Gay Marriage: July 2006 Archives

In the last entry I made called, “One More Point For Bigotry”, I made the following statements:

Well, I’m losing my hope for a just society in the United States. I’m on my way back to the United States today from a place that does put a value on us....

We are the most hypocritical nation on the face of this earth. I’m just losing hope. I have to regroup mentally and put myself in a better place than this. It was the perfect welcoming message to me from a country who just doesn’t give a shit about us.

All true. I take none of it back.

But I have done some soul searching, and this trip to Europe has been a large part of that. There are countries in the world where we are hanged for being gay. There are countries in the world where we have full acceptance. I was there where gays are accepted when I got the news about Washington State.

But none of this just happens. In places like Amsterdam where full marriage is legal, I realized that not so long ago, things were very different in Amsterdam, for gays and Jews. I realized this after I went through the Anne Frank house. I don’t know how to describe that experience in words. The house is now surrounded by a shroud and can’t be seen from the outside. Once inside, you can see a model of the house as you slowly start stepping through the rooms.

As you enter each room, there are narratives from people who knew Anne. The most haunting room for me was entering the hiding place, behind the bookshelf. The bookshelf was made to move away from the wall. Once it was moved, there was a small passageway that led into a hidden room in the back. The room was dim. It was a hot day. There was no air conditioning. Nothing had been changed in the room. And around the room were pictures that Anne had put up in an attempt to brighten the room a bit - to take her away from her experience. And, at the end of the tour, you enter a room, and in the center of the room, encased in glass, was her diary.

The Nazis finally did find the family. Anne was sent to a concentration camp and learned of the death of her sister and after a time, lost hope that any one in her family was still alive. She basically gave up on life. A month after her death, the camp she was in was liberated. And, the great irony is that if she could have just held on a month longer, she would have realized that her father was still alive.

And during this time, gays were also being sent to concentration camps as well. In the concentration camps, the Jews wore the yellow star. They gay men wore the pink triangle (hence the symbolism of the triangles in the “Homo Monument”). They were the most abused and considered to be at the lowest end of the human chain. Few survived. And when the camps were liberated and the Jews won their freedom, the men with the pink triangle were left to face further abuses from their liberators. Their liberators were the allied forces (the United States was one), and many of these men were not set free.

This all happened in Amsterdam where marriage between a gay couple is now fully legal.

So, in that light, I have hope that things will change. I have hope that people will eventually find their way out of bigotry. As Anne Frank stated, “I believe in the goodness of man”. I don’t. I wish I did, but I believe that the nature of our species has a tendency towards self destruction and hatred for what is different. I see it everywhere and I see very limited examples of what I would truly call “goodness”.

African Americans today don’t want to equate our struggle for equality with them. It’s as though you somehow have to suffer more to earn equality. Or, it should only be dished out to a privileged few. The irony is that if Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, I believe he would have taken on our battle for equality and fairness. Coretta Scott King felt the same way. A few of his words...

“People talk about the white backlash ... Now, my answer to this question is that there is really no white backlash, because that gives the impression that the nation had decided it was going to solve this problem and then there was a step back because of developments in the civil rights movement. Now, the fact is that America has been back lashing on the civil rights question for centuries now ... The backlash is merely the surfacing of prejudices, of hostilities, of hatreds and fears that already existed and they are just now starting to open.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

So it is with us. The backlash is going to continue for a very long time to come - certainly past my lifetime. I have made a choice that I am no longer going to take this battle upon myself. I said this some time ago, because I simply take it all too personally. It is personal, we are fighting against being second-class citizens and being denied a huge spectrum of legal protections. At some point, this country will have to decide if the words in the Constitution actually mean something, or, if the document is crap. Right now, the Fourteenth Amendment is being applied, where it’s convenient. Eventually, the glaring truth will emerge that we will either follow the Constitution, or do away with it because, since it demands equality, it’s a big pain in the ass to live with.

My giving up on this has also been in stages. It’s hard for me to accept that our country is as bigoted and ignorant as it is. I’m coming around, but it’s taken time. I am doing more with photography and writing less about the whole marriage issue. My goal is to completely stop talking about it and if I’m really lucky, stop caring about it.

With us being at home again, I have come to realize that marriage is not what any church or government has the power to offer. Marriage is what two people have together. Kent and I have built a life together and we are so lucky to have what we have. Nothing can take that away from us.

Finally, we got home Friday morning at 3:10am. It was a grueling trip home, with a six hour layover in Washington, D.C. We had a flight from Washington, D.C. to Boston. Once we arrived in Boston, we had a two hour drive home. The following day, we unpacked and I got busy getting Kent ready for his next trip. He left for California this morning at 4:00am. for almost a week.

So it’s been busy and now that I am able to relax a bit, I find myself totally exhausted, but in a good way. I have very fond memories of Denmark and The Netherlands. I’ve posted the photos of Copenhagen and Amsterdam. All that is left is our stay in Århus, Demark. I hope to complete that this weekend. That was the final three days of our trip. Århus is the second largest city in Denmark. It is a bit slower than Copenhagen, but equally charming. Hopefully, the photos will speak for themselves.

