Gay Marriage: December 2005 Archives

Think back a little more than a year ago, to the political campaigns of 2004. One of the hottest issues in presidential debates and congressional campaigns was the threat to traditional marriage posed by gay people seeking the right to wed. [...]

But a year later, it seems pertinent to ask: Have you heard or read a single word about a federal gay-marriage amendment since the election?

No, you have not, because this supposedly all-important issue has vanished from the political landscape. Judging from the available evidence, this dire threat to marriage and family, this looming peril to the very core of American society, has simply disappeared as a concern. Certainly, nobody’s talking about it or trying to do anything about it any longer.

A cynical person might look at that evidence and suggest that maybe the gay-marriage controversy was never real in the first place. Maybe it was just a product, like soap or toilet paper, that was manufactured by politicians and then sold by certain media outlets and interest groups. Maybe those politicians never had any intention of trying to pass such an amendment and were merely playing their supporters for fools. [...]

Basically, what you’re seeing is a retail operation, and gay marriage was last year’s inventory. It has been rotated off the shelves, at least for now, to make way for a holiday-themed product in exactly the same way that Home Depot removes inventory from its garden section to make space for Christmas trees. (source)

I still think that gay marriage will be the big ticket item in the next election. The “war on terror” is just getting old and worn out, especially since we are losing people and according to latest polls, the majority of the Iraqi People want our forces to leave.

But the “gay marriage” issue... well, that’s saving the very pillar of our civilization (with it’s 55% divorce rate) from sodomites. I think that’s worth at least three elections. Don’t you?

I just read this very thought provoking letter from Paul Toth on his feelings of growing up and trying to fit in with others. It was my story, and it’s beautiful. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. And, I sincerely hope that the folks in Wisconsin take to heart what he is trying to say to them. Because it’s true, and it’s real.

Related Article
December 7, 2005 - Wisconsin to Approve Marriage Ban for Gays

Paul D. Toth: I didn’t want to be gay

Most backers of the proposed ban on gay marriages and civil unions believe that extending any legal protections to gay families is morally wrong.

They would like to amend the Wisconsin Constitution to ensure that the hundreds of state and federal benefits that marriage confers upon heterosexuals automatically will never be afforded to their gay neighbors in equally committed relationships. [...]

Whereas Christian conservatives might hope that one day I would choose to engage a woman in a dishonest relationship that nonetheless meets the traditional definition of marriage, after coming out, I instead chose to commit myself in a relationship with a man that brought me more happiness than I ever imagined. Still, no matter how long-lasting or steadfast our commitment, this amendment punishes gay families by ensuring that we are never recognized as such in hospital visitation, taxation, inheritance and bereavement, as well as health care, child care and retirement benefits.

If as a heterosexual you are pondering a choice to enshrine such far-reaching discrimination in the Wisconsin Constitution, be glad that marriage (and, of course, remarriage) will always be a choice you can make, and that figuring out what to do when the law punishes such commitment will never be a choice you have to face. (source)

Paul D. Toth is a professor of Spanish and education at UW-Madison. He recently moved here from Ohio, where voters last year approved a ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions.

Gay couples seeking to marry in New York had their hopes crushed yesterday by a Manhattan panel of judges that said homosexuals have no “fundamental right” to get hitched unless the Legislature changes the law.

In a 4-to-1 ruling, the Appellate Division said Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan was wrong last February when she ruled that state law was unconstitutional because it did not permit gay marriages.

“We find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right,” the court said.

“The power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not the judiciary,” they wrote. [...]

“Marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support but about the well-being of children and society, and such preference constitutes a rational policy decision.” (source)

An interesting ruling. I thought that the court’s purpose was to interpret the state constitution. There is nothing in the New York State Constitution that states that gay couples should be denied marriage. That being said, all things being equal (no prohibition on gay’s being able to marry), the court should allow equality across the board for marriage. Or, it should strip away all the legal benefits of marriage.

The argument that “marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support but about the well-being of children and society” is bull shit. It just doesn’t hold water in today’s world. If that be the case, then we should bar all heterosexual couples who want to get married who are beyond child bearing years and have no interest or ability to produce children. Even beyond that, I can name six straight couples who entered into marriage who never had a desire to ever have children. They entered into marriage because they wanted a deeper commitment to each other. But, they also wanted the legal obligations and protections that came with marriage.

