Human rights can catch on... and on... and on... BY DAVID T. Z. MINDICH This morning, I found my wife of 10 years packing her valise. “What are you doing?” I asked. “I’m leaving you, David,” she told me. “ls it because Vermont’s civil union law, guaranteeing full benefits for committed same-sex partners, makes our traditional marriage complete- ly meaningless?” I asked. “Precisely,” she said. Vermont’s civil union law took effect July 1, and within days, there was plenty of evi- dence that the bill’s more stri- dent opponents were correct in their dire predictions. They same-sex partners should enjoy benefits such as shared insurance coverage, inheri- tance rights, and equal access to interior design. Marriage was not the only thing to fall apart here in Vermont. Organized religion has dis- appeared as well. The argu- ment of the bill’s opponents was a complex hermeneutic interpretation of God’s will in Genesis: “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Some of us tried, in vain, to argue that God made plenty of _ gay people, too. And that the bill does not promote sexual orientation, but basic human rights. But to that, they in turn argued, cleverly, “God made My marriage was completely destabilized by the radical thought that same-sex partners should enjoy benefits such as , shared insurance coverage, inheritance rights, and equal access to interior design. said that traditional marriages would dissolve, and they were right: since the bill passed, nearly half of Vermont’s tradi- tional marriages have been annulled. Despite that my own mar- riage was solid, built on shared values, experiences, and goals, it was completely destabilized by the radical thought that Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” In hindsight, we know they were right. Organized religion, like marriage, has been thor- oughly destabilized. Throughout the Green Mountain state, churches, syn- agogues, and mosques have fallen into disrepair. Or they have become gay discos. this space could, have been yours... Why aireln”'t you in OITMZ Call 802-434-5237 advertising . _ 61% or email ¢e,6"“' - . $2; . 9 ..<»‘°“‘° Part of the opposition focused on the fact that gays and lesbians cannot have chil- dren the same way heterosexu- als can. “Marriage is about children,” said one opponent of the bill. While they never had a bill opposing childless marriage, I’m sure they meant to and it just slipped their minds. Of course, many gay and lesbian couples are also great parents. But that just destabilizes het- erosexual parenthood. We in support of civil union thought that the new law would simply enable gay partners to have a legal acknowledgment and protection of their social and spiritual commitments. But we ' should have learned from the past. ' In Selma, Ala., in 1965, African-Americans won the right to vote in Alabama and then that right spread to other states. We saw then how infectious human rights can be. Let us beware: Human rights often lead to more human rights. And then where would we be? David T. Z. Mindich is the openly straight chair of the journalism department of St. Michael is College ‘ in Colchester, and the author of Just the Facts: How ‘Objectivity’ Came to Define American Journalism. He lives in Burlington with his wife and children..., for now.V Don't take a chance... take a condom September 2000 | Out in the Mountains |1_1 = opinion = Hadical Shifts BY BARI SHAMAS The marriage of same-gen- der couples is a radical act. Why? Because our very exis- tence challenges the gender stereotypes that mold so many heterosexual marriages. Our society is based on the hetero- sexual paradigm, one that favors the one-woman-one- well-meaning people have asked me “Who takes out the trash?” Many heterosexual couples are supportive of the freedom to marry. By and large, there are men and women who have broken away from stereotypi- cal gender roles and have incorporated what is consid- ered a “feminist” way of being into their lives. The Baker decision gave legal bite to our contention that we, as gender—ambiguous people, are a valuable part of the human race and should be treated equally. man model, and that, until rel- atively recently, has kept women in the submissive role. Since the majority of people are heterosexual, their lives are well served by the current sys- tem. Same-gender relationships, no matter where they are on the scale of conventionality, don’t fit into the heterosexual model, making them inherently unconventional. Raising the legal status of same-sex rela- tionships to the level of hetero- sexual relationships represents a radical societal shifi. Consider this simple exam- ple: to many heterosexuals, their gender roles support who they are and how they act in society. When they are think- ing about same-sex couples, it is confusing not knowing who to ask the cup of sugar from and who will meet them when mowing the lawn. Many times, Whatever you take along for pleasure, consider this: We may feel safe in Vermont, but we're not immune to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. When children raised in same-gender households are part of a discussion, many het- erosexists argue that children need both male and female role models. For a long time, queer fami- lies have been living in society without timeworn roles. As long as we were second class, or the law reinforced the het- erosexist perspective of superi- ority, the majority population did not have to question gender . roles. But the Baker decision gave legal bite to our, con- tention that we, as gender- ambiguous people, are a valu- able part of the human race and should be treated equally. We are excited to be in fam- ilies that function well without typical gender roles, with chil- dren or without. At Family Week in Provincetown recent- ly, my family had the great for- FfiEl3E§§.§§$>t'? * / ‘ / 5/ 5? Vermont AIDS‘ Hotline 1.800. 882.AIDS TTY 1.800.319.3141