| I
have to hand it to those folks who participate in lawsuits aimed at acquiring
gays the right to marry. I’m not sure I could be one of them.
First, I’m single. I wouldn’t be very convincing standing before
a judge answering, “Why am I here? Well, your honor, it’s true
that I’m unattached just now, but I firmly believe that one day my
princess will come. And I wanna be sure this state is ready when she shows
up!”
Second, I’m not an exemplary citizen. Oh, I vote, protest, badger
elected officials with emails and can sing the Preamble to the Constitution
if someone hums the tune set to “Schoolhouse Rock.” But more
is required of marriage-equality litigants than a civic sense.
Here in Washington state, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing
summed up his wonderful pro-gay decision last summer with, “Certainly
these plaintiffs have been carefully handpicked to serve as suitable standard
bearers for the cause of same-sex marriage…They are law-abiding,
taxpaying model citizens…There is no worthwhile institution that
they would dishonor, much less destroy.”
There’s the rub, the reason Lambda Legal wouldn’t pick me as
standard bearer. Yes, I law-abide and tax-pay. But when it comes to institutions,
worthwhile or not, there are a few I’d be happy to destroy. The “Sports
Illustrated” swimsuit issue leaps to mind. So does the two weeks
of hype leading to the Super Bowl. Reality TV. Urban sprawl. The Electoral
College. American cheese. It’s clear — I can’t be trusted
with our nation’s institutions.
I’m not the only one who wouldn’t be handpicked for the gig.
I can’t imagine the ACLU would hitch its legal star to a couple of
Radical Faeries named Moonglow and Springbud. Lesbians who vow to take
vows dressed in bustiers and combat boots aren’t likely poster children,
either.
I’m guessing possible contestants are asked tough questions to gauge
whether they’re litigation material. Questions like: “Are you
sure you’re willing to be out in every newspaper from here to Bangalore?” “Are
you likely to become belligerent if a TV reporter sticks her microphone
up your nose?” “Is there a good chance you two will break up
in the middle of this long process and let down every gay person on the
planet?” “Does either one of you have an ex-partner the opposing
counsels could use? Someone who would sweep in and announce, ‘She’s
not ready for marriage. She has no idea that whites and darks should be
washed separately.’”
Another reason I couldn’t be one of these plaintiffs is the time
required. The preparation, the press conferences. And I shouldn’t
be surprised if the boss of a plaintiff pointed out to him that the last
employee who spent this much time in court is doing five years for embezzling.
Mustn’t forget too the stress of being involved in a lawsuit. Worrying
about whether you’ll win or lose leads to sleepless nights. Fretting
over whether you have suitable clothes for the process leads to credit-card
abuse.
The toll on your relationship is another factor. If you both feel the need
to present the ideal gay pair to the public, well, in no time at all you’ll
be sniping at each other — just like an old married couple.
Nope, I don’t think I’d be a suitable candidate for the job,
but thank God others are. I’m grateful to those willing to fight
the good fight out in the open. In the future, if ever there’s pioneering
to be done that doesn’t involve stress, pain or sacrifice, I’ll
be the first to sign up. |
<
