Coming out to a tough crowd

Last night I watched the debate with friends at their home, oneI have known since our roommate days at college and the other I metwhen they started dating.

This year, they celebrated their 18th anniversary, a milestonefor any relationship. The only difference is Ron and Chuck are gay,and our state will not allow them to marry, nor does our presidentwant them to have that right.

Ron’s family has known he was gay since he was in highschool and has always been very supportive. Chuck’s parents,on the other hand, haven’t always been as understanding. Infact, when they found out that their son had moved in with a guyand that they were boyfriends, they gave him an ultimatum: moveout, or they would stop paying for college, knowing that he wouldnot be able to afford SMU’s tuition on his own. So Chuckdropped out of school.

That was 1986. Almost 20 years later, thousands of young gaysand lesbians are still faced with the fear — often thereality — that their parents’ love might beconditional, which is one of the reasons the suicide rate among gayteens is over twice the rate of their straight counterparts, or whymany young gays and lesbians still lead closeted lives, and maybeeven why the divorce rate in the US is almost 50%.

It took a few years, but Chuck’s parents finally camearound. They eventually allowed him to return to school, but ittook them a while to accept Ron unconditionally. On the other hand,their two other sons, both younger and who attended SMU, wereallowed to marry the women they chose without ultimatums or fear ofestrangement.

While both brothers have divorced, Ron and Chuck’srelationship on the other hand has remained rock solid. And whileone brother has remarried, and the other is now planning his secondmarriage, neither of Chuck’s parents are as fond of theirdaughters-in-law, current or future, as they are of Ron.

Irony is a wonderful thing. It always seems to manifest itselfat the right place and at the right time.

The truth is this story is replete with irony and so aremillions of others like it, but most people fail to see it. TakeChuck’s parents for example. While they adore Ron and holdRon and Chuck’s relationship up as a model of love,commitment and longevity to their other sons, they do not believethat their gay son should have the right to marry his partner.

They have heard the arguments, all concrete, all very rational,how over 1000 local, state and federal laws, all which benefitmarried couples, which benefit their two other sons, could alsobenefit their gay son and his partner.

They know that their daughters-in-law are covered under theirsons’ insurance and that Ron, who owns his own business,cannot afford insurance under the Bush administration nor does hequalify for coverage with his partner’s employer.

Still, and in spite of the commitment their son and his partnershare, they cannot overcome deep-seated feelings, feelings thatthey find hard to articulate.

It probably won’t surprise you that Chuck’s parentsare planning to vote for President Bush. Some things, after all,are predictable. What’s ironic, however, is that just fourshort years ago Chuck was also a Republican and voted for Bush.

I’m not sure what has happened during the last four years,but Chuck has done a political about face. If I had to guess, and Isuppose that’s what this column is all about, I’d saythat Chuck finally stopped defining himself by his parents’terms.

Perhaps he realized that he didn’t need to imitate hisparents’ political and social views to be their son. Perhapshe realized that his loyalty, as in any marriage, lay with hisspouse and not with his parents. After all, the Judeo-Christiantradition teaches us that “a man shall forsake his father andmother, and he shall draw to his wife,” (Ephesians 5:31, NIV)or, in this case, to his husband.

It may seem incongruous that, in order to defend a gayrelationship, I am quoting a passage that most Americans use torail against same-sex marriage. Actually, it’s just anotherexample of how wonderful irony is.

In the same passage, we read, “Women, be they subject totheir husbands, as to the Lord, for the man is head of thewoman…as the church is subject to Christ, so [and] women to theirhusbands in all things.” (Ephesians 5:22-24, NIV)

In plain English, Paul teaches that women should be subservientto their husbands, a doctrine inconceivable to most women today,yet one that the Southern Baptist Convention still professes in itsstatement of Faith and Message.

So what’s the lesson here?

I suppose there are many: to look for the irony in what peoplesay and do; not to define your social and political views solely bywhat your parents think; to be true to yourself; that love andcommitment, no matter who shares them, should be honored; and, mostimportantly, that, regardless of what anyone says, marriage, likeall social institutions, does not exist in a vacuum, itevolves.

Unfortunately, we’re one of the only modern democraciesleft in the world that has failed to realize it.

George Henson is a lecturer of Spanish. He may be contactedat [email protected].