Essays: February 2004 Archives

Today has been an emotional day for us. Today was the day that Kent and I went to our Town Clerk in Coventry, CT (where we live), to ask for a marriage license. Ironically, this is also the day the President of the United States backed a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

WASHINGTON - Acting to "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever," President George W. Bush yesterday called for a constitutional amendment banning states from recognizing the unions of gay men or women as marriage.

The president, responding to a flood of gay marriages in San Francisco and a court ruling mandating them in Massachusetts, said, "The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution ... honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. ... Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."

He's not my President. Not any longer. He does not represent me. He is a disgrace to the Office of the Presidency. The democracy that the Constitution upholds will be diminished by this amendment. I know the amendment will not pass, but using this issue and entertaining the idea of amending that great document to support discrimination is a disgrace for what it stands for. And for what? Simply to stir up his party to gather greater approval in the polls... at our expense.

This is exactly why it is so difficult to change the Constitution; to keep morons like this from tampering with it for their own gains. But I digress; back to our story....

I called the clerk last week, so they had warning that we were coming. I also told the clerk that I would be bringing a reporter from the Hartford Courant with me, who wanted to cover the story.

I received a call around 9:30 this morning from the Hartford Courant reporter that was covering the story. She said that she would meet us there at 2:00 and would have a photographer with her. With the President's endorsement this morning of an amendment to the Constitutional banning same-sex marriage, the story has become a larger issue.

We met them right before 2:00, introduced ourselves, and talked a bit. At 2:00, we entered the Town Clerk's Office. I asked the lady behind the counter for the Town Clerk. She said that she wasn't the Town Clerk, but would get her. She left momentarily and came back, telling us that the clerk would be right with us. I said to the lady, "I guess that you all expected us, right"? She smiled and said, "Oh yes, we were."

A couple of minutes went by, and the town clerk entered the room, went behind the counter and asked if she could help us. I introduced myself. I said the following: "Hello. My name is Bill Cannon and this (pointing to Kent), is my partner, Kent Holsinger. We are Coventry residents, and we would like to apply for a marriage license."

With that, she asked to see our driver's licenses. We gave her our licenses. She looked them over and returned them. I assume she was checking our address to make sure that we were residents of Coventry.

She then thanked us for stopping by and said, "I would love to be able to issue you a marriage license, but according to state law, I am unable to issue a license to you." She then handed us a pamphlet entitled, "MARRIAGE LICENSE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT".

All during this time, the reporter was taking notes and the photographer was taking pictures like crazy. It was kind of surreal, actually. We left the room at that point and the reporter stayed behind to ask the Town Clerk further questions.

When they emerged, we left the building, and talked outside briefly. The reported said that the story would run tomorrow in all editions. She asked us why this was so important to us. I told her that equal legal protection was a large part of it. There is no way that we can get the same legal rights that straight couples obtain through marriage the way things are now.

But more important to me than that is that we want to be seen by society as equal citizens. We are now second-class citizens, but we don't pay second-class taxes. Everything else is equal, but when it comes to marriage, suddenly, we have second-class status. And, if anything happens, such as a hospital stay, or one of us dies, nothing is assured. Hospital visitation is not assured, survivor benefits will not be there, inheritance is not there, bereavement leave from work will not be there, on and on.

I then looked at the reporter and said, "We are your neighbors. We are your co-workers. We are fellow citizens in the community. We want to contribute equally to our communities. We also want to be of equal standing in our communities as citizens, and as a couple."

I then shared with her a written statement that I had prepared:

In our desire to be treated as equal citizens in the State of Connecticut, we applied today for a Certificate of Marriage from the Coventry Town Clerk, where we reside. In accordance with state law, we were refused a marriage certificate.

Marriage is a commitment. It is about sharing, love, trust, and compromise. We have been a same-sex couple since October, 1975 and plan to spend the rest of our lives together. We do this today to show that we are just like you. We have a home, we love each other, we are devoted to each other, we work, we pay taxes, and we have the same hopes and dreams as anyone else. We want what is best for our family. We want the legal protection of marriage, and we would like our own state to at least recognize that as a family unit, we offer worth and stability to our state.

We worry about what lies ahead for us. If one of us should become sick or incapacitated, will the other be able to make medical decisions that married couples are automatically able to make? What will happen to the estate we have built together in the event one of us dies? Will the surviving partner be able to retain possession of the estate or will it go to the family of the deceased partner? Currently, we are viewed as “legal strangers” by the state and federal governments. We have no access to each others pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations, or inheritance that other long-term committed couples enjoy. We should end this discrimination.

