With the holidays firmly in our rear view mirrors, retail stores around the country are now decorated in red, pink and white ribbons, accompanied by huge cardboard hearts to remind us that the season of love is upon us.
Valentine’s Day is one of those holidays we either love or hate. Those in relationships—especially new and developing ones—are excited for the most romantic day of the year and plan weeks ahead to ensure their Valentine has a night to remember. Singles dread the “Hallmark holiday” and may plan to spend the day in the bed—alone—heads firmly under the covers. Long term couples may view the day as a chance to find a nice restaurant to share a candlelight dinner rather than eating at home in front of the flickering light of that hi-definition television.
The day devoted to love encompasses all types of love. But a majority of Valentine’s Day retailers still forget about same-sex love.
Last weekend I browsed a card display looking for just the right note to send a friend for her birthday. After I found the card, I browsed the Valentine’s Day selections and it struck me at how few choices LGBTs have when it comes to expressing our feelings with the help of mainstream card producers.
The grocery store I was in had massive amounts of cards from husbands to wives, from wives to husbands and even from grandchildren to grandparents. But nowhere did I see a card that was designed specifically for same-sex partners. Those still seem to be reserved to specialty pride stores like MC Film Festival in Ybor City.
I suppose the argument could be made for those “special friend” cards or that generic “husband” or “wife” card usually buried down at the bottom of the display. But the lack of recognition of same-sex relationships in these displays is just part of what’s wrong with the picture.
Love is a complex creature that appears so simple on its surface. But in reality the emotion is so multi-layered, so complex and prone to evolution that it’s hard to describe what it is, exactly.
Yet governments—both state and federal—are still trying to police love and how it operates. The Defense of Marriage Act still prevents same-sex couples from formally documenting their love. And even states that recognize same-sex relationships are still battlegrounds. On Feb. 1, the Iowa House passed an amendment to its state constitution that would prohibit any form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples. Fortunately, the chances for that amendment to pass through the state senate successfully are somewhat slim, so Iowa should hopefully remain a state that keeps marriage equality intact.
But the disturbing vote of 62 to 37 to pass the amendment should give us pause. In a year where same-sex love is expressed on television, online and in churches around the country, there are still those who think the argument of “I don’t understand it” is enough to legalize discrimination.
Florida’s voters firmly decided in 2008 that same-sex love isn’t worthy of legal protections and now, our new governor is creating waves among equality advocates for his views on gays and lesbians adopting children. There’s a very real chance that he could lead a charge to once again enforce the adoption ban that his predecessor rightfully decided to no longer enforce in late 2010.
But love will hopefully win out, and in this issue of Watermark we look at love from several different angles. Writer Greg Stemm speaks with LGBTs who see monogamy as the key to their loving relationships. But we also look at technology’s influence on love thanks to the advice of Phil Henricks, who works with the North American division of Gaydar.net.
However you look at love, it touches everyone at some point and should be respected in whatever form it arrives. Maybe someday soon, those red, pink and white streamers at the store will be accompanied with a few rainbow and purple ones. Because let’s face it, love is unpredictable and could care less what laws or public opinion has to say about it.
Happy Valentine’s Day.
You must be logged in to post a comment.