Gay Marriage: October 2006 Archives

Have you ever noticed that we live in a world of circles? We win something. But we really didn’t win anything. But we convince ourselves that we did win something. So to keep these winnings, the organizations fighting for our rights ask for money -- lots of money -- to help combat the “forces of evil”. So we all give them the money. Then we find out that the organizations fighting for our rights have settled for second best anyway because they realize that we would most likely never get the rights we should have because we are such a small minority and are lucky that they (society) just keeps us around.

To hide the pain of that reality, we create “reality shows”, showing that we are at least good for window treatments and makeovers of one sort or another -- all part of that creative thing that queers are supposed to be so good at -- kind of like how blacks were so good at collecting cotton in the cotton fields (see a pattern?). Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was all about making heterosexuals look better along with a few laughs (at the expense of gays) that just brought home the stereotypes that most gay men are effeminate wimps.

So we end up being second best, or losing completely. And then the next battle begins, and we win something, or at least have the promise of winning something. So to keep these winnings, the organizations fighting for our rights ask for money -- lots of money -- to help combat the “forces of evil”. And on and on............

This week, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that gay couples should be given equal rights and that this discrimination must end. Gay couples had civil unions in the state that granted them a very small number of rights. The Court said that wasn’t good enough. It therefore ordered the legislature to deal with the issue, and gave them 180 days to do so. The Court stopped short of ordering the legislature to give us full marriage, and call it “marriage”. So, before the ink is even dry and before the legislature has even gathered, there’s already talk of forming “civil unions”, and avoiding the word “marriage” where gay couples are concerned. And, in this make believe world that we live in, we will call that “equality”. Also, in this make believe world that we live in, we will call this “a victory”. BALONEY!!!!!!!!!

And this has happened because gay couples have been reduced to having to resort to these tactics to get around the legal difficulties our families face because we have no access to the protection of marriage.

The Vandenbergs, who live in Mill Hill, a gentrifying neighborhood in downtown Trenton, have formed a family with another gay couple, John Hatch, 44, and David Henderson, 48, who live a block and a half away and have been together 18 years.

In a 20-page parental contract signed by all four of them, Mr. Hatch and Mr. Henderson each agreed to be the biological father of one of the Vandenbergs’ children, to give up his parental rights so the biological mother’s partner could adopt the child, and to share in parenting responsibilities.

In other words, a contractually constructed partnership of four adults to raise the children. (source)

Where is the outrage in crap like this? It’s not with us. At what point do we take a more aggressive tactic that will state “NOT GOOD ENOUGH!”?

President Bush stated, “Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage. I believe it’s a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.”

President Bush, if you really believe marriage needs defending so damn much, then pass a constitutional amendment making divorce illegal, moron. It’s really funny that when a court rules in favor of equality for gays, they are called an “activist court”, and when they deny us equality, they are merely “doing what they are supposed to do.”

Then we have people who say that a civil union is marriage by another name. Tell you what. You take a civil union and I’ll take your marriage. As long as you are ok with your civil union not being honored by the federal government, or portable from state to state, that shouldn’t be a problem for you, should it?. Other than these small points then yeah, I guess civil unions are equal to marriage. I know, details. But hey, it’s just a label -- marriage by another name. What’s to be afraid of. We won! YAY! Strike one for our team!! What have we really won?

Nationally, nothing. In the State of New Jersey, gay couples will now enjoy equality at the state level only, with heterosexual couples, be it in the form of “civil unions” or “marriage”. That is good news for those couples. But even if the state does call it “marriage” rather than “civil unions”, those couples will enjoy nothing from the federal government, or be able to carry that civil union or marriage to another state because of the Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level.

So really, all we are doing here is playing with labels. Why are we playing this game? Because a lot of people in this country still have bigoted and misplaced views about gay people in this country. So, we skirt the issue of true equality by putting a fake label on what we have, and then pat ourselves on the back by saying “this is true progress”, when in fact, it’s still business as usual.

So now that we are playing the label game, we might as well see it for what it is. And to sum this up, I turn to New Jersey Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz, who stated in her dissenting opinion that it was important for gays to have the word “marriage” in their vernacular:

We must not underestimate the power of language. Labels set people apart as surely as the physical separation on a bus or in school facilities. Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences Ultimately, the message (of restricting the name “marriage” to male-female unions) is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant.

Exactly.

In 180 days, we will find out if the New Jersey legislature will give us the label of “marriage”. But, there is already speculation that they will avoid doing the right thing and will opt for the safer label of “civil unions” (hey we are on the bus at least -- but have to sit in the back of that bus). It’s business as usual, and our community will most likely, along with various “gay rights” organizations say, “ok. Well, thank you for your time.” And the circle continues as we tell ourselves... it’s just a name.

I received the following letter from my Congressman, Rob Simmons:

October 25, 2006

Dear Bill:

Knowing your opposition to efforts to ban gay marriage, I wanted to update you on my views on the subject.

Since coming to Congress, I have consistently opposed measures that would prohibit gay marriage. Most recently, I voted against H.J. Res. 88, the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment,” which would have amended the U.S. Constitution to specifically define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am proud that my opposition to this short-sighted measure helped prevent it from gaining the necessary two-thirds vote for passage, failing by a vote of 236 to 187.

I oppose bans on gay marriage because I believe state legislatures should be free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements for gay couples, without interference from the federal government. In fact, had such interference been in place, it could have prevented Connecticut from becoming only the second state to allow homosexual couples to enter into civil unions, allowing them to receive virtually all of the benefits of marriage. In short, banning gay marriages would weaken our families rather than strengthen them.

