It's Civil Marriage, Dammit

As happy as I am about marriage equality moving forward in DC, and as thankful I am to the religious leaders here who stood up for marriage equality, this is the wrong move.

It's hard enough already to separate civil marriage from religion and church from state in dealing with matters homosexual. Fenty is as clumsy as he is courageous.

Re-Asking the Same Sex Marriage Question

Polling guru Nate Silver points out that Americans are more likely to be okay with marriage equality if asked the right question. Via Gay Politics:


When gay marriage is polled, it is almost always framed as a positive right, as in: “should the government permit Adam and Steve to get married?"

But there is a different way to frame the question that is no less fair, and flips the issue on its head. Namely: “should the government be allowed to prohibit Adam and Steve from getting married?“. This is closer to the logic embodied by the court decisions in Iowa, California, Massachusetts, and other states. Those courts didn’t create gay marriage; they argued, rather, that it was already protected by their respective state constitutions.

Same Sex Marriage: The Slide to Man on Dog

It's starting.

Opponents to same sex marriage have warned that recognition of same sex marriage was flouting God's law.

I'm already seeing the consequences in my aquarium.

This morning, I witnessed an unnatural crab-on-snail encounter. My hermit crab, Obi-Wan, had mounted one of the snails. "Uh-oh," I thought. "There goes the natural order of things." I watched in horror as Obi-Wan went for some hot slimy snail sex.

Actually, on second thought, I think he was just eating algae off the snail's shell.

Whew! A close call for the universe! But if the California Supreme Court overturns Prop 8 today, I'll be rushing back to my aquarium with great trepidation.

And if I get a hit on this page because someone googles "hot slimy snail sex" I am going to be very frightened.

One Iowa

The Hawkeye state continues to show heart and leadership.

The Other Preacher at Obama's Inauguration

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, civil rights icon (he marched with King) and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He's an African-American pastor who has spoken out for gay rights and is in favor not only of gay clergy but of same-sex marriage (the latter making him more progressive than Obama).

And he's giving the benediction at Obama's inauguration.

And Lowerey's inclusion doesn't mean Obama's changed his position on gay marriage, any more than Rick Warren's inclusion means Obama's backed away from civil unions and the repeal of DOMA.

Policies matter more than prayers.

"Religion is a Lifestyle Choice"

Amen.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Thoughts on Prop 8

Fuck.

That's the short version.

That a majority can vote to stip rights from a minority is fucked up. That some people get to vote to invalidate the relationships of others is fucked up. That people who overwhelmingly voted for change by supporting Barack Obama also voted their homophobia is fucking infuriating.

I'm also mad at myself. I was so obsessed with the Obama campaign I didn't pay much attention until the end. So I made some donations, posted a few blog comments and sent a few emails. Looking at it rationally, there was nothing I could have done to change the outcome. The blacks and Latinos who flooded the polls also voted for discrimination. But I still feel like I could have done more, should have done more.

As goes California, so goes DC. We may have hope in the White House, but I can give up my hope that DC will follow California and pass marriage equality.

Perhaps gay rights hit its high water mark in my lifetime with the California State Supreme Court ruling. Our charge for full equality was soundly defeated yesterday. And I fear it's an electoral loss that will take a generation to overcome.

I am bitter. I want to declare I will never again attend another wedding. I will never perform in another wedding, as I have twice in the last year and a half. Until gays can legally wed in this country, let's stop attending their weddings, stop giving them gifts, stop making floral arrangements, planning their ceremonies and serving as their bridesmaids and groomsmen.

Fuck marriage.

Biden and Palin on Gay Marriage

In case you missed it, here's the part of the debate where Biden and Palin talked about gay marriage. A few points:

1) Realizing that straight people are in the majority in this country it still rankles when I hear them talk -- as Sarah does -- about "tolerating" us gays. I guess tolerate us like a skin rash that will eventually go away.
2) She implies "some of my best friends are gay." I wonder.
3) Biden pinned her down at the end as supporting full and equal civil rights for same sex couples as couples, the same as straight people get. Let's see how long that stands.

Gay Marriage Advances Again in Massachusetts

The MA House of Rep. voted to repeal the 1913 law preventing out of state couples from getting married there is their marriage at home is not legal. The Senate earlier agreed to this and the Gov. said he would sign it.

This means gay couples from anywhere can be married legally in the Bay State. This was an expansion of marriage rights enacted not by court mandate (aka "activist judges") but by the people's duly elected representatives. If California voters reject their proposed constitutional amendment against same sex marriage this fall that will be another electoral victory and yet another sign that legalizing same sex marriage doesn't mean sudden death politically.

