The phrase "lifestyle choice" is bigotry

In Wednesday's ruling declaring Louisiana's ban on same sex marriage to be constitutional, conservative Judge Martin Feldman made the argument:

"This national same-sex marriage struggle animates a clash between convictions regarding the value of state decisions reached by way of the democratic process as contrasted with personal, genuine, and sincere lifestyle choices recognition."

The term "lifestyle," or the even worse "lifestyle choice," has always gotten in my craw, as it has most people. Unless you're talking about "desert living", the term is almost always applied by anti-gay people to refer to gay people. That alone tells you something. But that's not why the term itself is bigoted.

For one, if we were talking about "sincere life choices," the argument doesn't sound nearly as convincing. After, few would ever refer to heterosexuals getting married as a "lifestyle choice", or having children as a "lifestyle choice." And yet, without fail, the term is almost always used to gay people when they do those exact same thing. Why is that?

For one, the term "lifestyle" evokes a particular vision. And for heterosexuals, there is no one way to be straight. Maybe you have children. Maybe you don't. Maybe you get married. Maybe you don't. Maybe you take up back packing with your girlfriend and hike across Europe. See! There's absolutely no one way to be straight. There is no such things as a "heterosexual lifestyle" because there's no one way to straight.

And it's the exact same way with gay people. Maybe gay people get married. Maybe they have children. Maybe they don't. Maybe some girl takes up backpacking with her girlfriend and hikes across Europe. See! There's absolutely no one way to be gay either!

And this gets to the crux of the argument. There is absolutely no such things as a "homosexual lifestyle". "A" is a definite article meaning "one". To even imply there is "a" homosexual lifestyle is bigotry. The term is designed so when you think "homosexual lifestyle" (or even "lifestyle" by itself since the two terms are so synonymous), you think of only one thing, and more often that not, that term is designed to whip up stereotypical, negative images about that particular group, whether it's warranted or not, whether it applies to the individual you're talking about or not.

Did you get that? The term is designed to stereotypically paint broad strokes about members a group with little regard to whether it actually applies to the individual you're talking about.

That's the very definition of bigotry.

For after all, don't all of us have a constitutional right to be able to make our own determination about how we live our lives? In fact, I know many same gender couples who have a far more similar "lifestyle" with their heterosexual counterparts than they do with many gay people. To call getting married and raising kids a "homosexual lifestyle" ranks as absolutely preposterous.

And so it's about time we called a spade a spade. The term "lifestyle" is bigotry. And bigots, you're on notice: If you continue to use a bigoted term, you're going to get called out on your bigotry. It's not a "lifestyle". It's a life. And unless you apply it equally to gay and straight people, as in "desert living", you're going to get called a bigot.

The fatal flaws in "right to discriminate" laws

Across the country, there have been several states that have proposed supposed "right to discriminate" laws under the guise of "religious freedom." The latter is an interesting concept, since I'm not really sure where in the bible it calls upon Christians to discriminate against anyone. But that's besides the point.

Luckily, most have failed. Kansas came closest so far, but Arizona passed both the state house and senate. But it too has a fatal flaw.

Truth be told, discrimination against gay people is already quite legal. In 29 states, you can be fired because you're gay. A federal ENDA would resolve that issue. Most states don't have protections against other discrimination against gay people such as in public accommodations, which is misunderstand by many. You don't need to pass a "right to discriminate" law when the law doesn't ban it in the first place. Of course, that doesn't stop many from attempting to do so in ignorance.

No, what isn't known is that federal law already prohibits the exactly kind of discrimination that they are attempting to allow. While it's true that it is legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, it is against federal law to discriminate against people in public accommodations on the basis of race, gender, religion and national origin.

Stick with me here. It's illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of race. For example, if a different race couple were to ask for wedding services, it is illegal under federal law to deny them simply because of their race.

Similarly, if a same gender couple were to ask for wedding services, it is already illegal under federal law to deny them simply because of their gender.

This isn't an unimportant distinction. Many people who provide wedding services readily admit they'll fully serve people who are gay. Bakers have said they'll totally bake birthday cakes for gay people. Florists have sold flowers to many gay people over the years. What they refuse to do is sell to couples for a same sex wedding.

