isn’t one of the expensive tracks with jumps and falling boulders and hazardous pits and sound effects. This track is a simple figure-8, and the mild humming of the electrical current is the only sound as the cars make their way around it.
He has a human form, but no face. A flat blank pallet sits atop his shoulders, which continue to grow outward and broad before shrinking inward and twisted. As I stare at the empty canvas, a wild assortment of hair shoots out of the top of it, rapidly shifting colors and styles. Kind eyes appear, then tired, then concerned, then distracted. A nose begins to protrude, growing long and short in rhythm, like the playing of an accordion. The mouth finally manifests, and it never fluctuates. A straight line cut across his warping face, displaying no discernible amount of pleasure or dismay.
We race our cars for as long as I choose to remember.
2
I’m fifteen. My mom has asked me and my younger brother out of our separate bedrooms and into the kitchen. As a rule, the three of us generally talk in passing and in short bursts. This may be our first town hall assembly. A State of the Thompson Family address. We join her at the round, wooden table tucked neatly into the small dining room of our house on 44th Street. The two dogs, one small, rotund and white and the other, large, black, and timid, circle the table, assuming we are using it for its intended purpose.
We sit cautiously, and wait for her to begin.
“I just wanted to let you guys know,” she starts slowly, our uncertainty clearly hereditary, “that I’ve been talking to your dad. He said he’d like to come visit you sometime, if you wanted him to. Would you want him to do that?”
I search inward to all the empty places in my mind that that word – dad – is supposed to fill. I find nothing substantial: ambivalence, a small bubbling pond of disdain, a mild electrical hum, a fragmented family portrait. No reservoir of yearning can be found, no thimble’s worth of wonder. Not even a droplet of desire stains the white carpet.
As I await some kind of response from the deepest recesses of my mind, my brother speaks up.
“I want to meet him.” My brother is twelve years old. Ten years later, he would say the same thing again. I would feel nothing once more.
I again look inward. That’s one vote for yes. As I pull and look behind bits of gray, I find something, a small red ember, clinging to life. As I observe it, it begins to swell. The flames burn ferociously, and their heat impresses upon me. Then they speak to me. “Think of all the birthdays, all the Christmases, all the good report cards he’s missed. Think of what he owes you.” The s sound takes shape, serpentine and hissing.
“I guess I’d be fine with it.”
3
I’m younger now, sitting in the back seat of the two door Toyota Tercel. My brother is next to me, both of our mouths numb with Novocaine. As is custom during this time, I’ve escaped the dentist’s excavation with no scheduling of a second appointment necessary. The same can’t be said for my brother, whose teeth are never free from the oppressive might of the cavity.
“Eric, you have to start brushing your teeth more. I can’t afford to keep paying for all these fillings. It’s too much.”
“But doesn’t dad pay for that kind of stuff for us?” I ask.
“He’s supposed to pay for your medical and dental bills,” she replies, curtly.
“He doesn’t do it?”
“No.”
“Can’t he get arrested for that or something?” my brother inquires, both of us still young enough to believe in the absolute moral right and the punishable moral wrong.
“I’ve taken him to court twice to get him to pay for your bills, but he never does it. It’s too expensive to keep taking him to court just for him to not do it again.”
After leaving the dentist’s office, Mom stops at McDonald’s without us even asking. Once home, we devour our meals and race into our shared bedroom to watch wrestling. Mom sits alone in the living room watching TV until her eyes grow weary. She retires to her bedroom.
4
It’s the first week of June and the last week of third grade. Teachers, smart as they are, recognize the class’ collective longing gaze out towards the playground and lessen the workload during the waning moments of the school year. On this day, the craft supplies have been pulled out and spilled across the five tables in the classroom. Old, crusty bottles of Elmer’s glue stand statuesque in the centers of tables while weathered crayons, most missing their paper encasing entirely, and worn colored pencils take residence in small baskets.
