Gay Marriage: May 2008 Archives

I took Kent to the airport this afternoon. He is away to South Africa for three weeks. He travels a lot. I'm usually not so bothered by his leaving. This time, it was different for me. This really has affected me. I worry. I'm sad he's gone for so long. I went over everything maybe six times... did you remember this? did you remember to do that? do you have this packed?

It was nervous energy really. You live with someone as long as we have, and you tend to get comfortable with having each other around. It's like having and old friend around. Or feeling the warmth of the sun on your back. So when that leaves you, you are sad. But in a way, it shows me how lucky we are. After all this time together, I must love him so deeply to be so protective and concerned. He is quite simply... my life. I love him.

I'm going to spend my energies working towards my vacation to Idaho in mid June. I leave June 14th (will miss Boston Pride this year), but something had to give. The schedules just weren't working out. So, I'll leave Hartford June 14th and come home on June 21st. Hopefully, it will be a time of meeting old friends, catching up with family, and talking about what's happened since I saw them all last.

A HUGE victory today in California for marriage equality. The state Supreme Court overturned California's Proposition 22, which stated that the people of California only view marriage as "one man, one woman", and that gay couples can have a "domestic partnership" instead. For years, gay couples have been trying to over turn Prop. 22. Indeed, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed attempts to strike down Prop. 22, saying that it was the will of the people to restrict marriage from gay couples, and he didn't want to usurp that decision.

Today the Supreme court struck down Proposition 22, and the idea that domestic partnerships were good enough. This has huge implications. Unlike Massachusetts, California has no law stating that you can't be married there if your home state will not recognize that marriage. Massachusetts has a law from 1913 stating such. It was created to prevent interracial couples from getting married in Massachusetts. It was never enforced until the Judicial Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that gay couples could get married in Massachusetts. Then, the 1913 law was enforced by the state (thank you very much Governor Mitt Romney). Which is why gay couples from outside of Massachusetts cannot go to the state to get married.

California however, does not have such a law. This means that couples from Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Montana, Connecticut, and all the other states can go to California, get married, and return to their home states and insist that their marriage be honored according to the full faith and credit clause in the United States Constitution.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

In simple terms, y'all play nicely with each other and respect each other's laws. It will be interesting to see where this goes. And, it will be interesting to see if this ruling has any impact on the ruling that the Connecticut Supreme Court will soon deliver in exactly the same issue.

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A same-sex marriage ban prevents governments and universities in Michigan from providing health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The 5-2 decision affects up to 20 universities, community colleges, school districts and governments in Michigan with policies covering at least 375 gay couples.

Gay rights advocates said the ruling was devastating but were confident that public-sector employers have successfully rewritten or will revise their benefit plans so same-sex partners can keep getting health care.

The ban, a constitutional amendment approved in November 2004, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."

The court ruled that while marriages and domestic partnerships aren't identical, they are similar because they're the only relationships in Michigan defined in terms of gender and lack of a close blood connection.

Voters "hardly could have made their intentions clearer," Justice Stephen Markman wrote, citing the law's "for any purpose" language.

Dissenting Justices Marilyn Kelly and Michael Cavanagh countered that statements made by backers of the measure before the election suggest they only intended to prohibit gay marriage, not take away employment benefits.

The dissent also noted that gay partners who qualify for health care aren't given other benefits of marriage — equal rights to property, for instance. [...]

At least 27 states have passed constitutional bans, mostly since 2004 in response to gay marriages being performed in Massachusetts. At least 18 of those states, including Michigan, have broader amendments that also prohibit the recognition of civil unions or same-sex partnerships.

"It's a sad day in Michigan when we decide which children and which families are valuable enough to cover," said Tom Patrick, 50, who gets health insurance through his partner, Dennis Patrick, a professor at Eastern Michigan University. (source)

Well.............................

It's been awhile since I felt the urge to write about "marriage equality". But I felt that this was at least worth a mention because of how nasty it is. I've distanced myself from this fight considerably. Not because of all the energy it takes out of me, but because I'm so extremely disappointed in the majority of people in this nation. I mean, what kind of nation separates out one specific group of people for this kind of scrutiny. Yes, I know... we have done it before with other groups. But don't we ever learn?

To the gay couples in Michigan who are losing their health benefits because of the sanctimonious self righteous bastards who passed the so-called marriage protection amendment, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you live in a state populated by people who can let this happen to supposedly "protect marriage", while many of them are out getting divorces and what not.

I honestly think that if this happened in Connecticut and one of us lost our health benefits because of this, I think we would start looking for another place to live. Losing your health benefit coverage is no small deal. You can talk to me all day long about how you want to protect marriage from the likes of me, but when you start taking that to the level of cutting people off from health coverage... well, it becomes quite personal.

I say leave the state. They've made their point. For the people who want to stay and put up the fight for change, my hat is off to you. I just hope that you are young and in good health, because with the cost of medical care these days, you are playing a dangerous game.

In a larger sense, this is a black eye on the state of Michigan. I'm sure that the state will lose people because of this, and those who are considering jobs at one of the universities or state agencies there will think twice before agreeing to have no access to medical benefits for their partners.

I suppose everything equals out in the end.