Some argue that these rights can be gained by such documents as wills, power of attorney, along with other documents. I have seen such documents overturned in favor of the family of the deceased, leaving the surviving partner with nothing. I have seen cases where the surviving partner was denied access to visitation of his partner in the hospital because of family wishes. In some cases, when the hospitalized partner died, the surviving partner was not even allowed to say goodbye.

These issues are happening in this country everyday. With all the expensive legal documents that same-sex couples can obtain to try to protect the family they have created with their partner, the fact remains, there really is nothing that equals the protection of marriage. These legal protections have been incorporated over time into state and federal law.

Even civil unions pale in comparison. A civil union would be recognized in the state it was granted, allowing some or all of the rights of marriage, but only in that state. It would not be recognized in other states, or by the Federal Government. In addition, if you have a civil union in one state that allows them, then relocated to another state that has no such protection, you would loose your civil union.

Today we look back almost disbelieving on the time when many Americans did not tolerate marriage between Catholics and Protestants, or between blacks and whites. Unfortunately, our laws continue to deny the right to marry to committed gay and lesbian couples.

We are not asking people to change their religious beliefs. There are many things about modern society that religious organizations do not endorse. For example, we did not ask the Catholic church or other religions to accept divorce or birth control when they became legal in this country.

We are only asking for equal treatment. We are asking for marriage, because there is nothing equal to marriage in terms of legal protection.

I have been thinking a lot about the gay marriage battle going on. I let it get to me at times and I get very emotional about it. It's hard not to take it personally.

It's not like bad things haven't happened to us before. We all have had bad things happen to us. For me, losing my friends to AIDS in the 80's was terrible. Yet, I was resilient. Even when gay bashers had struck close to home, I dealt with that. Yes, a lot has happened in my life, but I've always been able to deal with it pretty well.

So why is this fight for gay marriage different?

It's different because in the 80's when my friends were dying of AIDS, we knew that society hated us and wanted us to go away. When our government did nothing for those with AIDS, our community developed a strong network of support to help those with AIDS. Later, that same network was used to help another hated group of individuals in our society, IV drug users. I don't think we were that surprised that our government didn't help us, because deep down, we never expected them to help us.

But now, I thought things were a bit different. I know I've changed tremendously. There was a time that I avoided straight people altogether, as if they were all the enemy. We lived in the Castro and for us, it was a slice of paradise. As my friends died one by one, this slice of paradise was no longer paradise. It became difficult to just go day by day. You'd open the Bay Area Reporter (the gay paper in the neighborhood) and see four solid pages of obituaries. You would read through them to see how many of them were people you knew. It was depressing.

When we moved to Connecticut, I was burned out on San Francisco. I have never gone back since. It was no longer a beautiful place for me. My only thought was, "I just hope that I can find some place that I can work and have money for food". I know, I didn't have very high expectations of life then. I wanted to be left alone. I had accepted that I was on the lower end of the societal spectrum. I didn't ask to even be a part of society, just to be left alone.

Over the years, I've changed. As I've gotten older, I've developed a trust for people. Most of my friends are straight. Society seems friendlier to us now and we are talked about much more openly in the press and entertainment industry. We seem to have come into our own and have started to have a visible impact on society. That's exciting to me. For the first time in my entire life, I feel like I'm actually part of this society. So, to me, not being able to marry is a big deal.

When I get upset over the opponents of gay marriage, I keep reminding myself to keep things in perspective. But last night I looked at Kent, and realized that for me, things were in perspective. I said to him, "This is personal."

It's personal because what is really going on is that the opponents of gay marriage are really saying that they want things to be the way they were; where we were marginalized and not really a part of society. Think I am overreacting? Just look at what the governor of Ohio signed into law yesterday; a super DOMA for the state of Ohio. It's not enough that Ohio is denying marriage licenses to gay couples. Ohio went a lot further. They will not even honor civil unions or domestic partnerships honored in other states or jurisdictions. The sponsors to the law boasts that no rights that currently exist have been taken away from gay couples. That's laughable since they don't have any now.

It's personal that they think our relationship doesn't merit being part of the fabric of society.

It's personal when they feel that it's "ok" for "real family members" to come in and strip away the dignity, respect, and property from my life partner when I die.

It's personal when they call my relationship to Kent an "abomination" when crafting laws that embed homophobia and discrimination into civil affairs. So much for the separation of church and state.

It's personal when my own President of the United States stands before a microphone and tells the nation that he will support and endorse the efforts of those who hate us into corrupting the one document that is the very cornerstone of our society, the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is clear about equal protection, and now that some are getting around to actually enforcing it, some don't like what it has to say. Equal protection is good, yes, but NOT FOR HOMOSEXUALS! Just for them, we need a constitutional amendment excluding them from marriage.

Yes, it is personal. I am right to be outraged. We all should be.