Piles of pristine construction paper are found at each table, a cavalcade of blues, oranges, reds, and yellows. Glitter is available, but not without the teacher’s guidance, as it always ends up littered across the floor when trusted to our little hands. A request from the janitorial staff, no doubt.
“Today, kids,” starts Mrs. Jennings, “we are going to be making Father’s Day cards. It’s not for a few weeks though, so you’ll have to ask your mothers to hide it until the right time. Feel free to use all the items in front of you to make the best card you can. I’ll be walking around and observing, so raise your hands if you have any questions.”
As my classmates eagerly begin work on their cards, I stare blankly at the red construction paper in front of me. I don’t know what to do. I sit there, hoping to go unnoticed. I hear a faint, mechanical hum and turn to look as a boy uses the electric pencil sharpner on the teacher’s desk. It isn’t long before Mrs. Jennings notices me and waddles over.
“Why haven’t you started, Scott?”
“I don’t have a dad.”
“Everyone has a dad,” she so forthrightly announces before taking a moment and suggesting “Why don’t you make one for your grandpa?”
I agree and begin work on the card for my grandpa. For no particular reason, I make a turkey on it by drawing the outline of my hand.
5
It’s a Saturday night in August, and I am eleven years old. My mom is baby sitting my two younger cousins while my uncle and aunt have something called “date night.” It is late, and my cousins, along with my brother, are already asleep. I’m playing my Game Boy while mom watches TV. I’m not paying much mind to it, but it sounds like something important has happened. In brief moments of reprieve, I’ll glance up towards the screen, my mom entranced by it, to see reporters and news anchors talking about someone dying. Something about a princess and paparazzi.
Mom continues to watch as I continue to play, both of us whittling deep into the nighttime hours. It’s after midnight when, finally, there is a knock at the front door. My uncle Gerald has returned to pick up his slumbering children. They awake begrudgingly and stumble out into the cool air, ready to resume their sleeping as soon as they buckle in to the backseat.
As Gerald walks in, he says hi to me, his breath sour, and stares at the TV.
“Have they announced if she’s dead yet?”
“No, not for sure. But everyone seems to think she is.”
“Well, that’s what she gets. She should have never gotten divorced.”
Noticeable even to me, that sentence hangs heavily in the air, acrid and spiteful. It is gaseous, filling our living room in place of oxygen. Silence seems to hold as my mom looks at her brother, completely exposed. I pause my game and look in their direction, stifled.
“Well, you know what I mean,” he offers. “Thanks again for watching them. I’ll see you later.”
My mom shuts the door and pauses there for a moment. The briefest of moments, a rare moment in which she appears vulnerable to me. Uncertain. It passes in an instant, and she reaches for the remote and turns off the TV.
“Time for bed, Scott.”
6
My cell phone buzzes. I’m 25 and living in the house that I own. The buzz signals a text message, and I look down to see that it is from my brother. It reads:
I found dad on Facebook. It doesn’t look like he’s updated his page in a while, but he has us listed under his family category. I guess he lives in Maryland now. I sent him a message and he sent one back to me. I could copy it and email it to you if you want. Do you want me to?
Again, that empty feeling returns. Just as was the case ten years ago, thinking about him returns no identifiable emotion, no extreme one way or the other. This man is a stranger to me. You may as well pull a name from the phone book and ask me if I’d like to call it and invite it to dinner.
Still, curiosity can’t be denied, so I text him back “sure.” I load Gmail and wait for the email to manifest. Within minutes, it appears. I watch it sitting innocuously for a while, the subject and sender bold and highlighted signifying that it is unread. But should it stay unread? Once read, the words can never be unread again.
I open the email and read the following:
Hey Eric, this is Wayne. How you doing? Not really sure what to say, for obvious reasons, lol. Sorry you got my nose and not ur mom’s, her’s was always cuter. From the pic’s I saw of you on ur page I can see you have grown into a handsome young man. So tell me, what are ur plans for the future?… career, starting a family of ur own, etc. I would really do want to get to know you and scott as well, but was scared to, thank you ! I always had you guys n my heart an on my mind. I live in Stoney Beach,MD,with my wife Kristie and her son chase, chase is 8yrs old. My number is [REDACTED] if you ever just want to talk, DO MISS MY SONS !! AND HAS ALWAYS WISHED THE BEST FOR YOU BOTH!
