February 2004 Archives
I just got home a bit ago from watching Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion of the Christ. It was powerful and a lot of people were very moved by it. Many people cried and seemed stunned. I didn't know what to say after the movie. It was to me 2 hours of torture, humiliation, and finally, death. It was brutal, as I expected it would be. For the people who were so shocked, I don't know what they thought a crucifixion was. Perhaps it was just seeing it so graphically that it got to them.
To me, I see people do much of what was in the movie to each other. I see the worse in mankind at times, and I wonder how much longer we will be around. I look at the current controversy surrounding gay marriage, and I wonder if I'm the only one who hears the venomous dialogue directed at our community from homophobic religious freaks. Some of it is absolutely horrible. Many of them are the same kind of people who put Jesus on the cross. Scary.
I was working on a photo album on Friday night. I didn't put anything into it, but I left it wide open. It was set to the default setting when it was created and I failed to change it. I came home and found that some had uploaded some porn pictures to it. It's amazing to me that people could find it and upload to it in such a short period of time. Unbelievable.
It's been a busy weekend. It's really been the first time that we have had a few quiet moments to ourselves. I slept in this morning all the way to 9:00 and it felt so good! We went out for breakfast and relaxed.
I'm going to go see the Passion of Christ later with my friend Brandi. We will probably go to an early dinner and then the show.
One of my PC's also caught a nasty worm virus, but it picked the wrong guy to pick on! It's all but dead now, and I'm just cleaning up a bit.
I've spent a bunch of time debating on another site about same-sex marriage. If you are interested in the arguments, they are posted here. For the full text you can go to Fried Man.
Of all this talk about how we as a country can deal with how to exclude gays from marriage rights... I would like to point out that we are talking about Americans; law-abiding, tax paying citizens who are real people. They happen to be gay, and they happen to be in committed relationships that they care deeply about. I can't for the life of me figure out how granting them full marriage rights will effect the marriage of heterosexuals, not even Britney Spears. Oh wait, she's divorced now.
What are people so afraid of? These are civil marriages, not religious ceremonies. If you think the two are the same, you would be better outlawing the cheap marriages done in back-room chapels in Reno, or those performed by a justice of the peace. - Bill at February 28, 2004 05:32 AM
It's strange. We went to the Town Clerk of our town to apply for a marriage license last Tuesday. That same day, President Bush makes an announcement that he will support an amendment to the Constitution of the United States banning gay marriages. The timing of this is bizarre.
Some have asked if we are taking this too far. I'm been thinking a lot about that. Maybe we are going to fast. I don't have all the answers for sure. I only know what I feel inside (typing this as I listen to Maria Callas sing Madame Butterfly).
We have demanded to be treated as equal citizens, and now we have the President asking for an amendment. Some are thinking that we should just accept civil unions where we can get them, and be happy with that. It's understandable. These are scary times for our community and for America. It will take great resolve to see this through. But this is not the first time this has happened in this country, and I doubt it will be the last.
If we really want to analyze the argument of gay marriage and if we've gone too far, all we really have to do is to answer a few questions. Let's take the emotion out of it.
We can pull back and stop asking to be like everyone else. We won't have marriage benefits and we might have civil union benefits in the states or counties/cities/towns within the states that have been generous enough to give us some rights of marriage (assuming the state doesn't override those local ordnances with a statewide Defense of Marriage Act, as 38 states have already done).
Will we be okay with that, emotion aside. I won't even call us second-class citizens (an emotional term). Let just ask the question, would we be happy not having the same rights as other straight citizens? Maybe I'm wrong. I've focused on saying that we are the same as our straight citizens in that we are the same in terms of families that we have. Maybe I'm wrong on that. We are gay. Should we be separate from the rest of society? Should African Americans be separate because that have a characteristic that makes them different.
I'm totally serious and not being sarcastic. You see, I've never stepped back and looked at it from a non-emotional view because to me, my family is everything so I tend to react emotionally when someone else tells me that my relationship is worth less in the eyes of the law.
If a Constitution Amendment passes, would we regret it, or would our fight still be a just fight? I think the answer to that is yes. Even if an amendment passes, the fight was just and we should not compromise. I know what such an amendment would do and I agree that it would probably take a very long time to get rid of it. It is just as hard to get rid of an amendment as it is to get one added.
How long should we have to wait for our rights? Are they worth the fight? That's something each of us can only answer for ourselves. But, in my view, those who do not fight for rights that they deserve, do not deserve those rights.
Was freedom ever easy? We have the Constitution of the United States providing freedom for our citizens. Do you know how many lives and how much blood was spilled at the hands of achieving that freedom?
Not to be corny, but I'm suddenly reminded of a scene in a movie. It is from First Contact, the Star Trek movie (follow me on this).... The scene is where Lilly (from 20th century Earth) is trying to convince Piccard to blow up the Enterprise and the Borg who are on it in and effort to keep the Borg from taking over Earth. The parallel here is that the Borg are trying to destroy the future of mankind (read, our civil rights that we are fighting for. The Borg are all of those who want a Constitutional Amendment passed. Hummm, that would make President Bush the "Borg Queen"?). Lilly says to Piccard, “Jean Luc, blow up the damn ship!” Piccard turns to Lilly and says, "NO! We've given up too much already. We've made too many compromises. They advance... we pull back. The line must be drawn HERE, AND NO FURTHER!"
