Gay Marriage: May 2006 Archives

Now that Republicans face another difficult election year, the proposed blockade on gay marriage has gained political currency once again.

Six states -- Idaho, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin -- plan state referendums against homosexual marriage this fall.

A seventh state, Alabama, will conduct a referendum in June. Up to seven more states may hold referendums, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual rights group.

The Senate Judiciary Committee last week endorsed the constitutional amendment against gay unions drafted by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo. (source)

Yes, I know... I said I would write less about marriage. I know everyone is sick of hearing about it. I guess I won’t say much about it. I’m sick of hearing about it and I’m really sick about the whole issue.

But the larger issue for me, the one that I just honestly don’t understand is a basic one. I can understand how some people don’t like us that much. But, I guess I never really thought that most of the country just downright hate us. So, I guess my issue is this...

The marriage issue aside, What is feeding this hate? Why does the United States hate us so much? See, I don’t understand that, because I’ve done nothing to anyone and, as far as I know, neither has the other gay people I know.

So, as I ponder this question that seems to have no resolution for me, I will try my best not to internalize this and take it too personally. And by Christmas time, I guess at least six more states will have it written into their state constitutions a total ban on our relationships. I say that because they aren’t just banning marriage. They are also banning any arrangement that “simulates” marriage. That’s “civil unions” folks.

Or should I just shut up, take my lumps, and be thankful that they didn’t go that one step further by stating in law that we can’t own property together, or stay together, or send us to a concentration camp (yes, I’m told that some want to do that)?

We can own property together, technically. But if civil unions are banned, will even a will hold up in court? Many say it will. Perhaps they want to believe it will. I’m left uneasy by this.

Just my thoughts. I’m going to have some herbal tea now and think nice thoughts, like what I will be doing this summer in my garden, and what I will cook for Kent this weekend when he comes home, and the unquestioning love that I get from my cats. These are the things that matter to me. These are the things I can control.

That is, until the law tells me that I no longer have control over even that. Maybe the ban on gay marriage is just the first step. I know, you think I’m just being paranoid now. They said that about the Jews in Nazi German as well just before they were rounded up and sent to the death camps.

“This is all being done by the Republican majority in an effort to appeal to right-wing nuts in the Republican Party ahead of the upcoming mid-term elections. Ignore all of the pressing issues facing the country, and instead go grovel at the feet of the lunatic fringe. Senator Frist should be very proud of himself. That’s leadership.” - CNN's Jack Cafferty, who yesterday railed against Sen. Frist for bringing this amendment forward (source)

You have to love the sarcasm.

I received the following email today.

The Voice of Equality - Be Counted!

As you're well aware, there continues to be an ongoing heated debate about the issue of same-sex marriage rights in America.

In fact, on June 5, 2006 the senates is scheduled once again to vote on a proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution, which would literally ban same-sex couples from marriage.

With the recent launch of our new magazine, RainbowWeddingNetwork would like to know your thoughts on this very important subject!

Take the poll, if you’d like.

This is a letter I sent to Senator Bill Frist today. Feel free to send your own letter. It doesn’t take long and who knows, it may just get him to think a bit about what he is doing. It’s easy, just go here.

Dear Senator Frist:

You have stated the Senate will vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment during the week of June 5th. I urge you to reconsider this decision. This divisive and unnecessary amendment, would undermine the Constitution and has overwhelmingly failed each time the Senate has voted on it. The last thing the American people want is Congress reaching into a family’s private life.

The Senate should be working on real issues – not writing discrimination into the Constitution.

Senator Frist, I try to judge people on the content of their character. That character dictates the actions that they take. Will your actions breed bigotry, prejudice and division?

Our country faces monumental problems. Allowing committed gay couples to be married is NOT ONE OF THOSE PROBLEMS. Instead of introducing legislation that will instill fear and division, this is a time that our country needs strong leaders who will unify us. Dear Senator, we have more in common than we have in differences. If you will open your eyes, you will see that.

My partner and I have been together for 31 years. We are law abiding, tax-paying citizens of the United States. I want to ask you just one basic question. It’s not difficult, I promise.

How does giving my partner and I access to marriage effect your marriage, or any other heterosexual marriage?

I would like an answer to that question – a sincere answer well thought out without the baggage of politics. Because you see, I am not a political person. I am just an average Joe on the street who is trying to pursue happiness and protect my family with the protections that come with marriage. I deserve an answer to that question that is truthful without political baggage.

If you really want to “protect marriage”, the legislation you should be introducing would be to make it more difficult to enter into a divorce. Divorce rates are above 50% now and the last time I checked, not one homosexual couple has done one thing to make that statistic a reality.

It’s time for you to stop this effort of division. It’s time for you, Congress, and our President to look at the real problems facing this country. It’s time for all of you to take a close look at the content of your character.

Otherwise, come November, the voters will do it for you. I promise.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon
Coventry, Connecticut

And today, a Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. This will allow the measure to be debated in the full Senate. There was an interesting exchange between Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Senator Russ Feingold, D-WI.

WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee Thursday approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, not without a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him “good riddance.”

“I don’t need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

“If you want to leave, good riddance,” Specter finished.

“I’ve enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman,” replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. “See ya.”

Amid increasing partisan tension over President Bush’s judicial nominees and domestic wiretapping, the panel voted along party lines to send the constitutional amendment -- which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages -- to the full Senate, where it stands little chance of passing. (source)

Which prompted me to send this short note to Senator Specter, via his website:

Your comments today....

“I don’t need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I. If you want to leave, good riddance.”

All I can say is this... Your behavior today was childish and totally disgusting. We expect more from our elected officials - much more.

PLEASE GROW UP! ALL OF YOU!!!

ATLANTA -- A judge on Tuesday struck down Georgia’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying a measure overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004 violated a rule that limits ballot questions to a single subject.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell said the state’s voters must first decide whether same-sex relationships should have any legal status before they can be asked whether to ban same-sex marriages.

“People who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society may also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place -- although not marriage,” she wrote.

The single-subject rule in the state constitution “protects the right of those people to hold both views and reflect both judgments by their vote,” the judge said. (source)

It’s kind of nice to see one of the constitutional marriage amendments put in place by voters was struck down by a judge. Georgia’s amendment making it illegal for gay couples to be legally married has been given the ax by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell.

We’ll see how it all places out as the State of Georgia appeals the ruling. One way or another, I have faith in the people of Georgia to make sure that gays never see marriage.

ATLANTA - Georgia will appeal a judge’s ruling that struck down its voter-approved ban on gay marriage, and the governor said Wednesday he will call a special legislative session if the state Supreme Court doesn’t rule on the issue soon.

“I think the people spoke overwhelmingly. I think the people of Georgia knew exactly what they were voting for,” Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue said.

The constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was approved by 76 percent of the state’s voters in November 2004. On Tuesday, however, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell ruled the measure violated the Georgia Constitution’s single-subject rules for ballot questions. (source)

“I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue - a lot of sensitivity.

“I certainly don't know what conversations have gone on between Karl and anybody up on the Hill, but you know, what I can say is look, amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong.” - Laura Bush, on “Fox News Sunday” (source)