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- The Washington Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on gay marriage Wednesday, dealing the gay rights movement its second major defeat in less than a month in another liberal-leaning state that had been regarded as a promising battleground. [...]

In a 5-4 decision, the court said lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, and it left intact the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act. [...]

“There aren’t words to describe how hurt people in the gay and lesbian community are. There’s a lot of tears and a lot of anger right now. Emotion is raw,” said state Rep. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat and one of four openly gay state lawmakers.

The state Supreme Court overruled two lower courts that had found the ban violated the Washington Constitution’s “privileges and immunities” section.

The gay-marriage ban “is constitutional because the Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival,” Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in the controlling opinion.

However, Madsen and other members of the majority invited the Legislature to take another look at the “clear hardship” that the ban causes for same-sex couples.

In a dissent, Justice Mary Fairhurst said the majority improperly bowed to public opinion. “Unfortunately, the (majority) are willing to turn a blind eye to DOMA’s discrimination because a popular majority still favors that discrimination,” she wrote. [...]

“There’s still hope in the long run,” Sims said. “I still dream for a just society.” (source)

Well, I’m losing my hope for a just society in the United States. I’m on my way back to the United States today from a place that does put a value on us. Kent told me about the decision last night. I was filled with a lot of emotions; anger mostly, great disappointment, resentment, betrayal... but most of all, the real mockery in all of this is the fact that the United States claims to be the land of equal opportunity, fairness, and equality. Those are just words - noble words - signifying NOTHING.

We are the most hypocritical nation on the face of this earth. I’m just losing hope. I have to regroup mentally and put myself in a better place than this. It was the perfect welcoming message to me from a country who just doesn’t give a shit about us.

I’m sorry to leave such a negative message, but this how I feel right now. I’ve been reading “Why Marriage Matters”, by Evan Wolfson. It details everything that our families lose out on because we don’t have access to marriage. I was going to finish it on my way back to the United States. Now, I’m feeling like I should just throw it in the trash can. I wish the court would have read it. But then again, as always, I suppose bigotry would have won the day.

HARTFORD, Conn. --Gay and lesbian couples have not been harmed by the state’s decision to legalize same-sex civil unions rather than grant them full marriage rights, a state Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday.

The plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling to the state’s highest court.

“Civil union and marriage in Connecticut now share the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law,” Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman in New Haven wrote. “The Connecticut Constitution requires that there be equal protection and due process of law, not that there be equivalent nomenclature for such protection and process.” [...]

Ben Klein, senior attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the organization that represented the couples, said Jenkins Pittman is misguided in her belief there is no difference between civil unions and marriage.

“Not many married couples would trade in their marriage for a civil union,” Klein said. “The legislature set up civil unions to deny the benefits of marriage. Marriage is the most respected institution and (state legislators) did not want gay couples to get access to marriage.” (source)

Kent and I didn’t get a civil union because we find it to be degrading to our relationship. As Ben Klein said, if civil unions are so damned equal to marriage, why aren’t more straight couples opting for them? I’ll tell you why. Because the federal government will not honor a civil union. They aren’t equal by any stretch of the imagination.

But the judge is right... at the state level, no harm has come to gay couples... except for our dignity and the right of being in a second class status.

What’s the price tag on that?

I received an email from Anne Stanback, of Love Makes A Family. Anne put it this way:

Judge Pittman ruled that because of the passage of the civil union law in 2005, the lack of access to marriage by same-sex couples presents no “legal harm” and is therefore not unconstitutional.

Judge Pittman got it wrong in a different way from the New York Court of Appeals who said that marriage is about procreation and that heterosexual couples make better parents…but she got it wrong nonetheless.

And what is most galling is that she uses the passage of the civil union law against us!

We can be heartened that the language of this decision is sympathetic to our community and clearly acknowledges that same-sex couples are deserving of the same legal benefits and protections that married heterosexual couples receive.

But Judge Pittman makes the mistake of implying that marriage is nothing more than a bundle of rights:

“Until now, there has been no equivalent institution that conveys to its participants the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage. And it is surely these underlying rights, benefits and responsibilities with which substantive constitutional law is concerned, rather than with the nomenclature that is used to define those rights.”

She also makes the mistake of downplaying the power and significance of marriage as an institution:

“Being married no longer carries the cultural or social weight, for good or ill, that it did in decades past.”

“The plaintiffs nonetheless argue that because of the historic and continuing cultural significance of marriage to most people, this court must recognize their right to be admitted to that institution, and that institution alone. Nostalgia for past traditions ought not bean impediment to the current acknowledgment of basic civil rights.”

Try telling any heterosexual couple who has just gotten engaged or is planning their summer wedding that being married no longer carries “cultural or social weight.” Try telling them that their excitement is merely “nostalgia for past traditions.”

Try asking a heterosexual married couple if they would be willing to trade their marriage for something called a civil union. Or try imagining where we would be in this country if the U.S. Supreme Court, in striking down interracial marriage in 1967, had designated another “nomenclature” other than marriage for interracial couples.

And, of course, try telling same-sex couples who are on the outside looking in, that exclusion is not a “legal harm.”

