Gay Marriage: March 2006 Archives

BOSTON - In a disappointment for the gay rights movement, the state’s highest court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples from states where gay marriage is prohibited cannot tie the knot in Massachusetts.

Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who is a considering a run for president in 2008, welcomed the decision, saying he did not want Massachusetts to become “the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.”

The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents to marry in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state.

If the court had struck down the law, Massachusetts would have been thrown open to gay couples from across the country to get married. Then they could have returned to their home states to fight for legal recognition for those marriages. (source)

This of course is all based on a 1913 law (that was never enforced) to prevent mixed-race marriages from taking place. It was wrong to draft the law then, and it is wrong to brush the dust off off it now to enforce against gay couples. The legal issue is that the law was created for a very different purpose. And almost a century later, it is being used to keep a different type of couple from gaining access to marriage.

I’m not sure which is more shameful for Massachusetts... the fact that they kept the law on the books all these years and now chose to enforce it, or the fact that the state has failed to enforce the concept of equality of ALL CITIZENS.

As for me, I write about this - really as a public record that I acknowledged it. Emotionally, I’ve given up a lot of emotional baggage on this issue. Much of it I no longer care about, I suppose because I don’t feel that I will live long enough to realize equality.

That being said, it doesn’t have to ruin everything. And I’m not going to let it. This is the world we live in.

As another Virginia General Assembly comes to a close, I ask myself again why I choose to live in Virginia. The attacks on me and my community came from all angles, attempting to prevent me from adopting, having my own children, and marrying the person I have chosen to share my life with, just to name a few. And yet I choose to stay. In fact, my partner and I are adding on to our home in Fairfax County so that it will grow with our family and be a comfortable place for us to live for a long time to come. [...]

And yet, we will stay here and fight this amendment, because I believe that fair-minded people in Fairfax County will see that this attempt by lawmakers to distract us from real issues only serves to destroy the real moral fabric of our society. I believe the amendment prohibiting any and all legal recognition of my family that will be on the ballot in November will fail once Virginians see that I am not a threat. Rather, my relationship adds to the fabric of my society, and my county. I believe that good, solid, happy relationships make our society stronger, and I believe that the people of Fairfax County will agree. (source)

I hope you are right. My experience of people is that they usually have no problems what so ever in abridging the rights of others, as long as it doesn’t effect them in any way. In other words, people are selfish and easily give in to their prejudices. I personally try not to do that, but I also fail at this at times was well.

I’m not sure that people go to the voting booth to pass a constitutional amendment banning marriage for gay couples, with hate in their hearts. I think some do. I think that some want us to have no rights at all just because they hate us. But that idea is usually done by people who lack education, at least a college degree. And many of them don’t even bother going to the voting booth. They don’t understand or feel the need because they don’t understand how participating will help them.

Many who go to vote against marriage equality have religious leanings and feel that they have a moral directive in keeping marriage from us. One also has to wonder about the thought process of these people. Many of them have a higher education, yet they feel that everything they know about gay people (they may have friends who are gay) is overridden by what The Bible says about gay people.

They can overlook a lot of what The Bible says about gays. In fact, they do. They overlook the fact that Jesus never once spoke about homosexuality, let alone marriage for gays. Or that it is a sin to divorce. In fact, non of the other sins seems to matter. Indeed, many of these same religious people damning us are on their third or fourth divorce. It must be convenient to have a line item veto on the list of sins from The Bible.

So, I don’t put too much trust in my fellow citizens. The really disheartening thing that pulls me down the most is when I hear that a friend of mine has voted against equality for Kent and myself, after knowing us for years. I like to tell myself that if people just knew us for who we are, their hearts and minds would change. Sometimes that does happen. Sometimes not.

And then some people make it a point to tell us that they agree that we should have the same rights, as though we now have their permission to be equal. Unfortunately, in Virginia, it is very much that way. In fact, in any state that has a voter referendum system, we are at the mercy of the electorate. I have no problem with the principle of the referendum. Where the concept doesn’t work is in the area of civil liberties and basic equality.

Maybe someday, my fellow citizens will be worthy of my trust. Last year in Connecticut I was told by Representative Mike Lawlor, one of the sponsors of the Connecticut Civil Union bill: “Hey, Bill, as a matter of fact, I myself will bring a marriage bill to life next year.” Well guess what? He lied. He said that on February 24, 2005. They didn’t do it this year. And you wonder why I put little trust in people.

I believe the amendment (in Virginia) prohibiting any and all legal recognition of my family that will be on the ballot in November will fail once Virginians see that I am not a threat. Rather, my relationship adds to the fabric of my society, and my county. I believe that good, solid, happy relationships make our society stronger, and I believe that the people of Fairfax County will agree.

I hope that is true.

President George W. Bush reiterated his belief about solely sanctioning heterosexual marriages during a news conference Tuesday at the White House.