"The line", is... where does it end? How many states will pass DOMA's before we say ENOUGH!? How many rights and privileges will be stripped away before we say "The line must be drawn HERE, AND NO FURTHER!"? How many compromises do we accept and walk away from, saying, "thank you for what little you gave me... I guess as a gay citizen I should be thankful that you let me live here."
Is our fight for equality just? Do we risk everything and go forward demanding equality, even in the face of the leader of our country promising his support for an amendment to abolish what we seek? If they accomplish this, what's next?
My opinion (and now for the emotion); CIVIL RIGHTS ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE! They are not compromises for something that we hope we can have someday. This is simple. This is an absolute. You have them, or you do not. You are first-class, or you are less than first-class. It is that simple.
As for me, I want to be very clear on this: I WILL NOT WAIVER ON THIS ISSUE. I WILL NOT PULL BACK. I WILL NOT COMPROMISE.
The President has drawn the line. So be it. Now we know where we stand and where he stands. Let him "bring it on". This amendment will not happen. Only 40% (according to the latest poll) are in favor of it. It won't even make it out of Congress. The ONLY reason he is doing this actually has nothing to do with us, which is what pisses me off all the more. This is pure politics.
The lack or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the lack of capturing Osama bin Laden are huge problems for this president. He needs a diversion. The anti-gay marriage amendment is all he has. It carries with it a lot of emotion and he's playing on that. He's trying to mobilize the radical right of his party. He will do that, but at the expense of much of his more moderate center. This is a grave error on his part. They will be able to see this "compassionate conservative" for what he is; a self serving coward who couldn't find his way to serve the greatest principle of the Constitution; freedom. He will do anything to save his ass. The American people get very squeamish when it comes to messing with the Constitution, as well they should.
Of course, the irony in all of this is that the Republican Party has always boasted about being for state's rights and having a less intrusive Federal Government. Now look at what they are doing. This amendment would dictate to the states what they can and can not do.
He has the amendment and the anti-gay rhetoric. We have ourselves and the truth. The truth has never changed; freedom is always right and is a just fight. We need to keep our eyes on the target. We need to show his true motivation behind this action, and that has nothing to do with marriage.
And now for the President's real legacy: $500 BILLION DEFICIT (projected this year).
Numerous conservative commentators have offered to support President Bush's proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage. Their willingness to amend the Constitution to address a social issue traditionally left to the states is puzzling, if not hypocritical.
When liberals sought to amend the Constitution to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment, conservatives whistled a different tune. (story)
"What we're witnessing in America today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation." - Jason West
There's big news coming out of New Paltz, NY.
It seems that yet another town is granting marriage to same-sex couples. This is indeed wonderful news. It's great to see courageous people stand up to injustice. On this day, twenty-one gay couples exchanged wedding vows on the steps of village hall.
NEW PALTZ, N.Y. (AP) - Twenty-one gay couples exchanged wedding vows on the steps of village hall Friday in a spirited ceremony that opened another front on the growing national debate over gay marriage.
As the ceremonies by 26-year-old Mayor Jason West were ending, the state Health Department asked the attorney general to seek an injunction "to prevent further illegal conduct by the mayor," a department spokesman said.
A call to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office was not immediately returned.
West, elected on the Green Party ticket last year in this village 75 miles north of New York City, joined Gavin Newsom of San Francisco as the country's only mayors to marry same-sex couples.
"What we're witnessing in America today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation," West said. (story)
Yet another town who is now performing marriages for gay couples. It's good to see. I will expect more of these to start happening.
Jason West, the 26-year-old mayor of New Palz, N.Y., says he will perform same-sex marriages in this college town starting Friday, Newsday reports.
"We as a society have no right to discriminate in marriage any more than we have the right to discriminate when someone votes or when someone wants to hold office," West said in a phone interview with the newspaper. "The people who would forbid gays from marrying in this country are those who would have made Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus." (story)
This is a letter written to President Bush from the father of five children. He wants all of his children to be happy and have the same opportunities in life, just as any parent should. You see, we do have friends out there, and some of them are conservative.
George W. Bush President, the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Bush:
I’m a 52-year-old lifelong conservative Republican, a Mormon from Utah who has lived and worked in New Jersey and Virginia for the past thirty years, and who voted for you in 2000.
I deeply appreciate the strong and effective leadership that you have shown and continue to show in most issues that affect our nation. I fully and enthusiastically support your actions in Iraq and in the war on terrorism in general. I also support your actions to implement a more enlightened tax policy that will lead to economic prosperity for all Americans. National security, the war on terrorism, and the health of the economy are vitally important issues to my family and me, and I’m very grateful for your superb service to the nation in these areas.
