General: January 2006 Archives

This is wonderful news coming out of the State of Washington today. The State Senate passed a bill that will prohibit discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation. It would add sexual orientation to the other protected classes within the state.

This bill has been proposed and defeated over the last thirty years in the state. The shift of one Senator made this happen. I would like to salute Senator Bill Finkbeiner for changing his vote from last year, and voting in favor of this bill this year. His vote made the difference.

OLYMPIA -- The Senate today voted 25-23 to approve a gay rights bill and ended the debate over legislation that emerged in Washington the same year singer Anita Bryant began her “Save Our Children” crusade against such protections.

The bill would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, lending and employment.

Twenty four of 26 Democrats were joined by one Republican and approved the bill with a one-vote majority. [...]

Sen. Bill Finkbeiner, R-Kirkland, reversed his previous position to turn the tide this year.

“This has been a terribly difficult issue for me,” said Finkbeiner as he explained his change of heart.

“What we are really talking about here is...whether or not it’s OK to be gay or homosexual in this state. On whether or not it’s appropriate to be discriminating against or to discriminate against someone because of that.”

He said being gay or lesbian isn’t a choice.

“People don’t choose this. We don’t choose who we love, the heart chooses who we love,” Finkbeiner said.

“I don’t believe that it is right ... to say that it’s acceptable to discriminate against people because of that , because of who their heart chooses to love. I can not stand with that argument.” (source)

While we haven’t seen a detailed bill yet, the general idea is to recognize that long-term same-sex relationships do exist in Colorado. Because such couples aren’t allowed to marry, their rights and responsibilities are often murky.

This initiative would give members of gay couples the legal right to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners, protect inheritance rights when one partner dies and - most important - clarify rights and responsibilities when a couple breaks up.

That last point is vital. Some gay couples have children. But gay unions can break up just like heterosexual marriages can. When that occurs, state law should be clear as to the financial obligations and visitation rights of the former partners, using the legal yardstick of “the best interests of the child.”

This principle is so important than even the sponsors of the amendment banning gay marriage have elected not to specifically forbid civil unions. It is thus possible that the measure banning gay marriage and the law approving domestic partnerships could both pass next fall.

Possible, yes - but foolish. In our view, the state constitution is the wrong place to set social policy, let alone discriminatory social policy. (source)

Let’s think about this for a minute. Let’s remove gay people from the argument and pick on some other group who has been stigmatized in the past. Say, Jews or Blacks. Take your pick, it doesn’t matter.

Let’s then put it to the voters that an amendment will be proposed and voted on that will give certain rights to that group. The voters themselves would allow and deny certain rights to that group.

Can you imagine what would happen? Can you imagine how members of that group would feel? Yet, this is exactly what is happening to gay couples in Colorado and around the country (Virginia is about to pass their constitutional amendment banning ANY form of recognition for gay couples - it’s expected to easily pass). They feel that they don’t want to pass a full ban on marriage and civil unions - perhaps they feel that they couldn’t get it passed or that it would be “un-Christian”. But rest assured, it’s not out of any love they feel for gay couples.

People like this amaze me. A constitution in the United States of America should not be used to deny anyone equality. And if elected officials are unable to execute the demands of their office without bringing their own personal religious baggage into the equation and are unable to honor the separation of church and state, they should step down from office.

Yet, I’m hearing more and more all the time that many of these legislators are proposing these amendments because they view being gay as “a sin”. And, we tolerate that.

This from my home state of Idaho...

Supporters of a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Idaho are giving the issue another try this year, with a new conservative group called the Idaho Values Alliance leading the charge.

“The signal that we’ve gotten from legislative leadership on the house and senate side is they’d like to see an amendment go forward,” said Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Boise-based group. [...]

Legislative attempts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage have failed the past two years. A constitutional amendment must pass the house and senate by at least a two-thirds majority and win approval from the governor before being placed on the general election ballot.

Last year the Idaho senate blocked a measure that would require the state to recognize only marriages between one man and one woman. That measure also would have banned civil unions, which grant gay couples the legal rights and benefits of marriage.