7
My cell phone buzzes. I’m still 25. This time it’s a call from my mom.
“Hello?”
“Hi, Scott. Whatcha doin’?” She asks flippantly.
“Not much, just about to cut the grass. What’s up?”
“Well, do you remember how your dad messaged Eric a few weeks ago?”
No, mom, I forgot about the first time Dad had talked to us since he left 20 years ago. “Yeah, did he message him again or something?”
“No, his new wife messaged him.”
“Wait, what? Why?”
“She told Eric that he should never come visit his dad. That he is a liar and that he hits her. She said that I was smart to get out when I did.”
“Are you serious? Holy shit. Is that stuff true? Was dad like that?”
“He never hit me, but he did lie. All the time. He told me he grew up in a completely different town than he really did. He would tell me about cars that he never owned. He never wanted me to meet his family or friends, I think because he knew that the truth would come out. I never understood it. He would lie about the dumbest things, anything. He was such a weirdo.”
After she hangs up, I sit and think about the “weirdo” for some time. I think about him sitting in that kitchen chair, faceless and shape-shifting, holding down the trigger on the controller for his slot car. The humming returns and I lay across the hardwood floor, racing him. This fractured and incomplete memory is all I have.
Already Spoken For
November 16, 2010Here is a paper I recently wrote for an English class discussing the views of certain gay individuals who are against the legalization of gay marriage. The reasoning behind this stance is different and varied for each person discussed, and I found their dissent from the mainstream gay rights movement fascinating.
For your additional listening pleasure, check out “Order Form” by the Shook Ones, which inspired the topic selection. (Song, Lyrics).
Let’s perform a simple test. I will say a small phrase, and I want you to make note of how reading that phrase causes you to react. Are we ready? Good.
The phrase is: gay marriage.
Now, what did you feel upon reading “gay marriage?” Perhaps you felt anger, a reaction to the implication of the phrase. Maybe sadness flickered for a brief second? Or was it joy? Bewilderment? Apathy? No doubt, any number of emotions could have been exhibited in that moment, best reflecting our country’s own inequity of feeling on the matter. Gay marriage has been the focal point of the gay rights movement for the better part of the 21st Century, and it seems as if every day more states either grant or officially rescind the right of marriage for homosexual couples.
The players in this game of legal love are typically well characterized. As is custom for our political landscape, there appears to be two distinct parties here. The first is the Right Wing, Bible-thumping Christian who just can’t stand the notion of members of the same sex spending their lives together with the same rights as straight couples (wait, what is bias again?). This character was most recently personified by New York Governor hopeful Carl Paladino, who commented that not only did he think that heterosexual couples were more successful in life, he didn’t “want them [children] to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option” (Hartman). Regardless of the actuality of gay marriage affecting their lives, those opposing gay marriage seem poised and ready to fight any legislation allowing gay couples to don the term “married.” Even adjusting the nomenclature and allowing gay men and women the opportunity to enter “civil unions” does not sit well with many (“Most Still Oppose Gay Marriage”).
The second group features both gay and non-gay advocates for gay marriage, who together are striving to push legislation that will allow same sex couples the opportunity to marry. Though civil unions did seem to be a common middle ground between these two parties at first, gay marriage advocates are no longer content with the term. While the civil unions were meant to enable gay couples with the same rights as married couples (hospital visitation rights, tax regulations, etc.), they fail to offer the noted prestige and respect that marriage carries (Cowan). This argument seems fairly rational to me, as playing the game at the beginning of the article with “civil union” instead of “gay marriage” leaves me pretty much emotionless.
