My Big Fat Gay Thank You

I’m sitting here tonight humbled. As I noted earlier, my column in the April issue of D about how the Cedar Springs area is transforming along with the dynamics between straights and gays came under some fire today. Two prominent Dallas media personalities — Rawlins Gilliland and Jack E. Jett – came to my defense at the Dallas Voice blog and on Frontburner. These are two guys who on a lot of issues are worlds apart from me. And, not surprisingly, worlds apart from each other.

So I started thinking, yes, I am a supporter of gay marriage, or at least getting the state to treat all marriage contracts between consenting adults of any sort simply as contracts, and letting each church decide what, if any, blessing they each want to give. And I support gay adoption — some of the best parents I’ve met are gays. They’re not so likely to go leaving their kids in locked cars or abusing/neglecting them, given the hassle it takes for gays to adopt. The gays don’t just carelessly pop kids out like too many straights. (“I didn’t know I could get pregnant if we did it standing up.”) But I’m not entirely sure I’ve ever written about either subject at length, much less other gay rights issues.

I reckon my attitude on the subject has come through one way or the other. Enough to prompt those two guys to stand up for me, anyway.

So, from the heart of suburban, straight vanilla-land, thank you, gentlemen.


  1. Ed Cognoski says:

    Trey Garrison and I are worlds apart on many issues, too, but on the issue of gay rights, or rather equal rights for all regardless of sexual orientation, we’re on the same page. I thought it only fair to point that out, given that he’s the target of enough criticism from me on other subjects.

  2. Tom says:

    Churches already decide who can get married inside their doors, and by their clergy. I’m guessing the average gay couple, finally able to marry and enjoy equal rights as the rest of us, wouldn’t choose First Baptist Dallas for their nuptuals.

  3. True enough, Tom. But I suspect there would be some churches that would accept the gays getting married. And no one outside the church would have to recognize anything the various churches on either side do.

    The only requirement would be the law would have to treat all marriage contracts between consenting adults in any combination as they would any other contract.

    And employers would be — or should be — free to offer or withhold benefits to spouses as they see fit. The marriage contracts would be only for property issues, inheritance, hospital access, and other civil, legal issues that arise among married people.

  4. Bethany says:

    Really, I think that there should be nothing offered but civil unions, whether it be two men, two women, a man and a woman, or a box turtle and a ….

    If state laws on sodomy, etc., are being overturned and abolished all the time, it’s hard to reason that it should still be allowed to weigh in on the allowed make up of a couple. A civil union should be a legal device for couples to have available for things like insurance, estate planning, child custody, and dissolution, etc.

  5. Rawlins Gilliland says:

    A subtext to this is how easily one can be…or appear…careless or otherwise be seen as ‘insensitive’ to the nuance of others when they are traveling routinely with their own flock rather than interacting routinely with alterative individuals or herds. Yes people can be quick to see some slight or over-react. But too, one can walk into a blind alley effortlessly if one is not more widely exposed to (yep) the diversity that lies within any demographic.

    Someone’s Latino? So you assume they like Mexican food. Never mind they’re from Colombia and the cuisine there is altogether different. And spicy anything hardly exists so skip those peppers. Please.

    Gay? Are you an urban gay who loved the bars and disco and see-and-be-seen-scene with its axis in Oak Lawn who loved Mariah Carey in ‘Glitter’? Or the gay national guard female down the street who is on her third deployment to the middle east. Or her gay brother who is married with two children and lives in Farmer’s Branch where he teaches in a church affiliated private school? Maybe you meant the Mexican immigrant gay male who was the produce manager at my neighborhood Carnival supermarket who now manages a Dollar Store in Balch Springs. For every Tim Gunn on Project Runway there is a John Loza (openly gay former Dallas mayor Pro-Tem and city council person who was also my attorney when I successfully took the Dallas Police to a jury trial for false arrest.)

    If on any given day, say…….everyone who is gay stood up at, for instance, Mi Cocina in Highland Park, you’d be shocked to realize it’s as high a percentage probably as at the Black Eyed Pea on Cedar Springs. They’re just in a parallel universe of either independent travel and/or flying beneath the gaydar.

  6. As usual, well said, Rawlins. Still learning that lesson everyday. Thank you.

  7. John Wright says:

    So employers should also be free to withhold benefits to the spouse of a black person?
    John Wright

  8. No, John. Not remotely the same thing.

  9. Tom says:

    Rawlins brings up something I often think about. Why are gays and lesbians immediately labeled based on who they’re attracted to? Or blacks and Latinos labeled because of their race? Or rednecks because of their way of life?
    My parents did their best to teach me to treat everyone I encounter as a fellow human being. Of course, I notice a person’s appearance, but rarely see them as a label. I like to think others are the same way.

  10. John Wright says:

    It’s exactly the same thing. You said employers should be allowed to deny benefits to gays and lesbians. I can see a possible exemption for religious institutions, but allowing private corporations to do this would be unfair.

  11. Rawlins Gilliland says:

    John, remember: Back on message-First and foremost~~, Trey is a gun-twirling, flame-throwingr anarchist libertarian. On a good day. So he is an equal opportunity offender —meaning that Trey probably believes any employer should be able to deny anything and everything to his or her emploees that he or she wants to and that the only ‘benefits’ he’d grant is one daily break to a Port-a-Pot in an unpaved parking lot. where one can eat and piss and smoke in unison. Just guessing.