Gay Marriage: August 2006 Archives

Out in Arizona....

Proposition 107, the Protect Marriage Initiative, seeks to amend Arizona’s Constitution so that an existing ban on same-sex unions would be strengthened.

But those who oppose the proposition say its negative repercussions would extend far beyond the gay community.

Arizona law bans same-sex marriages, but this initiative would bolster the law by preventing judges from overturning it in the future.

Protect Marriage Arizona, a pro-Proposition 107 group, said the initiative seeks to protect the traditional family.

The amendment would define marriage as being between a man and a woman and prevent unmarried persons from receiving any legal status that resembles that of married couples.

James Quinn, facilitator of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Queer Coalition at ASU, said Proposition 107 would affect children, single parents, senior citizens and domestic partnerships. [...]

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, out of the 118,196 unmarried couples in Arizona, 12,000 were homosexual partnerships.

That means approximately 106,000 heterosexual domestic partnerships in the state would be affected if the initiative passes. (source)

This is from a college newspaper. So, I will try to excuse their naiveté when it comes to understanding issues that don’t directly effect them. I have such little patience for it because I, if I can use myself as an example for a moment, don’t just care about issues that effect my community - the gay community. I care about people who suffer from cancer, depression, and other ailments. I am passionately against discrimination against other people, even when I am not a member of that group.

So when someone says...

“According to the 2000 U.S. Census, out of the 118,196 unmarried couples in Arizona, 12,000 were homosexual partnerships.

That means approximately 106,000 heterosexual domestic partnerships in the state would be affected if the initiative passes.”

...I find that rather insulting and infuriating. It’s telling me that, since this will effect heterosexuals also, we should not pass this amendment. In other words, I can assume from that, that these same people would think that it’s ok to let it pass if we could only contain it to heterosexual couples.

Bullshit - all of it. But Arizona is not the hot issue here.

Discrimination against a targeted group of people is a black mark on the society it resides in. It shows that the weakest minds will succumb to the mob mentality of the majority against the minority. It doesn’t matter if it’s the right thing to do or not. All of that goes out the door.

And I will probably have to abandon a bit of my integrity when I go out to visit Kent’s parents this spring because of it. I will be visiting a state that has told people like me, in no uncertain terms, that I am nothing. Can I do that? Am I a big enough person to rise above it all, for them? Will they even realize that I gave in against my principles for the higher purpose of love? You see, I put little faith in the principles of my fellow Americans anymore. I fully expect this amendment to pass. And then, I guess their marriages will be so much stronger for it.

And after the dust settles, what is really missing in this argument is love. People are so bent on blaming one group for all the ills of marriage, when that group has never been involved in marriage in the first place. We’d like to be. Many of us lesser beings would like to give it a try. But we can’t. You will make sure of that.

Grant Jones, a gay sophomore understands the issue, and got it right.

Grant Jones, a microbiology sophomore who is in a same-sex relationship, said if the initiative were passed it wouldn’t affect him right now, but it could have a negative impact later on.

“In the future, I want to get married, and I think I should have the right to visit my loved one in the hospital if they get sick,” Jones said.

Jones said he thinks marriage shouldn’t be a primary focus for the government right now because there are bigger issues taking place.

“This is singling out people who have a different set of beliefs when there are so many more horrible things going on in the world,” Jones said. “I mean, aren’t we at war?”

Yes, we are at war. And, to cover up all our horrible mistakes; torture at the hands of our own troops, a genocide that we helped to orchestra under the guise of “freedom”, the tactic to be used to cover up and divert our attention from all of that is to divide and conquer. Find an easy target (gays or illegal immigrants) and set them up for a fall to create a diversion.

The “protection of marriage” from the dregs of society (gay couples), is such a diversion.

Didn’t we do this at least once before? We, or is it “they”, should be down right proud of ourselves, or is it “themselves”? I don’t know. We are no longer one people. We are sub groups pitted against each other. All the while, we tire of hearing about the conflict in Iraq, which is “getting a little better each day”, the threat of Iran, and where hell did the problem with Korea go?

No, we don’t have time for those problems right now. Right now, we still need to take time, right up to the November election, tearing people down and putting them in their place. And after this is done, the people in Arizona, and Idaho, and Michigan, and Ohio should sit back and ask themselves the following questions: Do you feel a bit better about your marriage now? Do you feel more secure that your family is now safe from the threat against your marriage? Do you feel better about yourself now that you have stepped all over the equality of a less significant group? Will this strengthen your marriage to the point that you will no longer seek that divorce?

Hey, it’s the American Way after all. It used to be about caring for each other. And this was back in Idaho where I grew up. Or, were we just hateful and prejudiced people then also, and I just didn’t notice it?

And while all of this is happening, our eyes are not on the real target. Think about it.

Nothing is as it seems.

On June 26, 2006, Eric Rofes died of a heart attack. I didn’t know Eric. I knew his partner Crispin when he lived in Connecticut. When Crispin moved to San Francisco, we lost touch. It was a strange thing for me because when I heard that Eric had passed away, the article mentioned that his partner was named “Crispin”. I did a search to find out more information, wondering if the “Crispin” they were referring to was my old friend, since the name is rather unusual. It turned out, it was, and I have written about it.

What I didn’t know is what Crispin had to go through after Eric died.

Eric and Crispin were of course at the forefront of the Gay Marriage movement. They had long held Californian domestic partnership, and also married when (briefly) we believed that San Francisco law permitted us to do so. They had made for one another all the necessary legal arrangements: powers of attorney, mutual wills, etc etc. All their bases were covered, so they thought. As soon as he heard the news, Crispin had flown straight out to Provincetown, where Eric died, to make funeral arrangements. A friend who accompanied them said that when Crispin began to detail the requirements for the cremation and commitment at the funeral home in Provincetown, the funeral director drew himself up and demanded to know what the basis of their relationship was. He told Crispin: “I don’t believe you will be making the funeral arrangements”. It required the intervention of NGLTF lawyers and lawyer friends on both coasts to convince the funeral home that he was indeed authorized as a legal partner to make the arrangements. Crispin requested an autopsy, which was contested by the Medical Examiner on the same grounds, and the cremation was subsequently questioned as well (they called during the funeral to argue the case with Crispin).

This stands as a lesson to all of us. We are continually told that as Queers, we do not need to be allowed to marry because all legal avenues of partnership are open to us as domestic partners. For Christ sake- this happened in Massachusetts! They had the gall to question a 16 year old relationship, legally bound as far as two gay men can go. At a time when Crispin was utterly bereft and distraught they had the temerity to impugn his and Eric’s relationship, which was as closely legally covered as they could make it. (Eric’s family, by the way, have too much respect for Crispin to intervene- they would not, I think, dream of subverting his moral authority to decide the arrangements). (source)

I swear, the world is so damned unfair. For people out there who are legally married, I hope the hell you know and understand what that marriage gave you in legal terms. For the rest of us, we have to go through this crap. Sorry. I said I wasn’t going to harp on the protections of marriage, but I’m so pissed right now because this happened to a friend of mine, and it was so f****** unnecessary. This is happening to real people every single day.

What they did to Crispin was just cruel.