Of course, this will be appealed to the state supreme court. And all of this will keep going until it hits the United States Supreme Court. I hope that doesn’t happen anytime soon. I think the nation needs time to take in this issue. With states’ passing constitutional amendments left and right (and there will be more!), this should tell us all that America is not ready on a national level to accept gay marriage.

I don’t want to be a downer here, but that’s the truth. Social change always takes time. In the meantime, we will keep forging ahead with the victories that we have accomplished. Sometimes they seem small. Eventually, this issue will be decided in our favor.

I received the following poll announcement being sponsored by The Boston Globe. Participate if you’d like.

Boston Globe Poll

The Boston Globe is sponsoring a poll on the following question:

Do you think a question on banning gay marriage should be on the state ballot?

No, the state courts have spoken on the subject.

Yes, the proponents have gathered enough signatures and are following the process.

The poll is entirely unscientific and unlikely to produce data of any importance. Nevertheless, petition sponsors have sent out an email blast asking people to “Please visit the Boston Globe website and vote YES in this poll today.”

Want to vote? Here's a link to the poll.

Tom Lang & Aaron Toleos, Directors
Contact: (978) 335-0477, info@knowthyneighbor.org

View poll results as of December 18, 2005

MADISON, Wis. - The state Senate voted Wednesday to amend the Wisconsin Constitution to ban gay marriage and Vermont-style civil unions, leaving only a vote in the Assembly before the proposal could go to the public for a final vote.

The Senate voted 19-14 to approve the amendment. Lawmakers expect it to easily pass the Assembly and appear on a statewide ballot in November.

Lawmakers rejected a series of attempts by Democrats to alter the amendment, including a push to strip the portion pertaining to civil unions. It would prohibit legal recognition of any relationship between unmarried people that is “identical or substantially similar” to marriage.

Democrats argued that could impact legal recognition already on the books for gay couples, including domestic partner registries in Madison and Milwaukee, as well as health benefits provided by some school districts. Amendment supporters pointed to a memo from one of the Legislature’s attorneys that opined that was unlikely. (source)

I was a bit surprised by this one. I always viewed Wisconsin as being a more liberal state. I was always told that it was very accepting of gay people. I guess that’s not the case.

I can understand how some rural people would get upset at the prospect of a gay couple wanting to commit to marriage, but what seems very nasty to me is to specifically state that anything other than marriage (that we will not be allowed to have) will be illegal. That will strip away any benefits that domestic partners now have in some places such as Madison or Milwaukee because those laws will not be in conflict with the state constitution.

The amendment will read: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”

It will most likely go to the voters and they will most likely pass it. Boy, I’m glad that I live in Connecticut. Kent and I have decided not to get a civil union, but I’m glad that we live in a state that at least gives us that option. And I can see Connecticut going for full marriage for gay couples within a few years.

Related Article
December 10, 2005 - Enshrining Discrimination in Wisconsin

In more than one sense, Brian Rice and Jason Kelliher are pioneers. They were among the first same-sex partners in the nation to marry legally - last year in barrier-breaking Massachusetts - and now are among the few such couples to forgo their much-prized rights by moving to another state.

Their new home, Connecticut, is among the most liberal on the issue; its legislature has approved civil unions that extend marriage-like rights to gay couples. But that option doesn’t tempt Rice and Kelliher.

“We’ve already reached the pinnacle of what a couple can hope for - a marriage license,” said Rice, a lawyer. “Civil union is a second-class citizenship. ... We don’t want to take a step backward.” [...]

They initially hoped Connecticut would recognize their marriage, but the state decided otherwise. They can’t file joint state tax returns, as they could have in Massachusetts, and worry that they need to execute a will because Connecticut wouldn’t consider the survivor a spouse in the event one of them died.

“There are very few attorneys who specialize in these issues, and the law is very unsettled,” Rice said. “If you’re moving from state to state, or traveling, protections you had in one state may not be available in another.” (source)

I think it would be very difficult to have marriage, and then have to leave it to move to a state that only allowed civil unions. They had a real marriage. But this leaves me confused. They got married in Massachusetts, the only state in the country that grants a real marriage to gay couples. So, in Massachusetts, there was absolutely no difference from a gay couple and a heterosexual couple in terms of marriage.

