Gay Marriage: June 2007 Archives

Kent sent me this link and I just had to say something.

I remember this all quite vividly. In 2004, President Bush didn’t seem to have a problem with allowing states to give gay couples the benefits of marriage, as long as it was called something other than marriage.

“I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” the president said, just days before Election Day. “(S)tates ought to be able to have the right to pass ... laws that enable people to, you know, be able to have rights, like others.” Apparently either the president has changed his mind, or this position does not extend to the D.C. government.

Now, the Administration is saying that they strongly opposed to a D.C. Government bill that would afford gay couples in the District of Columbia the rights of marriage. “The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s exclusion of a longstanding provision that disallows the use of Federal funds to register unmarried, cohabitating couples in the District, to enable them to qualify for benefits on the same basis as legally married couples.”

Yesterday the Bush administration issued a veto threat of the House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act -- which funds certain federal government and DC agencies -- because of a domestic partnership provision to allow same-sex couples to qualify for the same benefits as straight couples.....

“The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s exclusion of a longstanding provision that disallows the use of Federal funds to register unmarried, cohabitating couples in the District, to enable them to qualify for benefits on the same basis as legally married couples. Under Federal law, legal marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Federal tax dollars are not used to extend employment benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees, and D.C. should not enjoy an exception to this rule. If the final version of H.R. 2829 does not include this longstanding provision, the President’s senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill.” (source)

So, I guess the President has changed his mind? Or perhaps, like so many other things, has simply fed us a pack of lies? Or perhaps, the President doesn’t really have a brain to work with and is simply relying on the likes of Dick Cheney (who tells the President what to think because the President can’t really put together a coherent thought anyway) to come to this conclusion. Surprising though if that be the case. I forgot that Dick Cheney is so supportive of his gay daughter and her partner friend/acquaintance.

Go figure. And here I thought that the Administration would be supportive of legal rights of gay couples for D.C. It’s not as if they are asking for “marriage”. They said they would be supportive of a “civil union”, or a “legal arrangement”.

They lied. AGAIN.

We are having a great time in Seattle. It's such a beautiful and wonderfully tolerant city. The last few days have been kind of surreal for me. Last weekend I was in Boston for Boston Pride, and now I'm in Seattle. And on Saturday, we leave for Olympic National Park. A lot of traveling and a LOT of photos over a short period of time.

What really made my day was a call from Kent that I received while at the top of the Seattle Space Needle. It was so beautiful up their and the views are great (photos to follow later). But what really made it special was the announcement that the legislature in Massachusetts has voted not to allow an amendment to ban marriage for gay couples to proceed to the November ballot, where it would have been voted on by the voters.

By voting down this amendment, the legislators have recognized that you don't put civil liberties up to a popular vote.

BOSTON — Massachusetts lawmakers threw out a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it.

The vote — which came amid heavy pressure to kill the measure from Gov. Deval Patrick and legislative leaders — was a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a historic 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

"Today's vote is not just a victory for marriage equality. It was a victory for equality itself," said Patrick, who had lobbied lawmakers up until the final hours to kill the measure.

As the tally was announced, the halls of the Statehouse erupted in applause.

The ban needed 50 votes in consecutive sessions of the 200-seat Legislature to secure a place on the 2008 statewide ballot. At the end of the last session in January it passed with 62 votes, but this time it garnered just 45. (source)

Rather scary if you think about it... the thing was only 5 votes short of passing! That is how fragile freedom and equality can be.

View entire photo collection of Boston Gay Pride, 2007

I has a great time at Boston Pride. I left for Boston Friday afternoon, and arrived at Jury’s Hotel in Boston. Here’s a photo just inside their lobby. (view set)

The wall was a cascade of water. I was really happy with Jury’s Hotel. It is a beautiful place and the rooms are awesome. But most important, when I wanted to go to the parade, I simply stepped out of my hotel, and the parade passed right in front of my hotel, which is why I had front row seats to the parade.

After settling in, I decided to take a walk before dinner. I walked a short distance to the Boston Gardens (view set).

The next day was the gay pride parade. I arrived a few minutes early. Like I said, it was literally two minutes from my hotel. It started at 12:00 noon, and lasted for an hour or so. (view set)

I was a bit surprised at all the churches that were marching in the parade this year. There were dozens. And it made me feel good that there are so many in the religious community that support equality for us, and our open to us as gay people.

But I think the underlying theme this year was what is to come in just a few days. The Constitutional Convention will once again, for the second time, vote on the issue of gay marriage. Last year, the legislature voted to put the issue on the ballot for the voters in Massachusetts to vote on. This must happen in two consecutive sessions (it’s not easy to change the Constitution of a state). This year will be the second time. If they vote to allow the issue to go to the ballot, the voters of Massachusetts will vote in November if the state will continue to honor marriage equality for gay couples.

What does this mean if this passes. It means that the marriages already performed for over 8,000 couples will remain intact. It means that no other gay marriages will be allowed. It also means that civil unions, domestic partnerships, or anything similar to marriage will be allowed. So, everything is at stake. This dark cloud of uncertainty was very present in this years parade and rally.

After the parade, I went to the rally (view set).

I suppose my favorite float was this one...

But I must admit, there was a lot of eye candy as well....

I had a great time. The only down side was that I was by myself. It would have been nicer if someone was with me, but Kent was in Switzerland. Then Tuesday morning, we are off to Seattle and the Olympic Peninsula for two weeks. A busy time for us.

View entire photo collection of Boston Gay Pride, 2007