On the other hand, I’m deeply troubled by your statements and positions regarding the rights of homosexuals, and especially by the implication in your recent State of the Union address that you would support amending the Constitution to define marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I believe this would be a monumental mistake, and I urge you in the strongest possible terms not to support any such amendment.
Excellent view point on what it means to be a "Levitican", and how some misinterpret the message of the Bible. I spotted this link on Shadow Footprints.
I know this is a bit crude, but it's the way I feel right now about what's going on.
This is the Hartford Courant article (requires registration) that appeared yesterday. It was a good article, that covered the scene in San Francisco, as well as what was happening in Connecticut. It features us going to our town clerk to ask for a marriage license (yeah, we really do look better than the pictures, but you can't pick and choose in a paper article). And, I'm sure I told her I was 27 instead of 49. Wish they could get my age right. ;-)
Vows In Uncertain Times
February 25, 2004
By DANIELA ALTIMARI, And LEE FOSTER Courant Staff Writers
Tom Hurlbut and Rick Rossi waited in line for eight hours to acquire their piece of paper.
For the Connecticut couple, the marriage certificate issued by a San Francisco city official reinforces a commitment they made 23 years ago. "Never in our lives did we think we'd be getting married," said Rossi, a 42-year-old middle school teacher. "We both got teary-eyed. It was very powerful."
Gays Sue Florida Over Same-Sex Marriage Ban
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) - Dozens of gay men and women sued a Florida court clerk Wednesday in a challenge to the state's law prohibiting same-sex marriages. The lawsuit - apparently the first legal challenge to the law - names only Broward County Clerk Howard Forman, who issues wedding licenses for the county.
"An idea whose time has come can never be stopped," said Ellis Rubin, attorney for the 175 plaintiffs. "This idea's time is now." (story)
And this from Utah
(Salt Lake City Utah) Less than a week after the Utah legislature passed a bill which bans same-sex marriages and bars the state from recognizing civil unions, the House has approved a constitutional amendment to punctuate its disapproval of gay relationships. (story)
Golf Club to Mediate Dispute with Lesbian
(Atlanta-AP) -- The Druid Hills Golf Club agreed Wednesday to enter mediation to resolve a dispute with a lesbian and gay club member seeking spousal benefits for their partners. The commission ruled in January that the 1100-member club violates the city's anti-discrimination law. (story)
An interesting and disturbing article on the marriage amendment. I'm not sure what the writer means by saying right-wing law makers may add other matters to this proposed amendment that will make it more than simply a matter of marriage definition between a man and a woman, but it doesn't surprise me.
The polls show that over 2/3 of the country are against gay marriages, but to pass a constitutional amendment is a different matter. What is also troubling about this is that some of the right-wing law makers may add other matters to this proposed amendment that will make it more than simply a matter of marriage definition between a man and a woman. At a time when our president should be trying to solve our medical, financial, joblessness, and military problems, he has chosen to ignore the major issues of our nation in order to focus on what he considers an "easy-win" option. (story)
It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, and it is shameful to use attacks against gay and lesbian families as an election strategy. President Bush came to the White House pledging to unite us and is now seeking to divide the country for his own political gain. - Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe
All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign. - Senator John Kerry
If [Bush] really wants to help married couples, what he should be doing is helping them with their economic problems, their health care problems. - Senator John Edwards
President Bush will go down in history as the first president to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution. - Senator Ted Kennedy
These are the desperate acts of a desperate president who is going to try and drag this country through a cultural war to jump-start a failing campaign. - Cheryl Jacques, president of Human Rights Campaign
I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue. I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary. - Representative David Dreier (R-Calif.), chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee and a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000
Add your name to a petition to state:
"We, the undersigned, strongly oppose the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution that would require discrimination against any specific group of Americans. The Federal Marriage Amendment is a betrayal of the American principles of equality and fairness. We oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment."
Today has been an emotional day for us. Today was the day that Kent and I went to our Town Clerk in Coventry, CT (where we live), to ask for a marriage license. Ironically, this is also the day the President of the United States backed a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
WASHINGTON - Acting to "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever," President George W. Bush yesterday called for a constitutional amendment banning states from recognizing the unions of gay men or women as marriage.
The president, responding to a flood of gay marriages in San Francisco and a court ruling mandating them in Massachusetts, said, "The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution ... honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. ... Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."
He's not my President. Not any longer. He does not represent me. He is a disgrace to the Office of the Presidency. The democracy that the Constitution upholds will be diminished by this amendment. I know the amendment will not pass, but using this issue and entertaining the idea of amending that great document to support discrimination is a disgrace for what it stands for. And for what? Simply to stir up his party to gather greater approval in the polls... at our expense.
This is exactly why it is so difficult to change the Constitution; to keep morons like this from tampering with it for their own gains. But I digress; back to our story....
I called the clerk last week, so they had warning that we were coming. I also told the clerk that I would be bringing a reporter from the Hartford Courant with me, who wanted to cover the story.
I received a call around 9:30 this morning from the Hartford Courant reporter that was covering the story. She said that she would meet us there at 2:00 and would have a photographer with her. With the President's endorsement this morning of an amendment to the Constitutional banning same-sex marriage, the story has become a larger issue.