Idaho already has a 1997 law banning same-sex marriage, but Fischer and other supporters say the amendment is needed too. He noted that in Washington State, the state supreme court is considering a challenge of Washington’s 1998 ban on same-sex marriage. “Because Washington State does not have a constitution that protects marriage, the state supreme court there may well issue a ruling any day now that would provide for gay marriage,” Fischer said. (source)

Yes, I know.... get over it Bill. Idaho is a hick state with “good ole boy” values, which doesn’t hold up much value for queers. OK! I get it. What I don’t get is the notion of people being so damned frightened of people like me wanting to commit to someone. Would they rather that we go to public parks for quick sex and go from sex partner to sex partner? Is that what they would prefer? I suppose they would rather hold on to the idea that we are sick perverted freaks than see us as people who want to get the most out of life that we can - just like THEM!

It’s people such as Gerry Sweet of Meridian who said that allowing gays to marry would fail to “protect marriage” and would “destabilize society.” Sweet adds, “We are under attack. The family is under attack. This issue is not about somebody’s chosen behavior. We’re not debating morals on the floor of this Senate. We’re debating the stabilities of families and the stability of society.”

In response to that, Boise Democrat Mike Burkett said, “There is no attack and at the very least there is no attack by gay couples simply trying to live a life of commitment and purpose.” (source)

So, it would seem that there are both sides of the issue in the Idaho legislature. Let us hope that enlightenment and reasoning will win the day. We still can’t get married there and gay couples living in Idaho have absolutely no legal protections at all. I know that gay couples live all over the United States. I would venture to say that, when they start getting older (50+ years), they start to look at moving where they will have more stability in their lives in terms of legal protections. It only makes sense. Not all will, but many, like myself, will start to worry about what protections you will have when you are most vulnerable.

It saddens me and makes me sick to think of what the actions of some have done to us, and want to keep doing to us. The way some of us have had to live our lives in the past is really a crime against humanity.

Mr kitsch’s said his stand was motivated in large part by his friendship with some gay couples.

“I know people who have been in homosexual relationships for 20 or 25 years and their relationship is as strong emotionally and in terms of commitment as any heterosexual relationship.

“I accept them as a couple socially. How can I go around to my friends’ place and enjoy dinner and accept them as a couple and then go into Parliament and express a different view? That would make me a hypocrite.

“If they asked me to promote their lifestyle, I would say No, but I will always defend their rights.

“I’m not doing this as an activist. I’m doing it out of respect for them.

“Those in gay relationships should not in any way be ostracized.” (source)

The greatest fear that the Christian Right have in their quest to deny marriage or civil unions to gay couples, is that people will get to know us. That scares the living hell out of them. And it should. If people get to know us, what will they find?

They will find that we have all the same wants and needs as they have. They will find that we want to be part of society, and not be seen as the sick freaks that most of society has viewed us for decades.

People want to make everything neat and tidy and to put people into categories. And the gay culture has in many ways contributed to us being labeled as “freaks” and “perverts”. We have been promiscuous and been told that it is “part of our culture”. We accepted that. After all, sex feels good and anything that feels good can’t be all bad.

And then we had the gay pride parades where we had beautiful “go go boys” dancing on a float wearing nothing but a thong. Then we had the drag queens, and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (gay men dressed up as nuns). At one time, we even had NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) as part of those gay parades, as though they were part of the gay culture. The list goes on and on. So we, in the gay community, are pitted against the reaction that this has stirred in the straight conservative world. The people we were pitted against used to be “straight America” - anyone straight would not understand “our culture”.

That has subsided to a large degree. Why? Because more and more of us are open to what we are; at home, at work, in all social interactions - we don’t feel the need to hide any longer. And many of “straight America” now understands that the gay pride parades and some of the outrageous things in the parade is not what we are “all about”. What we are mostly about is being just as boring and just as American as they are. In the end, we are all just people and we all want to be treated with dignity and respect. We have also started to adopt and have our own children. And along the way, we have distanced ourselves from NAMBLA and have labeled them as an organization that fosters child molestation in the name of civil liberties. Sorry NAMBLA, but that’s the truth. All of this means one thing; the gay culture is maturing.

Now, before you get all pissed off at me because it appears that I’ve just put down gay pride parades, boys in thongs, drag queens, etc., take a deep breath because that’s not what I’m getting at. And, it’s not what I’m saying.

I understand totally that side of our culture, and it is totally valid. But we have got to understand that expressing that kind of freedom in the face of people who know nothing about us is going to have a very negative reaction because people are very insecure about what we are. Also, most of America is starting to get it as well. I say this because it is getting more difficult for the radical right to sell their product - outright bigotry towards us.