Rest assured, as your Congressman I will continue to oppose this and any other constitutional amendment that discriminates against American citizens.

Thanks for taking the time to read this update. Should you have any questions or concerns about this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Also please feel free to visit my website at Rob Simmons.

All the best,

Rob Simmons
Member of Congress
Second District, Connecticut

My reply...

Dear Congressman:

I just received an email from you. In that email, you stated,

“I oppose bans on gay marriage because I believe state legislatures should be free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements for gay couples, without interference from the federal government. In fact, had such interference been in place, it could have prevented Connecticut from becoming only the second state to allow homosexual couples to enter into civil unions, allowing them to receive virtually all of the benefits of marriage. In short, banning gay marriages would weaken our families rather than strengthen them.”

Living in Connecticut, me and my partner of 31 years can now legally enter into a “civil union”, but we have chosen not to. Why? Because they are second class. You can argue that we have made the choice not to enter into a civil union when it was offered to us, but the fact of the matter is, “civil unions” are not the same as marriage, and we refuse to label ourselves as second class by entering into the inherently second class arrangement of civil unions. If they were equal to marriage, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD HONOR THEM!

Yet, I hear NOTHING at the federal level, from you or anyone else, that will give gay couples the ability to have access to their partners’ social security survivor benefits, tax benefits, retirement savings, home protection (laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing-home bills), nursing homes (married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes), pensions (after the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant - so surviving same-sex partners get no pension support for their surviving partners. Any pension dies with the worker), family leave to care for a sick partner, inheritance rights (when a married person’s spouse dies, the survivor can automatically inherit a substantial share from the deceased spouse’s estate regardless of whether a will exists)....

The list goes on and on. In fact, there are 1049 rights and privileges at the federal level afforded to marriage that a state civil union or a state marriage (Massachusetts only) will not allow us to have because of the national Defense of Marriage Act.

So, your email really fell on deaf ears because I would really like to know what action YOU are taking to get the disgusting Defense of Marriage Act off the books so that my partner and I, along with millions of other gay people, can finally have a chance at true equality?

That is what you SHOULD BE ABOUT.

From you...

“In fact, had such interference been in place, it could have prevented Connecticut from becoming only the second state to allow homosexual couples to enter into civil unions, allowing them to receive virtually all of the benefits of marriage.”

That’s a lie. Civil unions do nothing of the sort. They are not portable from state to state as marriage is, and, because of the Defense of Marriage Act, even real marriages afforded to gay couples by the State of Massachusetts are not honored at the federal level because of that act. You should know this. When former Congressman Gerry Studds died weeks ago, his spouse was completely shut out from receiving the Congressman’s pension (as a married couple would have access too), even though they were legally married in the State of Massachusetts.

Get your facts straight, and write to me again when you are really serious about leveling the playing field for gay couples against discrimination.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon

Tomorrow at 3PM, the New Jersey Supreme Court will issue its ruling on Lewis v. Harris, the same-sex marriage case brought by seven gay and lesbian couples. My sources all predict a victory for gay marriage advocates, which would make New Jersey the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize gay marriage. They point to the court’s liberal record (including its ruling in the Boy Scouts case), as well as the timing of the announcement. It will be the last decision released before Chief Justice Judith Poritz retires, so the expectation is that it will be a momentous one. (source)

This ruling will happen TODAY at 3:00p.m. At 3:00 today, I’ll be going to some private place, and giving a moment of silence for hope -- the hope that another small part of our nation will give us a sliver of equality.

Jolting the gay-rights movement back a step, a divided state appeals court Thursday upheld California’s ban on same-sex marriage and warned that judges should steer clear of resolving the controversy.

The bulky ruling set the stage for a long-anticipated showdown in the California Supreme Court and dashed the hopes of gay-rights advocates seeking to gain legal recognition for same-sex couples across the state. The 2-1 decision by the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal overturned a trial judge who last year found the state ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

The justices made it clear that it’s up to the voters or the Legislature to decide if gay couples can wed, not the courts.

“The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions,” Justice William McGuiness wrote for the majority. “That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat.” (source)

And here I thought that the role of the judicial system was to interpret constitutional law. Boy was I wrong.

The state constitution either demands equality, or it doesn’t. Either way, for the court to say that it’s up to the legislature to handle is a cop out. What happens if the legislature does nothing? What avenue do citizens have then?

Some people feel that we should not carry this to the U.S. Supreme Court, because they feel that we would lose. I say, take it to the Supreme Court. Let them rule that in this day and age, it is still perfectly fine to have second class citizens in this country. At least then, we will have it in a formal ruling that some citizens are not equal to others. That will be what America has become about -- inequality.

And again, I’m merely reporting my opinion on this. I actually no longer invest emotional baggage in this, and I’m happier for it. I just feel that it speaks volumes about where our country is today. You can be against gays and gay couples, but the larger picture here is the endorsement of a second class standing in this country for some U.S. citizens.

Is that what America is going to be about now?

And over in New Jersey...

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine will not approve legislation banning gay marriage if the state’s highest court rules that such unions are legal, a Corzine spokesman said yesterday.

The Democrat governor has said marriage should be between a man and a woman and has not voiced support for legalizing gay marriage, but the comments by his administration was a key indication of potential fallout from a pending state Supreme Court ruling on same-sex unions.

“If the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is constitutional, the governor would not sign legislation to take away people’s rights,” said spokesman Anthony Coley on the same day gay marriage opponents rallied at the state Capitol. (source)

A ruling in New Jersey is expected by October 25.