We met them right before 2:00, introduced ourselves, and talked a bit. At 2:00, we entered the Town Clerk's Office. I asked the lady behind the counter for the Town Clerk. She said that she wasn't the Town Clerk, but would get her. She left momentarily and came back, telling us that the clerk would be right with us. I said to the lady, "I guess that you all expected us, right"? She smiled and said, "Oh yes, we were."
A couple of minutes went by, and the town clerk entered the room, went behind the counter and asked if she could help us. I introduced myself. I said the following: "Hello. My name is Bill Cannon and this (pointing to Kent), is my partner, Kent Holsinger. We are Coventry residents, and we would like to apply for a marriage license."
With that, she asked to see our driver's licenses. We gave her our licenses. She looked them over and returned them. I assume she was checking our address to make sure that we were residents of Coventry.
She then thanked us for stopping by and said, "I would love to be able to issue you a marriage license, but according to state law, I am unable to issue a license to you." She then handed us a pamphlet entitled, "MARRIAGE LICENSE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT".
All during this time, the reporter was taking notes and the photographer was taking pictures like crazy. It was kind of surreal, actually. We left the room at that point and the reporter stayed behind to ask the Town Clerk further questions.
When they emerged, we left the building, and talked outside briefly. The reported said that the story would run tomorrow in all editions. She asked us why this was so important to us. I told her that equal legal protection was a large part of it. There is no way that we can get the same legal rights that straight couples obtain through marriage the way things are now.
But more important to me than that is that we want to be seen by society as equal citizens. We are now second-class citizens, but we don't pay second-class taxes. Everything else is equal, but when it comes to marriage, suddenly, we have second-class status. And, if anything happens, such as a hospital stay, or one of us dies, nothing is assured. Hospital visitation is not assured, survivor benefits will not be there, inheritance is not there, bereavement leave from work will not be there, on and on.
I then looked at the reporter and said, "We are your neighbors. We are your co-workers. We are fellow citizens in the community. We want to contribute equally to our communities. We also want to be of equal standing in our communities as citizens, and as a couple."
I then shared with her a written statement that I had prepared:
In our desire to be treated as equal citizens in the State of Connecticut, we applied today for a Certificate of Marriage from the Coventry Town Clerk, where we reside. In accordance with state law, we were refused a marriage certificate.
Marriage is a commitment. It is about sharing, love, trust, and compromise. We have been a same-sex couple since October, 1975 and plan to spend the rest of our lives together. We do this today to show that we are just like you. We have a home, we love each other, we are devoted to each other, we work, we pay taxes, and we have the same hopes and dreams as anyone else. We want what is best for our family. We want the legal protection of marriage, and we would like our own state to at least recognize that as a family unit, we offer worth and stability to our state.
We worry about what lies ahead for us. If one of us should become sick or incapacitated, will the other be able to make medical decisions that married couples are automatically able to make? What will happen to the estate we have built together in the event one of us dies? Will the surviving partner be able to retain possession of the estate or will it go to the family of the deceased partner? Currently, we are viewed as “legal strangers” by the state and federal governments. We have no access to each others pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations, or inheritance that other long-term committed couples enjoy. We should end this discrimination.
Some argue that these rights can be gained by such documents as wills, power of attorney, along with other documents. I have seen such documents overturned in favor of the family of the deceased, leaving the surviving partner with nothing. I have seen cases where the surviving partner was denied access to visitation of his partner in the hospital because of family wishes. In some cases, when the hospitalized partner died, the surviving partner was not even allowed to say goodbye.
These issues are happening in this country everyday. With all the expensive legal documents that same-sex couples can obtain to try to protect the family they have created with their partner, the fact remains, there really is nothing that equals the protection of marriage. These legal protections have been incorporated over time into state and federal law.
Even civil unions pale in comparison. A civil union would be recognized in the state it was granted, allowing some or all of the rights of marriage, but only in that state. It would not be recognized in other states, or by the Federal Government. In addition, if you have a civil union in one state that allows them, then relocated to another state that has no such protection, you would loose your civil union.
Today we look back almost disbelieving on the time when many Americans did not tolerate marriage between Catholics and Protestants, or between blacks and whites. Unfortunately, our laws continue to deny the right to marry to committed gay and lesbian couples.
We are not asking people to change their religious beliefs. There are many things about modern society that religious organizations do not endorse. For example, we did not ask the Catholic church or other religions to accept divorce or birth control when they became legal in this country.
We are only asking for equal treatment. We are asking for marriage, because there is nothing equal to marriage in terms of legal protection.
Whatever your views on San Francisco's issuance of marriage license's to same-sex couples, here are some excerpts from three separate columnists. It's interesting to see how others are viewing these events from other parts of the country:
Ruben Navarrette
A lot of Americans are seeing what's going on in San Francisco with gay marriages, and they're not pleased. They include President Bush, who signaled that he would support a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Such an amendment would be a mistake, and it won't square with the rhetoric about Bush being a compassionate conservative.
...