And it is illegal under federal law to deny public accommodations to anyone simply because of their sex.

And so therein lies the problem. Interestingly enough, the laws that have been proposed have been quite varied. Some specifically target same sex weddings. Others target only weddings banned by the state constitution. Arizona's is by far the most expansive being able to deny anyone for any religious reason. Others narrow it to only anything not illegal under federal law.

But it's still illegal under federal law to deny services because of their gender.

For even as many wedding vendors will tell you, they'll totally serve any gay person who comes in their door. It's only same sex weddings they won't do.

What is wrong with civil unions for all?

Every now and then in the debate about marriage equality, someone will come up with an idea: Make civil unions for everybody. This would apply to all couples, same or opposite gender. It would promote equality without using the religiously-connotated term "marriage."

The idea in and of itself isn't a bad one. It's just never going to happen. And I'll tell you why.

First off, let me say it hasn't been about the word I've been after. It's about equal rights, equal status and equal dignity for myself and other same-gendered couples. So, using the term "civil union", if that's the same as what other, opposite-gendered couples used, is entirely fine by me in that case.

The problem would be the enormous lift it would take in order to make that happen with little will to do so. Let's riddle a moment and take a look at what that would entail.

First off, every state in the country would have to change their laws. The federal government would have to change their laws. Other countries that currently legally recognize "marriage" would have to change their laws. Or if you got married in, say, Australia, would that be recognized as "married" or as a "civil union.

I suppose the easy route to take would be instead of changing every instance of the word "marriage" to "civil union", you could pass one law that would say "marriages" would be recognized exactly like "civil unions" would be. But then you're not really replacing "marriage", you're just using "civil union" in addition to it. And so the heavy legislative lifting would be required.

Then there's the issues of the state constitutions. Thanks to the National Organization for Marriage, in 29 states, the term "marriage" is defined in their state constitution. In 20 of those states, "civil union" or "any other legal term equal or similar to marriage" is banned in their constitution. In other words, the state constitutions would have to be amended again in order to make it happen.

Finally, there's the political will in order to make all of this happen. As it turns out, it's a pretty small group of people who want it. Most people are either a) All for marriage equality for same-gendered couples or b) Against all legal recognition of relationships of same-gendered couples. It's only a small minority who are for some legal recognition of relationships of same-gendered couples and opposed to using the term "marriage". I mean, yes, it could be tens of millions of Americans, but that's compared to the estimated 50%+ of Americans who are for letting gay people get "married". Yes, there is also a sizable group of people opposed to either, but many of them are not going to take up the will in order to pass "civil unions for all" until they're backed into a corner where they have to legalize some recognition for gay couples, but oppose "marriage". And those who oppose any recognition and live in states where it's not yet an issue aren't going to take it up either. And places that have legalized civil unions for gay couples only have done so only where there was some impediment to doing so (such as a constitutional amendment banning marriage or insufficient political will to legalize marriage equality). These are all marginal cases, not some overwhelming movement. In fact, only 2 of the 50 states have civil unions without marriage equality, Colorado and Oregon, and only there because "marriage" is banned in their constitution. Nevada has domestic partnerships with all the benefits of marriage, but it's not called "civil unions". Illinois and Rhode Island had civil unions, but changed those to "marriage" once the political will to do so presented itself.

The issue has been discussed seriously a couple times in the legislature. In Minnesota, a state without marriage equality or a constitutional ban on it, found that when they were discussing marriage equality, a few in the middle seriously took the issue of "civil unions for all" up. It was put to a vote on the entire floor, and only about 10% of the legislative body voted in favor of it. Those opposed to any recognition and those opposed to secondary status defeated the measure overwhelmingly.

Unlike those who favor one extreme or the other (no recognition versus full marriage rights), there is no national group organized to make it so. There is no fundraising. There are no Facebook pages or Twitter feeds dedicated to it. The political, legal and social giants have divided themselves into the two camps, and very few, except those who are still evolving on their stance on this issue, are there to champion "civil unions for all" to fruition. I don't even think a #CUFA hashtag would even ever be trending.

So no, in and of itself, there isn't anything wrong with civil unions for all. Except the enormous lengths and the complete lack of political will it would take to make it happen. It's not a bad idea. It's just never going to happen.