These two sides are pretty well-documented, and more than likely, you probably find yourself residing in one camp or the other. While the struggle between the two groups (tradition vs. evolution, old values vs. new) is plenty interesting, there does in fact exist a third group that is vying for some representation in the fight against gay marriage. And believe it or not, this group is comprised of homosexuals.
Indeed, though it may sound unfathomable in our Americanized “good guy vs. bad guy” approach to politics, there are gay men and women who not only have no interest in marriage for themselves, they are actually hoping that gay marriage remains illegal. While it’s easy to conjure analogies to betting against oneself in a race, these people have very diverse and very interesting reasons for fighting against the “good fight.”
Eve Tushnet, published author and member of the Catholic Church, just so happens to also be a gay woman who rallies against gay marriage. Eve argues that civil unions which grant the same legal benefits as marriage (more on that in a bit) should suffice for gay couples, but that gay activists will not stop until they can adopt the marital terminology. As discussed previously, she notes that gay couples will seek the societal acceptance and prestige that being married carries, or as she puts it, the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” (Tushnet).
Eve, however, does not think the psychological benefits outweigh the harm gay marriage will inflict on the role of marriage in our lives. She argues that marriage receives the noted prestige because of how it changes and shapes people’s lives. She writes:
Marriage developed over centuries to meet several specific, fundamental needs: children’s need for a father, a couple’s need for a promise of fidelity (and consequences for breaking that promise), young people’s need for a transition to manhood or womanhood and men’s (and women’s, but mostly men’s) need for a fruitful rather than destructive channel for sexual desire – a way of uniting eros and responsibility. In other words, marriage developed to meet the needs of opposite sex couples.
Eve believes that because of this, same sex couples do not warrant the ability to marry. Furthermore, she believes that gay marriage would alter the landscape of marriage by making it an option rather than the ultimate goal in life, by virtue of the fact that not every gay couple will want to marry (Tushnet).
It is quite interesting to read Eve’s comments and beliefs on the subject matter. While they carry some of the same rhetoric found in most religion-based arguments, the tone and weight just feel different coming from someone in her position; a person residing in several, seemingly conflicting camps at once. Her stance places the sanctity of marriage above the rights and privileges of gay Americans. Taking that stance must have been very difficult for her to do.
Of course, not every gay man or woman falls in line with Eve’s thinking. In fact, to the near-complete contrary, gay rights activist Bill Dobbs believes that same sex marriage actually jeopardizes gay culture and history, not the other way around. He believes that fighting for same sex marriage “feeds into the… drive for a homogeneous, orthodox American culture” (Hartocollis). Rather than living their lives as freely as they did during the 1960’s and the initial gay rights movement, these couples are seeking to ascribe to traditional notions of love and relationships. The main point being that unless you are married and settled-down, there must be something wrong with you.
Bill says he feels that pressure presently from his homosexual friends, one who even remarked that “if he had never wanted to marry, there must be something wrong with him” (Hartocollis). Though Bill supports civil unions between gay men or women, he thinks that the fight for gay marriage distracts from other, more important gay rights issues (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” says hi). Interestingly, a common thought exists between both Bill and Eve’s arguments, which is that the push for marriage legislation is simply an attempt to make into law the acceptance of gay rights. As if the “prestige” (real in Eve’s mind, nonsensical in Bill’s) will simply transfer over to gay couples should they win their fight. On the contrary, a perhaps strong and violent backlash towards gay men and women could ensue should legislation move too quickly, which is precisely why 42% of same sex marriage advocates think that a strong push may be the wrong strategy (“Most Still Oppose Gay Marriage”).
Though both Bill and Eve support civil unions in lieu of marriage, both would have to agree that legislation is still necessary in order for the rights bestowed in a civil union to match those in a marriage. As it stands, civil unions are only recognized in states which allow them, and not on a federal level. This means that gay couples will miss out on federal benefits such as joint filing of taxes, taking leave from work to care for a sick relative, and Social Security survivor benefits. Furthermore, these civil unions may not even be honored in states that do not already allow for civil unions to be granted, so gay couples are almost forced to stay in certain states if they want to retain any of their rights as a couple at all (Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions). Without a doubt, this inequity and “second class” status cannot stand.