Let's agree on this much: No matter how badly some Americans would like the issue of gay marriage to simply go away, it won't. And for good reason. There are some pretty serious issues involved -- not just religious teachings and social norms but states' rights, equal protection and the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Full faith and credit does not dictate if the 1,000+ rights granted to marriage from the Federal Government will be granted.
Leonard Pitts
The most absurd thing about that argument is that it asks us to believe a man might have his choice of a sexuality that is accepted and one that will leave him open to ridicule . . . and he would take the second one. If that's not the dumbest thing I've ever heard, it's definitely in the top 10.
Whatever causes a man to be gay or a woman to be lesbian is obviously powerful enough that they have no real choice in the matter. The people who have been flocking to Mayor Newsom's city did not decide to be gay. What they have decided is that they are human beings worthy of human dignity, and they are tired of waiting for people to get that.
Yes, we are tired of waiting around for people and legislative bodies to deal with it. Many in Massachusetts have said that the issue of gay marriage is a matter that the Legislature should deal with, and not judges. The problem is, for the last 10 years, the legislature of Massachusetts have promised to do something with "civil unions", and they have not. If the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had not made this ruling, it would not be dealt with they year either. It wasn't even on their agenda for this year, until they were forced to deal with it.
It's the same story here in Connecticut. That is why we are going to the Town Clerk's office tomorrow in our town. I want my state to tell me that I'm not worth as much as other citizens.
Jonah Goldberg
Fortunately, I have the answer for just such occasions: federalism. Under a federal system, each state can establish its own rules, within reason, for how it wants to live.
Liberals suddenly learned a newfound respect for the concept on the issue of gay marriage. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., touts the genius of federalism whenever he can, including on Fox News Sunday when he indicated that he thinks having same-sex marriage legal in some states but illegal in others is an acceptable compromise.
Conservatives are suddenly less enamored with federalism. For a host of reasons, many of them want to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage in all 50 states. I'm opposed to that. First, real diversity requires accepting that some communities will do things you don't approve of. Second, I favor civil unions and I can't get a straight answer -- pardon the pun -- on whether the proposed amendments would allow them.
AGAIN, WHAT ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Federalism is fine for the states - assuming that it is acceptable to allow some states to continue to discriminate against it's gay citizens, but, it says nothing to the 1,000+ rights and privileges granted to married couples of the Federal Government.
Am I the only one that understands that the Federal Government is a major player in all of this? Everyone wants to leave it up to the states. It's not that simple. If we want to leave it entirely up to the states, than ALL rights and privileges afforded to marriage by the Federal Government should be stripped from marriage. It's that simple; assuming that society wants to rid itself of discrimination against it's gay citizens. That's a big assumption.
The people who would like to see civil unions rather than full-fledged marriage for same-sex couples are the same people who would speak out against racism against African American citizens, while at the same time, they are saying, "I never drive through the black neighborhood". Suddenly, you question their motives. They will say anything to be politically correct, but they will never put actions behind their words.
Isn't that right, Congressman Barney Frank? I thank God for people like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom who has the incredible courage to take these brave steps into a new frontier for our equal rights. He didn't have to do this. He could have been like you Congressman Frank, who did nothing year after year, to promote equal marriage rights in your state of Massachusetts.
He has given me hope that my life with my partner may be as full as any other couple. He has made me think that maybe there is some hope for the human race after all.
What the hell have you given us Congressman? You are such a hypocrite. You are such a... politician.
Last August, I reported about discrimination agains gay couples by UPS. The case has been settled.
At the time, UPS had a "trailing spouse" policy, that covered the relocation expenses of an employee's spouse when an employee relocated. This did not apply to gay couples since, as the company stated, the couple was not legally married.
In August 2003, Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit against UPS on behalf of the couple. Just hours after the lawsuit was filed last year, UPS released a statement saying it has changed its policy to include domestic partners and that Kline's transfer application had been approved. That policy though was never made available to its employees, and Kline and Sories were forced to continue living 2,000 miles apart.
UPS agreed to provide the same job relocation benefits to employees in domestic partnerships as it does to its married employees.
(San Francisco, California) A gay couple who were forced to live apart for nine months today settled their suit against United Parcel Service. Daniel Kline, who worked for UPS for more than two decades, and his partner of 27 years, Frank Sories accused the company of discriminating against its lesbian and gay employees by not including them in a corporate policy that lets married employees relocate to another city to avoid having their families broken apart when their loved ones have job transfers. (story)
A county clerk in Bernalillo, New Mexico says it has nothing to do with "politics or morals."
Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap says the county plans to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.
She made the decision after asking for an opinion from the county attorney, who said New Mexico law isn't clear on the issue. He also says refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples could open the county to legal action. (story)
Jay Leno
And today, President Bush said he was troubled, troubled by gay people getting married in San Francisco. He said on important issues like this, the people should make the decision, not judges. Unless, of course, we're choosing a president. Then he prefers the judges.
Conan O'Brien
Today in the Oval Office, President Bush said he's troubled by all the gay weddings that have been going on in San Francisco. Yeah. Yeah, Bush says he's also troubled by Bert and Ernie's relationship on Sesame Street. It bothers him.
