Should Marriage Be Our Number One Priority?

It would be foolish to argue that same-sex marriage, engulfed in the firestorm of Prop 8, is not our national LGBT equal rights priority. The difficulty arises in the definition of "our" and, if I may be so bold, the assumption that a crowded acronym implies a people who are one and the same or a group that holds dear uniform desires.

Vocal activist Jasyme Cannick received the virtual equivalent of a beat down for not buying a one-way ticket on the gay marriage gravy train back in mid-2008. Her argument prompted a riot of offbeat comments on Advocate.com. She stood her ground. It was clear that the "us" in LGBT only appears when someone's counting heads. In her op-ed, Cannick wrote:

"I agree with the basic principle that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry each other. The way I see it, as long as we’re being taxed like everyone else in this country, we should be extended the same benefits, rights, and privileges as everyone else. That has never changed for me. What did change for me was my willingness to actively engage myself in a struggle that's been from the beginning, and continues to be, elitist."

It would seem that the LGBT gravy train, albeit packaged into one can, only feeds a few. An especially fitting perspective given our current economic climate. LGBT people are shy of rights, but our bellies fill with the butterflies of a free falling economy, much the same as our heterosexual counterparts.

We're losing jobs, homes, health care (if there was any at all), and businesses. Ask the many LGBT people living near or below the poverty line and our current national "situation" is of no surprise. Regular people who identify as LGBT–some getting by, some barely afloat– have concerns that directly affect their table.

According to the LGBT Poverty Report (2008) authored by M. V. Lee Badgett and colleagues at UCLA's Williams Institute, nearly twenty two percent of gay men live in low income families. Seven percent live in families below the U.S. Poverty Threshold. Strikingly high given the gay wealth misconception. A fair number of LGBT people are definitely on the track, but not necessary on the train.

Here we are swinging into Spring of 2009. The future of Prop 8 is still being decided before the California Supreme Court. And yet this question arises again, but on a different front: Should gay marriage be the number one priority?

This time, on the heals of same-sex marriage proceedings, Vermont's Republican Gov. Jim Douglas is urging state lawmakers to focus on stimulating the job market as opposed to "divisive" issues like same-sex marriage. A convenient ploy by Gov. Douglas, whom I'd be willing to gamble knows very little about LGBT poverty rates or the affects of same-sex marriage in general. Gov. Douglas' attempt to use pocketbooks to deflect from an otherwise valid issue of equal protections is unsettling. Yet, the Governor has a point.

Now, I'm all for same-sex marriage. Frankly, I find it demoralizing having to argue for a right that others hold so irresponsibly. But, there are pressing situations within our (there goes that word again) community that also need national attention. One issue being our poverty rates which are destined to skyrocket in this current economy.

Where Gov. Douglas falls flat is in his blatant disregard for same-sex marriage in general. Same-sex marriage may not be everyone's number one priority right now, but it is no less an issue that needs serious attention. Can not political leaders focus on more than one hot button issue at a time? If not, there's little hope for a recovered economy, equal marriage protections or any other priority regardless of its position on the list.

As Vermont House Speaker Shap Smith said of his fellow lawmakers, "Representatives are fully capable of multitasking."

Aren't we all, Mr. Speaker? Aren't we all?