el crispito

At the time, I wondered if he was a coward and a quitter. This guy was really smart and had the charisma of Don Juan; the idea that he didn't want to exploit the American system for all he could shocked me. Thinking that he would be happier in a continent plagued with poverty, disease and war instead of in America, even as a member of the downtrodden minorities, really stunned me. In a classroom where we spent most of our time discussing the struggles of people against prejudice and hatred in order to bring about a more just society, he seemed to be admitting defeat and calling the sacrifices of all those people before us into question.

Yet his position was not one of defeat. In fact, it was because he was strong that he refused to stay in a country that didn't appreciate what he had to offer and instead only wanted to put up road blocks in the way of his doing what he wanted to do because of stupid insignificant crap like skin color. He was going to do great things and enjoy his life, and it would be a lot more efficient to go somewhere that he could accomplish that without all the unnecessary barriers. There are, after all, enough hurdles in life that you can't avoid, so why waste time bothering with ones you can simply leave behind?

I've thought of that guy and his convictions many times since then. I often wonder as I sit here at my computer writing about Mexico if he ever made it to Africa. Before, as a good American, I didn't want to lose someone like him, but now that I look at things with older eyes, I hope he did make it to Africa. Sure, Africa isn't free of problems, including racism, but at least he'd not be having to live as a second-class citizen, de facto or de jure, in the land of his birth.

In watching the returns from the elections in the United States, I feel justified all over again in leaving the United States, and Colorado in particular. One hears time and time again people who rail against same-sex marriage indignantly protesting their being called homophobes, claiming that they don't hate gays, they just believe that the word 'marriage' should apply to one man and one woman. Often, as was the case with George W. Bush, they claim that they endorse offering same-sex couples rights made available to heterosexual married couples, but through 'civil unions' and not 'marriage.'

Given the opportunity to do just that on Tuesday, voters in Colorado both added a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (Amendment 43) and rejected a referendum (Referendum I) that would have created a new legal relationship that would permit same-sex partners to enjoy some of the rights enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Again, this would not be all the rights straight married couples have, like being able to file joint tax returns. No, it would have just been basic stuff like such as being able to visit your partner in the ICU if they were critically ill, or being able to retain ownership of jointly held property in the event that one partner dies.

I can't begin to count the number of people that have told me that they don't think it's fair that gay couples don't have those rights, even if they don't 'believe in' same-sex marriage. I mean, if I have the right to visit Shawn in the ICU if he's in a severe car accident, how does that hurt anyone else or their marriage? Yet this referendum lost in Colorado, 54% to 46%. Interestingly, polls before the election suggested that this referendum would pass. Were the polls just wrong about the voter turnout? Or did people not want to look like homophobic bigots to pollsters, but didn't mind letting their true colors show in the privacy of the voting booth?

Reasonable people can disagree as to what constitutes a marriage, and not everyone that would vote against allowing same-sex marriage is a homophobe. Yet on Tuesday, seven states (last election: eleven) added constitutional amendments to bar same-sex marriage when isn't even necessary, since the state constitutions already consider marriages to be between a man and a woman only. For example, in Colorado, C.R.S. 14-2-104 states that, "a marriage is valid in this state if: [...] (b) It is only between one man and one woman. [...]" Why add an amendment to the constitution if not simply to send a message to same-sex couples that they are second-class citizens and that the voting majority has decided that it is okay to discriminate against them?

So to the voters of my former home state that voted for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages and voted against the creation of the new legal relationship of civil unions to provide only some of the benefits of married couples to same-sex couples, I call you hateful, small-minded, homophobic bigots. I think it's high time to hold these people accountable for how they vote, and to not let them hide behind a polite smile, denying that they're not bigots, and that they only want to 'protect families' or 'uphold traditional values.' They want to discriminate against a group of people systematically through the law, and that's just mean-spirited and hateful.

To our friends that argued that things aren't so bad in the United States, I say that yes, they are. The people of the United States are making their voices heard, and a whole lot of those voices say that they hate gay people. They also hate Mexicans, Asians, Blacks, poor people, Muslims, Jews and a whole slew of other folks that threaten them because they're from somewhere else or they believe different things. All these people are made to be second-class citizens in the United States, and instead of decent people standing up and saying that it's wrong, there's no end of justifying their bigotry. It's disgusting.

Instead of engaging in what seems to be an increasingly futile fight, I too said enough is enough and abandoned my place in the ranks. I cut my losses and moved to Mexico, and now I face a bunch of different challenges. But at least here, people aren't voting to take away my rights, or worse yet, smiling at me and telling me what decent people they are while they do it.