Now, they have moved to Connecticut, a state where the attorney general of the state has stated that, because the Connecticut civil union bill has defined a marriage as one man and one woman, the state of Connecticut will not honor the marriage. Does that mean that the marriage doesn’t exist? And if they live here long enough, they will lose their residency status in Massachusetts. What happens then to their Massachusetts marriage since, despite the fact that it’s a real marriage, isn’t portable to any other state?

Soon, Kent and I will travel to Arizona for Christmas vacation. We will be carrying with us our legal papers, as our attorney has advised us to do. But I can’t help but wonder, is it all in vain? Because there is so much animosity towards gay couples around the country, would the state that we happen to be in honor the papers? And if they don’t, what then - a length legal battle that just turns from bad to ugly?

This is why I’ve become obsessed with gadgets. For example, I’ve purchased an XM portable radio that I will be taking to Arizona with me. I love XM. There’s so much out there you can listen too from news, to jazz, to classical. It goes on and on. It came with a setup to hook it up to your stereo system, along with a car antenna. The only problem I had was when I went outside to listen. Even though the radio had an internal antenna, the satellite signal kept phasing in and out. So, after doing a bit of research (they never tell you this when you buy the radio), it seemed that I needed the antenna headphones. I tried them today and they work well.

On the photography front, I bought a new flash unit for my Nikon digital camera. It hasn’t arrived yet.

I guess I’m wondering if I’m starting to just zone out of the real world and spend my time and energy in my own little world. I have talked with others who, as I am, have been very attuned to the news - world and local, to the happenings of the world. They have stopped listening to any news at all, opting instead to just be involved in what they can control; their own little world. Why is that so bad?

And, in all honesty, how involved should I be in the course of my country when it regards people like me as second class citizens? Why is it honestly worth my time? This is what happens when you tell people that they are worth less than others at the very very personal level of their personal relationship to their spouse - their family. They began to care less as well, about a whole lot of things.

My family is not second class. If my country can’t understand or honor that, fine. I’ll return the favor by giving back what I get; second class citizenship. They want me to care for my country? I will, at a second class rate. They want me to support them in their efforts to fight terror in the world (while supporting OUR view of the way everyone else in the world should live)? I will, at a second class rate. They want me to “care” for my country and support my country (be patriotic)? I will, at a second class rate (leave me alone and keep marriage just out of my reach). Keep me second class, and I will give second class, and we will all get along just fine. I don’t like it, but I have to accept it and move on. That’s why I’m getting into gadgets. All make sense now?

The world is in such chaos now. I suppose it always was. Perhaps what has changed is me. I’m more aware of all the crap happening in the world now because my country has changed. We (US citizens) are now more involved at a personal level with the world. We travel and we have to be subjected to much greater scrutiny from a security stand point. We hear each day that more have died in Iraq. Just last Friday in Connecticut, all the state and federal courts were closed because of some bomb scare. Apparently, the caller wasn’t specific on which court was involved, so the closed them all. Was this the work of some crazy wacko, or was it a terrorist attack? Who knows.

But when I heard about it on the way home, I switched over to jazz and zoned out. I’ve also noticed a complete lack of anyone leaving comments on the site anymore - yet more evidence that people are zoning out. Or, perhaps they no longer care of what I write about? Or perhaps they just don’t like my writing. So I’m wondering if I should just deep-six the site and turn it into a pure photography site (photo blog). I don’t know. But why make postings when I’m simply talking to myself? Does that make sense?

Oh and yesterday, I had my monthly facial at Green Tangerine Spa. Yet more zoning out I suppose. It was very relaxing and I learned that I have “wonderful skin”. That’s good. I would hate to have un-wonderful skin. She said I needed an eye-brow trim which included waxing. And for you guys out there who have no idea what waxing is... it sucks and hurts like hell. But hey, I now have the eye brows of a movie star! And did you know, you can even now pick the eye brows of the movie star that you would like?

Technology is a good thing. I have the eye brows of Judy Garland, of course! I was thinking of Maria Callas, but her eye brows weren’t available. It’s probably just as well. I don’t think I have the facial structure to support Greek eye brows.