I was just made aware of this by my co-workers. Apparently, there is a flower shop in San Francisco who will deliver flowers to gay couples waiting in line to get married. The flowers are delievered to a random gay couple with best wishes on their marriage.
Call Flowers on the Bay at 888-217-9119 and order a bouquet to be delivered tomorrow at noon. (I found this information here)
Today a coworker of mine had a thought to send flowers to a random couple waiting in line at SF city hall.
He called a florist and they agreed to do it. He told them to deliver to any couple -- it didn't matter who -- standing in line to get married, with his blessing. The card will read simply "With love, from Minneapolis, Minnesota." Once they understood, they were very touched and thought it was a great idea.
He told another co-worker who did the same thing. And now we want to start a movement. Wouldn't that be cool if people from all over the country, gay, straight and otherwise, started sending flowers to the people waiting in line to get married.
Call it The Big Gay Bouquet call it Flowers from the Heartland. Call it whatever you want, but help us get this off the ground.
Call Flowers on the Bay at 888-217-9119 and order a bouquet to be delivered tomorrow at noon. And Tell all of your friends to do it.
Because straight or gay, we believe and we know many people who believe, support and celebrate the right to marriage. And we'd like to show it. We'd like to see all of the people standing in line with flowers of support from all over the country.
PS. Flowers on the Bay seems like a small shop and might get overwhelmed if this really did catch on. I have a feeling that any Bay-Area flower shop, perhaps even doing FTD through your local florist, could work.
More mayors seem to be supportive of gay marriages. This, after San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. So far, the following mayors have come out in support of gay marriages:
Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco. The city is currently performing gay marriages. Some 2,800 (and counting) gay couples have been married in the city in recent days. And yesterday, San Francisco sued the state of California challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional. City officials claim that the ban violates the equal protection and due process clause of California's constitution.
Richard M. Daley, mayor of Chicago. He said he would have "no problem" if Cook County allowed gay marriages. "You have to point out the strength of this community, your doctors, your lawyers, your journalists," he said. "They have adopted children. To me, we have to understand this is part and parcel of our families and extended families."
R.T. Rybak, mayor of Minneapolis. He issued a proclamation in favor of treating gay couples the same as heterosexuals. A week ago, on national Freedom to Marry Day, Rybak issued his proclamation in Minneapolis. His deputy mayor, David Fey, lives with a domestic partner who is denied access to health benefits.
Rocky Anderson, mayor of Salt Lake City. Mayor Anderson is an honorary board member of the pro-gay-marriage group Freedom to Marry, said San Francisco's efforts would allow more people to see the benefits of allow gay and lesbians to marry.
Daniel Stewart , mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y. Mayor Stewart has also expressed support for same-sex marriage. Mayor Stewart is gay and said he recognizes that his support for same-sex marriage puts him at odds with many of his fellow Republicans. "But, as a gay man, I have to fight for equality," Daniel Stewart told the Press-Republican of Plattsburgh.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's political director has told a group of prominent conservatives that the president would soon publicly endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Bay Buchanan, sister of former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, told Reuters she was one of several conservatives who heard the message from political director Karl Rove two weeks ago.
"We were told by Karl Rove that the president would support the constitutional amendment -- not just that he would endorse it but also that he would fight for it," Buchanan said.
Specifically, Rove told an alliance of conservatives known as the Arlington Group in a telephone conversation that Bush would back the amendment being put forward by Colorado Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and that his statement would come "sooner rather than later." (story)
And this from andrewsullivan.com:
San Francisco files suit to challenge the constitutionality of the state's discrimination against gay couples in marriage. There is nothing illegal about this. But it opens a whole new front in the legal and constitutional fight for equal marriage rights. Not so long ago, I thought I had a handle on this movement. But now it has a life of its own. When freedom begins to emerge, its momentum is hard to stop. But it now seems almost certain that the president will try.
Another awesome letter from the University of Connecticut newspaper, the Daily Campus. I like to see the pulse of student opinions on various issues. I thought this letter was right on.
Same-sex marriages harm no one, by Karen L. Bresciano
It is with great interest that I have watched the editorials and opinions go back and forth concerning same-sex marriage. The amount of emotion this topic generates is amazing to me when for so long gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have been forgotten or ignored.
In Joshua Terranova's commentary (Feb. 12, 2004) he calls into question Joshua Levinson's (Feb. 9, 2004) statement that Catholics would not "be forced to recognize same-sex marriage." Terranova tells us, "the government has no place, no place at all, sticking its nose into the relationship of the Catholic Church and its followers." Terranova is missing, perhaps intentionally, what I believe to be Levinson's point, which is that if the government allows same-sex couples to marry, the Catholic Church can still refuse to allow same-sex couples the right to a Catholic marriage. Therefore, the government is not dictating Catholic practice at all.
It's was nice to see not one mention of gay marriage in this mornings edition of the Hartford Courant. Don't get me wrong; you all know how I feel about this issue. It's just that, I've reached burnout on this. And, that's ok. This movement will go on and on and on, and if Americans are sick and tired of hearing about the subject (as many letters to the editor would indicate), they had better get used to it, because it is not going to go away.
