I don’t know if
you’ve heard the news but two Texas representatives took the first steps in
recognizing same-sex couples. Yes, you heard that right, two representatives
from Texas.
In February 11
Democratic Senator Chuy Hinojosa from McAllen proposed a bill that would grant
same-sex couples civil unions. But on Valentines Day, Democratic State Rep. Lon
Burnam from Fort Worth gave LGBTQ Texans a better Valentine’s Day message; full
marriage equality to same-sex couples. Both have received harsh criticism from
opponents of same-sex marriage but Senator Hinojosa has received that criticism
from both sides of the aisles, with members of the LGBTQ communities claiming, “civil unions are not the best avenues for achieving equality.” read more
I also agree
with these claims.
And although I
am sure that Senator Chuy has good intentions I know that his intentions cannot
make up for our unequal representation. Furthermore, this also got me thinking
about partisan and policy rhetoric. The other day I became really interested in
Rich Tafel, founder of the
Log Cabin Republicans and Public Square. So I googled him and came across this
video http://bigthink.com/users/richardtafel.
Tafel argues that Democrats need to learn how to talk Republican. He goes on to
say that Democrats frame policies or issues in a way that threatens the status
quo as opposed to the Republicans who use more result-orientated rhetoric. In
my opinion what he meant was that Republican rhetoric appeals to people’s
wallets. Tafel said that when we speak about “rights” or “getting rights” we
make the status quo, conservative individuals, feel that we are taking
something away from them. Tafel used the push to “universal healthcare” from
Obama. He said that instead of President Obama saying it’s a right for everyone
to have access to healthcare, he should have framed it saying, “folks we do
have universal healthcare in America, it’s called the emergency room.” Tafel
went on to say that it would be more cost-effective to invest in preventable
health issues than to have our tax dollars pay for the emergency room. I agree.
But this rhetoric
is problematic.
Rich Tafel is
telling me that I, a queer Latina, low-income, woman need to watch my words to
satisfy the “status quo”? And who is this “status quo” anyway? Privileged white
wealthy men? Rich Tafel is telling me that demanding rights is not the best way
to do it because it might make the status quo feel like we’re taking something
away from them? Really? Why shouldn’t discourse aim to make people realize that
the rights that oppressed groups demand are rights that the “status quo”
already have? Why should oppressed groups comprise their principals to satisfy
the money in someone else’s pocket? And while Gay Rights Activist groups like
to frame it in similar ways such as, “Three words that will save the economy:
Gay Bridal Registry,” I would like to offer my own thoughts:
Equality
representation for my partner and I is not for sale. My life and health are not
for sale. My welfare is not for sale.
Why must we try to put a dollar sign in front of every issue what is
wrong with just doing the RIGHT thing? Civil unions might mean the ability to
file joint tax returns but it does not mean the RIGHT to marry; it does not
mean marriage equality.