What does Massachusetts and the state of Virginia have in common? Right now, not much. One is supposedly very liberal and one is supposedly very conservative. But at least some of that may change in the future.

Today, the Massachusetts legislature will be having a constitutional convention where they will be voting on several issues, among which is whether to approve an amendment that would stop gay couples from getting married, in the only state so far that allows marriage.

Because this amendment was created by voter referendum, the votes needed to allow this amendment to pass the first hurdle is a mere 50 votes. Because the voters put this amendment to the legislature, the simple majority is no longer needed. The amendment, if the legislature makes time for it, is expected to pass.

If it passes, we would wait a year until the next legislative session. The legislature would again have to come up with 50 votes for the amendment with no changes. If that happens, it would be approved to appear on the ballot in November, 2008.

But let’s look at the amendment just a bit. If approved, it would stop all future marriages by same-sex couples, but allow those same-sex couples who currently have a marriage license to keep that license. In addition, the amendment makes no allowances for civil unions.

One would hope that would sway the legislature from voting for it, but that is not expected to happen. And I would like to think that if they do approve this amendment, that they would have a full year of soul searching before they finally tell same-sex couples once and for all that their relationships don’t amount to a hill of crap.

So, if the amendment passes and finally becomes law in 2008, Massachusetts will have at least one thing in common with the states of Texas and Virginia; they will all three give same-sex couples no legal protections what so ever, no social recognition, and no way to achieve any sort of social protection/recognition even with the second-class “civil union”.

That is of course if the legislature has time to vote on it.

BOSTON - House and Senate members today will likely recess a joint session before they can take up a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a move that would anger supporters and cast doubt on the future of the measure.

The joint session, called a constitutional convention, is expected to attract hundreds of activists on both sides of the issue to Beacon Hill. If legislators recess, it could stall plans for a ballot question in November 2008 to ban gay marriage.

Senate Minority Leader Brian P. Lees, R-East Longmeadow, said yesterday he expects legislators to recess before taking up the proposed gay marriage amendment, listed as the 20th item on today’s agenda. (source)

We live in interesting times.

I just received two emails - one from Equality Virginia, and one from Love Makes A Family. Both are telling me that the New York Court of Appeals has ruled, in a 4-2 decision, that gay couples to not have a constitutional right to marriage equality.

The part of this that hurt me the most is this statement: “The New York Court of Appeals does not dispute that marriage is in the best interests of children. But they say that the legislature could rationally believe that it is more important to support stability in opposite sex relationships than in same-sex relationships.”

What does it say to young gay people when our government says through words, and now actions, that their relationships just don’t count for much? What does that say to the fight against AIDS? I lost many of my friends because there was very little promoting monogamy and stability. That’s just the truth. If everyone is telling you that you are worth less, pretty soon, you start believing it yourself. I know I have.

ok... I am going back to work now. If I work long enough hours and concentrate really hard on this really boring and intricate “budget analysis”, perhaps I will forget that I just don’t count for much.

Email from Equality Virginia

(Richmond, July 6) Today, Equality Virginia reacted with disappointment to the news that the high courts in both New York and Georgia ruled against full marriage equality rights in two separate cases.

In the first and highly anticipated case, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state constitution does not guarantee a right to marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples, and stated that it is the responsibility of the legislature to change the law.

And in Georgia, the Georgia Supreme Court reinstated the so-called “marriage amendment” passed there in 2004. The unanimous decision overruled a lower court’s decision that the ballot question violated the state’s “single subject rule” requiring that ballot measures cover only one issue. The amendment in Georgia banned civil unions and domestic partnerships along with marriage equality rights.

“It is a sad day in the march forward for full equality under the law when courts can’t see the reality of the discrimination that we continue to face,” said Dyana Mason, Equality Virginia’s Executive Director. “Nonetheless, both of these rulings underscore the importance of a victory at the ballot box this fall against Virginia’s so-called ’Marriage Amendment.’”

Email from Love Makes A Family

Dear Bill,

I am disappointed to report that by a 4-2 vote, the New York Court of Appeals has just ruled that “the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the legislature.”

The New York Court of Appeals does not dispute that marriage is in the best interests of children. But they say that the legislature could rationally believe that it is more important to support stability in opposite sex relationships than in same-sex relationships. They further state that the legislature could rationally believe that it is better for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.

In our opinion, the New York Court got it wrong!

Not only is the court at odds with the majority of New York voters who support marriage for same-sex couples, but it is also at odds with every major child welfare organization in this country that is on record as saying that children raised by same-sex couples are in every way as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as those raised by opposite-sex couples. The American Academy of Pediatrics, in fact, just came out this week with an extensive statement supporting marriage for same-sex couples because of its benefit to children. [...]

In closing, I don’t want to overlook a ray of hope that appeared today in the dissent by Chief Judge Judith Kaye who wrote: “I am confident that future generations will look back on today’s decision as an unfortunate misstep.”

I share Judge Kaye’s confidence and believe that both our Connecticut courts and our Connecticut legislature will not make the same misstep but will stand on the side of equality and fairness.

Sincerely,

Anne Stanback
Executive Director