The hard part for us of course, is hearing about all the awful things the homophobes (wait, they don't call themselves that) are saying about us in the press. Yesterday, President Bush said that he found the issue of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gay couples "deeply troubling". He'd better get used to it and move on, because if he keeps harping on this, he will have even deeper troubles than he already has. But, those are his issues, not mine. My feeling about Bush is that if we give him enough rope on this, he will hang his own political career as President. I think he will be a one-term President.
On a personal level, I called the town clerk of my town yesterday. I told her that we would like to apply for a marriage license. She said, "okay", and started to tell me what hours the office was open for business. I interrupted her, and told her I would be by with my partner, Kent, to pick one up. There was this uncomfortable pause. Then she said, "You understand that by state law, I cannot issue a marriage license to you and your partner." I told her I understood that. I also said that I would be bringing a reporter with me along with a photographer from the paper. She was a bit taken back by that and asked me, "Why would you want to do this?" I said, "I'm actually a very private person. I don't want to do this, and I really don't want to have my name in the paper. But, I have too."
She said, "Well, I can understand that, but you know that I have nothing to do with this situation. You really should be talking to your representative and the legislature." I told her that I had and for the last three years they were doing nothing; that the reason I was doing this was to let my legislator's read in the paper that yes, even out in my corner of the woods (out in the sticks), this was a relevant issue.
I told her, "There are many reasons for doing this. When I see some homophobe putting us down and then making a comment such as, 'if we let this happen, what's next, marrying your dog?', I feel that I have to act. And the topping on the cake was when Britney Spears married one night as a 'joke gone too far' to someone she hardly knew. She got divorced 55 hours later."
When I mentioned Britney, she laughed and said, "We all thought that was inappropriate". "Inappropriate!", I said. "What you call inappropriate is very degrading to couples like Kent and myself. What you are saying is that it's 'inappropriate' for Britney to do that, but when Kent and I, a couple who have been together for 30 years, tries to do it, we can't. You are saying that we are lower than what Britney Spears did. That's just wrong!"
Then I think she finally got it. She appreciated me being so honest. She did say that now that she has been made aware that we will be coming by, she would have to inform the Town Supervisor. She also wanted my assurance that it would not be confrontational. I told her it was fine to inform her Town Supervisor, and that it would not be confrontational, because I know it's not her making this decision.
So, it looks like next Tuesday is the day. Kent will confirm that with me, and I will let the reporter know.
SAN FRANCISCO -- After two judges declined to immediately end San Francisco's same-sex wedding spree, the mayor said the city would keep issuing marriage licenses to gay couples as conservative groups vowed to take their case to higher courts.
During separate hearings Tuesday, a pair of Superior Court judges ruled that they were not yet prepared to prohibit city officials from engaging in the collective act of civil disobedience that has allowed more than 2,600 same-sex couples to be married at City Hall since Thursday.
"There was nothing particularly compelling after today that makes me think that we should back off", Mayor Gavin Newsom said in announcing that the city would go on sanctioning same-sex unions until told otherwise by the courts. (story)
This from Fort Wayne.com. It's a follow-up to my previous entry.
The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were all too familiar with repressive governments, where the majority ruled with an iron hand and the minority had no rights. The expressions of individual rights found in the documents are unequivocal.
And now, as the issue of single-sex marriage becomes a nationwide issue, gay men and lesbians - people in society's minority -- want to enjoy the rights of the majority. Yet many Americans want to deny the rights of two consenting adults to enter into a union, to pursue the happiness others enjoy unfettered by discriminatory laws.
Opponents justify their fear by pointing to the changing - some would say declining - norms of marriage, saying gay marriages would hasten the decline.
If marriage as an institution is threatened and under fire, it is most certainly not because of gay marriage or civil unions. Gay marriage cannot be blamed for a trivializing of the institution, epitomized by Britney Spears' 36-hour Las Vegas marriage. Rather, a host of economic factors and changing societal norms have contributed to high divorce rates and children born out of wedlock.
Equal protection clauses
"... No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment"The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." - Indiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 23
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence
I'm tired of talking about gay marriage. It's degrading that it's such a topic for us. It's very draining wondering from day to day if all the marriages granted to gay couples in SF will be null and void. Or, will California further strengthen it's laws to make sure we will never be able to be married? Meanwhile, we all have to watch as the Republicans try to abolish any possible chance for marriage equality.
We each do what we can. I talked to some friends at work about the consequences of going to our town clerk for a marriage license. Of course, it would normally not be such a big thing; we go to the town clerk, ask for the marriage application, are turned down, and we go home. But our situation is different. We come from a small community. The Hartford Courant has expressed great interest in being there when we are turned away. They want to send a reporter and a photographer. That means, we will be in the paper, and from what my friends have told me, there's a good chance that the story would be presented in a very prominent place.
One friend warned me that I should take care not to involve the company that I work for. The owner is conservative on these matters and would not like his company name associated with this. My friend is probably right about that. At any rate, it's not my intention of involving my work place. Why is it relevant where I work anyway? If the reporter asks, I will simply say that I prefer not to mention that.