The most important question here, though, is how does this dissent among members of the gay community affect the success of the gay rights movement? Clearly, both Bill and Eve believe that marriage isn’t necessary in the acquisition of equal rights and treatment from America at large, even though that seems to fly in the face of the message currently being advertised by the movement. It’s very reminiscent of the chicken and the egg, except here we are wondering what should come first, not what has already come first. Where do gay right activists put their efforts? One could argue that, in relation to the black rights movement, legislation is the key in the fight for equality. Then again, the Reconstruction Era showed that even the granting of freedom does not guarantee acceptance, and even today a rift still exists between black and white Americans.
Furthermore, if Bill, Eve, and others like them were able to swing the focus of the gay rights movement away from marriage, how would this affect public perception of the movement as a whole? Is the movement so entrenched in this battle over marriage that a failure to win outright might seem like defeat in general? If that is the case, then are gay opponents to gay marriage expected to silence themselves for the betterment of the cause? Unfortunately, that may be just the reason we don’t often hear from this side of the argument. How sad that people who more than likely had to hide their true feelings at some point in their lives are seemingly asked to do so again.
Exposure of these opposing views, though possibly harmful to the cause in the short-term, is very important in the natural growth of the movement and to people’s understanding of it. Where once I associated opponents of gay marriage with uninformed bigots or stubborn traditionalists, I see now the very layered complexity of the issue. Though I don’t agree with Eve’s religious views, her uncomfortableness with gay marriage, even while being gay herself, warrants some consideration. While prohibiting gays from marrying seems to violate a right we all deserve, does the violation of her trust and respect for the institution represent a breach of her rights? Can the term “civil union” ever be respected in the same way as marriage?
Or what of Bill, is his worry over the future of gay culture well-founded? As a new generation of gay men and women are entering adulthood, is it not conceivable that their wants and needs would differ from those before them? Bob worries that the spirit of the 60′s is fading, and that the cultural and social statement made by homosexuality in that time is threatened. However, this could be said about nearly any major movement from that time period. In this regard, Bob’s ideology is similar to the more documented opponents of gay marriage, the traditionalists who don’t want to see the definition of marriage altered or expanded.
Before a ruling ultimately puts the legal debate over gay marriage to rest, it is important that we recognize the many varying opinions and beliefs surrounding the issue. People like Eve and Bill don’t fit nicely into the binary approach of American politics, where there is good and bad, A and B, or on and off. Maybe it will require a complete restructuring of our thought processes, but these tertiary, quaternary, and even quinary positions need to exposed and considered. Otherwise, people like Bill and Eve will not be heard; they will be erroneously spoken for.
(For fun, feel free to play the game again in the beginning of the article. Hopefully your results are just a little different now!)
Works Cited
“Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions.” GLAD.org. Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, August 2009. Web. 1 November 2010.
Cowan, Alison Leigh. “Gay Couples Say Civil Unions Aren’t Enough.” New York Times. New York Times, 17 March 2008. Web. 9 October 2010.
Hartman, Rachel Rose. “New York Candidate Carl Paladino Defends Remarks About Gays.” Yahoo News. Yahoo, 11 October 2010. Web. 11 October 2010.
Hartocollis, Anemona. “For Some Gays, a Right They Can Forsake.” New York Times. New York Times, 30 July 2006. Web. 10 October 2010.
“Most Still Oppose Gay Marriage, but Support for Civil Unions Continues to Rise.” Pew Research Center Publications. Pew Research Center, 9 October 2009. Web. 11 October 2010.
Tushnet, Eve. “What Homosexuals Want.” StayCatholic.com. Circle Media, 2003. Web. 10 October 2010.
Tags: gay marriage, gay rights, Shook Ones
Posted in Essays, Social Commentary | Leave a Comment »