In the midst of a session devoted mostly to issues surrounding the Iraq war, a reporter reminded the president that many of the thousands of same-sex couples who got married in San Francisco in 2004 -- only to have the marriages nullified by the courts -- were also parents.

“Are you still confident that society’s interest and the interest of those children in gay families are being met by government saying their parents can’t marry?” the reporter asked.

“I believe society’s interests are met by defining marriage as between a man and a woman,” President Bush replied. “That’s what I believe.”

The largest gay Democratic group, the National Stonewall Democrats, called the president’s remark an “affirmation of marriage discrimination.” (source)

So basically, he doesn’t give a damn about the interest of children in gay families. His inability to answer the question spoke louder than any other answer he could have given. This President is not the President of all the people. He picks and chooses who is worthy of his support.

I look forward to the day that the President of the United States doesn’t have that luxury.

But the bigger question is this... Will his conservative base take the gay marriage bait again? After all, after he was elected to a second term, he forgot all about the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage. A lot of those conservatives that supported his reelection were very soured by that. I realize the moron can’t run again since this is his second term. But will the next Republican candidate, whoever that is, try to gain political traction once again with this issue, at the expense of gay families and their children?

These people are shameless.

This is the first step in a challenge for gay couples in the State of Connecticut to be able to marry our partners. Last year, Connecticut passed a civil union bill that would give gay couples most of the rights of marriage at the state level. This case argues that not allowing gay couples access to marriage is discriminatory and violates the equality provisions in the state constitution.

On a personal side, Kent recently went to a meeting where he works given by human services. At the meeting, they mentioned that if we were to get a civil union, he would be eligible to take leave in the event that something happened to me (care of a partner) that married couples now have access too. It opened up a conversation on the issue again and if we should swallow our pride and get a civil union.

I’m still holding fast and didn’t want to do it. We could get a civil union, but after that, would I even feel like celebrating? No. And I think the joining of two people in a wedding is a means for celebration and to feel good about what you have together. Getting a civil union for us would be a celebration of... this is the best we can have... second rate.

What the hell is there to celebrate in that?

NEW HAVEN, Conn. --Eight gay couples gathered Tuesday in New Haven Superior Court as a Superior Court judge began hearing their challenge to Connecticut’s ban on gay marriage.

The couples claim in a lawsuit that the state’s marriage laws are unconstitutional because they treat gay and heterosexual couples differently.

The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a group involved in the case, used a similar argument to win gay marriage in Massachusetts.

After they were denied marriage licenses in August 2004, the couples filed suit against the state Department of Public Health, which is being defended by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s office.

Last year, Connecticut approved civil unions for gay couples, which give them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. But the law also defined marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. (source)

I only wish I could have been there. I would have helped them put those white signs everywhere I could.

The Idaho Legislature may have had its say about gay marriage--a resounding “let the voters figure it out”--but Boise’s gay community isn’t ready to admit defeat.

Early Monday morning, a tiny group of activists fanned out across downtown Boise to spread a message that they knew would be misunderstood by many, and would undoubtedly piss off people near and dear to their cause. These activists adhered over 150 small white signs, each reading “Heterosexuals Only,” to every bench and fountain they could find, and put one in each bathroom in the Idaho Statehouse. From the color to the typeface--sans serif, if you’re interested--these signs were made to resemble the “Whites Only” and “Colored Only” signs that were a common sight in the American south just a few decades ago. The date of the act was also significant--it was the 41st anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma, Alabama, where hundreds of police officers wielding bullwhips and nightsticks tore into peaceful civil-rights protesters who were trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

On Monday afternoon, the exhausted planners of this local demonstration, a man and a woman who wish only to be known as “D” and “J,” sat down with BW to discuss the historical significance of their signage, the implications of the Legislature’s decision, and to challenge the local gay community and its friends to rise up. (source)

I recieved this via email today. I thought that I would share it with you. It was part of the Maryland Senate hearings on the proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage.

Last week in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify.

He did so. At the end of his testimony, a right-wing senator said: “Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man & a woman. What do you have to say about that?”

Raskin: “Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”

The room erupted into applause.

Related Article
Jamie's Testimony Before the Maryland State Senate
Judicial Proceedings Committee

An excerpt from his site, well worth reading...

And the constitutional principles are clear. First, Due Process protects the fundamental right of all consenting adults to marry. This is a right so sweeping that it covers even people who marry multiple times like Elizabeth Taylor, people who get married on television game shows like Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire, deadbeat dads who seek to remarry, see Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), and convicted prisoners, see Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), including murderers on death row, many of whom have married people they have met by mail. The fundamental right to marry actually includes even gay and lesbian citizens, who have been able to marry for centuries so long as they would consent to marry people they could never have a successful marriage with--that is, straight people of the opposite sex. And who knows how many thousands of unhappy marriages of this kind there have been? In any event, the Supreme Court has said that the right to marry is fundamental for all citizens.

Second, Equal Protection gives people the right to be married without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, nationality and other arbitrary factors, such as animosity towards a minority group.