My friends also said that Kent's position at the university could be an issue, since we are really challenging the state, and he works for a state university. We talked tonight about that, and he doesn't feel that will be an issue. It's strange to me in a way; I'm usually the one who is ready and willing to stand up to injustice, but Kent is just as eager to do this as I am.
Another issue that we may have to deal with is how the town will deal with this. That will probably be a mixed bag. There are people here who have not been supportive of us, and there have been others who have been. We are going to go ahead with this with no regrets. Some things are worth fighting for at any cost. In this world, you fight for what you must have to maintain and foster happiness.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - Declaration of Independence
I just received this email from the Human Rights Campign, of which I'm a member. It is calling us to action for our marriage rights. I'm printing the exact email that they sent me, along with all the hyperlinks in tact.
Please take time to take action on this. We are fighting for our right for recognition of our most basic human right - the right to love in marriage who we have chosen for our life partner.
Marriage, HRC and What You Can Do
This is a critical moment in the movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights.
In the last several days, the media announced President Bush’s endorsement of Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s discriminatory amendment that would ban marriage rights for same-sex couples and could forever invalidate civil unions or other legal protections for same-sex couples and their children.
Judge Leaves San Francisco Gay Marriage
This is great news from San Francisco!
For now, gay marriages can still be performed in the city. I must admit, I'm a bit surprised that the judge didn't stop further marriages from taking place but hey, I'm not going to complain.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP)--In the first of two such hearings, a state judge delayed until at least Friday a ruling on whether to block San Francisco from continuing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. ... Opponents are seeking to nullify the marriages and block the city from continuing to distribute the licenses that began last week under an order from Newsom. The newly elected mayor's decision to permit gay marriages, while still legally unsettled, has intensified the national debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. (story)
This from Richmond, Virginia
Legislation has been passed to allow employers to offer group insurance benefits to gay partners who live together.
They also rejected a measure that would have made state mortgage loans available only to married heterosexuals or blood relatives.
It was just last week that the House passed a bill that reaffirms the state's ban on gay marriage.
A spokeswoman for the conservative Family Foundation says it's "ironic" that the same lawmakers who voted to ban civil unions are giving away the "rights and privileges that go along with a traditional marriage."
Well, at least the Family Foundation is admitting that marriage has become a country club of civil rights that only heterosexuals should be allowed to enjoy. I guess that's something.
Washington State House Passes Gay Rights Bill
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- On the same day gay couples lined up outside a San Francisco courthouse to get married, Washington lawmakers took a more cautious step toward equal rights for gay people.
By a 59-39 vote, the state House passed a bill Monday outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment and financial transactions.
"It is NOT about marriage," Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, reassured House members. "It is not about a group of special Americans demanding something special."
Instead, said Murray, the sponsor of House Bill 1809, the bill would simply afford all citizens the right to "have a job, own a home, and participate in the American dream." (story)
It's just unbelievable. We are living in times that are very uncertain. Everything seems to be in flux.
I think it's wonderful that so many people were able to celebrate their love for each other. It's truly sad that so many in our world will do anything they can to kill this love. It seems that we live in a nation that would rather go to war over assumed weapons of mass destruction, than to let two people who love each other be accepted into society as equals.
A record 825 same-sex marriages were performed in San Francisco on Monday, capping a five-day marriage spree that started when the city began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples Thursday. As the last couples waited to receive their licenses in the City Assessor's Office Monday, Assessor Mabel Teng announced that 2,464 same-sex couples had been wed.
"It's an overwhelming outpouring of love, of joy and of support," Teng told the cheering crowd.
"We are here to celebrate your love, to celebrate equality -- and we are here to support you," she said. "That's what city government is all about." (story)
I spotted this editorial in The Daily Campus, the student news paper at the University of Connecticut.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that within the next few months, the state legislature must recognize and allow gay marriages. The Daily Campus lends full support for the decision of the Massachusetts Court and hope the ruling will stand.
The issues of gay marriage and gay rights are turning out to be the fundamental civil rights debates of our time. Some consider civil unions as an appropriate substitute for gay marriage. Nevertheless, the Massachusetts Court was correct in its decision because marriage provides equality and federal benefits. Civil Unions on the other hand, offer no federal benefits.
I spotted this editorial in a Madison, Wisconsin paper. Here it is in it's entirety.
Americans should pause for a moment to consider the phenomenon that has taken place in San Francisco over the past several days.
Last week, the city's newly elected mayor, Gavin Newsom, ordered officials to issue licenses to same-sex couples, declaring that he was merely ensuring equal treatment of gays and lesbians. City Assessor Mabel Teng started issuing the licenses and, by the tens, then by the hundreds and finally by the thousands, gay and lesbian couples started showing up to apply.
From Andrew Sullivan. He hit the nail right on the head.
When people talk about "gay marriage," they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses - available to atheists as well as believers. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category - civil unions, domestic partnerships, civl partnerships, whatever - may alleviate real human needs, but, by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their own families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.