They aren’t telling America anymore that we are “deviates”, because everyone knows that we are deviating from the norm; that being heterosexual sexuality. Today, the radical right is still trying to tell America that we are promiscuous, although that too is a hard sell because so many in the straight world are promiscuous. Everything has come full circle. They used to call us promiscuous. They used to say that we had a psychological disorder, until the American Psychological Association ruled in 1973 that we weren’t psychologically sick. They used to say that we were incapable of any long term “meaningful committed relationship”.

Now, the gay community has changed a great deal in our value system. I believe we now want more for ourselves. Many still are promiscuous in the gay community, just as the straight community. Many still do drugs, just as the straight community. But the value system of what defines gay versus straight is shifting, and is coming closer together.

We now dare to equate our relationships, some of which span decades, to that of straight couples, some of which last only weeks, or hours. We dare to want all the rights and privileges for our decade-long relationships that straight couples enjoy in their many short-lived marriages. And this is what scares the hell out of the radical right. Fairness demands that we be given these rights on a civil level. This has nothing to do with religion, even though our enemies are trying to make it an assault on religion. After all, it’s really all they have left.

“Be care what you ask for. You may just get it.” The radical right have always said that we were incapable of sustaining long lasting relationships and making a commitment. Now that we are asking for equality based on our relationships, they simply don’t know what to make of it. All they have left is biblical teachings on why our relationships should be denied rights at the religious and civil levels. The Constitution, in it’s current form (if the U.S. Supreme Court will continue to do it’s job), will not accommodate that. Yet, the Supreme Court is changing drastically. Here’s my prediction on how all of this will turn out.

More states will continue to add constitution amendments to their constitutions. We haven’t seen the last of this. Most will also add language to disallow civil unions or “anything similar too or resembling a marriage”.

At present, Massachusetts is the only state in the nation to grant gay couples a real legal full-fledged marriage. Yet, the Federal Government will not honor it as a marriage (a challenge just waiting to happen). Massachusetts is also waiting for a ruling from it’s Supreme Judicial Court (the same one that allowed for gay marriage in the first place) on the 1913 law that was created by prevent inter-racial couples from being able to marry in the state. The State brushed the dust off the law and is using it to prevent people like Kent and myself, who don’t reside in the State of Massachusetts, from going to that state and getting married. Then, we would be able to come back to Connecticut and challenge the State of Connecticut to honor our legal marriage. If this law is overturned, it would open the door to many challenges all over the country to laws (dogma’s) in other states preventing marriage for gay couples. This is why we see so many states changing their constitutions. I can’t predict the outcome of the 1913 law, but it seems like a logical thing for the Supreme Judicial Court to overturn because the law is being used for a different purpose from it’s original writing.

Out in Washington State, we have the same thing happening. Soon, the state supreme court will rule on the constitutionality of preventing gay couples from being fully married. This is exactly what happened in Massachusetts. But unlike Massachusetts, Washington State has no such law as the 1913 law. So, if they agree to allow gay couples to enter into marriage, we would be able to go their, get a marriage, return to Connecticut, and enter a lawsuit challenging the state to honor the marriage we have been given by the State of Washington. It’s also unknown how this will turn out, but gay legal groups are very optimistic about all of this.

Eventually, the United State Supreme Court will hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the individual state constitutions that deny equality in marriage to gay couples. My prediction is, with the current court in place and with current public opinion, they would rule against us and keep the state bans in place. This is what happened in Bowers vs. Hardwick. We lost that case, and years later, when the court revisited the case, the decision was overturned because public opinion had changed. I believe the same thing will happen to gay marriage with the U.S. Supreme Court. As public opinion changes, the court will revisit the case and will overturn it’s ruling.

But, this takes time. It can take decades. I believe that Kent and I will eventually be allowed a full marriage in the State of Connecticut, but I don’t believe we will live long enough to see our country honor that marriage. What will change this is for more of us do continue to live our lives with dignity, and to show people that we have more in common than we have in differences. This does not mean we have to give up our gay identity. It means that we don’t have to sacrifice our rights for what we are.

But the proof is in statements such as, “I know people who have been in homosexual relationships for 20 or 25 years and their relationship is as strong emotionally and in terms of commitment as any heterosexual relationship.” That is from a conservative who has changed his mind just by knowing and becoming friends with gay couples.

The bottom line is, it’s harder to discriminate against people when you actually are friends with the people you are trying to discriminate against.