On the weather front, it’s beautiful outside. We are in the middle of a big snow storm. I’m about to take a shower and try to figure out all this new face stuff (special face wash and “toner”) that I got from the spa. Then I suppose I will brave the elements and go to the store for supplies. Perhaps something heavier and “heartier” for dinner is in order to match the weather, like a pork roast with roasted potatoes accompanied by “winter greens”, and a nice Merlot.

Huddled in prayer on the first floor of the City-County Building, leaders of more than a dozen black churches expressed opposition Wednesday to legislation designed to protect gays from housing and job discrimination.

They also said they find it offensive to equate the plight of gays to the struggles faced by blacks.

The Rev. Melvin Jackson, a veteran of black civil rights marches and pastor at Christian Love Baptist Church, was among those who said they were “deeply offended” by those who try to put the two on equal footing.

“Black people were brought to this country in chains and were held down by laws that prevented us from being citizens in this country. We could not vote. We could not sit where we wanted to. We could not eat where we wanted to,” Jackson said. “We were insulted everywhere simply because of how we looked by the color of our skin.”

“There is no parallel to that. And I defy anyone to say that.” (source)

Ok... I’ll give it a try...

“Black people were brought to this country in chains and were held down by laws that prevented us from being citizens in this country. We could not vote. We could not sit where we wanted to. We could not eat where we wanted to.”

And gay people suffer the same oppression that black people did. Oppression is oppression. You could not vote. We can. But does our vote really count? We are a minority in this country and pretty much at every turn, the majority has steamrolled over our rights, just as you are doing now. It always amazes me how quickly people forget what it was like to be oppressed.

We cannot openly love and embrace the relationships that we form with the people we love. We cannot enter into marriage and obtain the over 1500 federal rights and privileges of marriage. There is nothing more precious and personal to a human being than to celebrate the relationship - the life bond you have with your life companion. When one of us dies, the surviver will not inherit their partner’s social security benefits. 401K survivor benefits are given, after being taxed. We have to somehow prove that we are “family” to a hospital or care facility and just hope and pray that they honor that. And after death, you just hope and pray that your wishes are carried out and not challenged by what the law sees as a “real family member”. You think I’m making this up? This is from an HIV/AIDS case manager:

Even with thousands of dollars worth of privately drafted legal documents, simple benefits granted by civil recognition of same-sex unions, such as bereavement leave, health insurance under one policy for the household or family memberships, are typically impossible to obtain.

Things go from bad to worse should someone die. In my 20-plus years of work as an HIV/AIDS case manager, I have dealt with a number of horrors happening to surviving halves of gay and other unmarried couples by “in-laws” who they believed were loving and supportive of their relationships.

In one case, a supposedly grieving mother left the graveside internment to join pre-arranged movers to empty the possessions of her late son’s home. One of those items was a baby grand piano given as an anniversary gift to his surviving partner in her presence five years earlier. The deceased’s will predated the gift.

Outside of my work life, I know friends with similar stories. One friend came home from work to find the locks had been changed by his partner’s children on the home he shared with his late partner, who had died suddenly. It took an intervention with attorneys for the friend to obtain his own checkbook and credit cards. (source)

Is this not oppression in it’s worst form, to deny a class of people any public acknowledgment of their family?

“We were insulted everywhere simply because of how we looked by the color of our skin.”

And if we are perceived to be gay, we are often teased, cursed at, fired, denied promotion, beaten, and sometimes killed for that reason alone. It happens a lot. We can’t even give the appearance that we are “a couple”. Did the same thing not happen to black folks at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan? Our Ku Klux Klan is gay bashers, and they are everywhere. They can be any stranger we see on the street.

Gee, you are right Rev. Jackson, there’s absolutely no difference at all in what gay people suffer in this country compared to blacks. None at all.

South Africa’s top court said on Thursday it was unconstitutional to deny gay people the right to marry, putting it on track to become the first African country to legalize same-sex marriage.

The Constitutional Court told parliament to amend marriage laws to include same-sex partners within the year -- a step that runs counter to widespread African taboos against homosexuality.

“The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage ... signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples,” Justice Albie Sachs said in the ruling.

The court said if parliament did not act, the legal definition of marriage would be automatically changed to include same-sex unions. That would put South Africa alongside Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada in allowing gay marriages. (source)

Once in awhile, something awesome happens. This is a major one. Any day now, the Washington State Supreme Court will make the same ruling for their state. Let’s hope they will come to the same conclusion.