So, let's review the bidding. We have:

• A possible 60 seat majority for Democrats in the Senate - meaning Republicans couldn't filibuster without Democratic defections
• The electoral expansion of same sex marriage rights elsewhere in the country
• A possible Democratic president who has said states should decide the marriage issue for themselves
• A DC mayor and city council that is on record in favor of same sex marriage

You'd think the time would be right for DC to recognize gay marriages.

Won't happen, though. Gay marriage will be legal in Mississippi before it is here in the capital of the free world.

Gay Marriage in Iowa

Shouldn't we expect more from our Democratic "allies" than this?

Obama vs. Hillary on Gay Marriage

In looking at the two positions between Obama and HRC (the person, not the gay fundraising arm of the Democratic Party) on gay marriage, I became interested in their inner thoughts about their positions.

First Hillary:

"[Gay marriage] is an issue that I’ve had very few years of my life to think
about when you really look at it, when you compare it to a whole life span. I am where I am right now, and it is a position that I come to authentically."

And:

"I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out," she said. "From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment."

Now Obama (from his book, the Audacity of Hope):

"No matter how much Christians who oppose homosexuality may claim that they hate the sin but love the sinner, such a judgment inflicts pain on good people -- people who are made in the image of God, and who are often truer to Christ's message than those who condemn them...it is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided...I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilictions and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

Knowing that Obama supports full DOMA repeal and the granting of all 1,200 federal benefits to gay couples in civil unions, I'm impressed with his expression of his doubts and at the same time addressing the public and religious aspects of the gay marriage debate so succinctly. The Hillary quotes were the only ones I could find that shed light (barely) on her inner thoughts. I wasn't looking for policy pronouncements here, but instead what each candidate was really thinking.

Obama's book made that easy for me. If there are similar such statement by Hillary, please pass them on.

Gay is not Black

Obama tried to make the claim that he knows what it's like to be ostracized as a gay person because he's black and has faced discrimination. Fair enough, to a point.

Here's the difference: black children who experience bigotry can come home to black parents who understand what it's like and who can relate and comfort. That's not the case with gay kids who know they are different and who hide their difference from mom and dad for fear of losing their love. That's a barren loneliness. That's why so many gay kids are more at risk for depression and suicide than their straight cohorts. And it's why thoughtful adults, like Obama, should not relegate gays to a second class status in our society. It sends a message: gay is not good enough.

Blame the Gays

I usually don't like to post videos that Andrew does, but I couldn't pass this one up.

NM Same Sex Couples Can Wed in Massachusetts

MA tells it's clerks to allow NM residents to apply for a marriage license, since NM does not prohibit same-sex marriage.

Hello, DC?

UPS Denies Health Benefits to NJ Couples

Even though UPS offers health care coverage of same sex spouses of employees in Mass., it denies them in NJ because the state uses the term "Civil Unions" and not "marriage" in its recent legislation giving gay couples legal recognition. One of the UPS drivers who was denied coverage for his partner said it best:

"It's upsetting," Walton said. "We were told this law was going to give us the same benefits as everybody else, even though they weren't calling it marriage. It just goes to show when something is separate, it's never equal."

The Times They Are a-Changin'

A poll by the New York Times/CBS News and MTV (free registration required) shows that the younger generation (17-29) is more favorable to same sex marriage:

Forty-four percent said they believed that same-sex couples should be permitted to get married, compared with 28 percent of the public at large.

I'm actually a little surprised it's not higher, but this is still encouraging. The era of the 'phobes is coming to an end.

Columbia Becomes First Latin American Country to Recognize Civil Unions

Viva Bogata!

Interesting, isn't it, that a third world country offers its gay citizens more equal rights than many states here in the land of the free provide. With bold exceptions like Massachusetts, we are losing our designation as leader of the free world, becoming the laggard of the free world.

The Fight in Mass

Dale Carpenter recounts the battle and its signifigance.

A Changed Vote on Mass. Gay Marriage

A Democratic Massachusetts state Senator explains why she switched her vote from anti-gay marriage to pro:

Same gendered couples are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, who are important community contributors, well-loved and well-respected by their families, friends, neighbors and employers. They deserve and are entitled to the same legal protections enjoyed by all others citizens of our state. This is the law of the Commonwealth, articulated by our Supreme Judicial Court in Goodrich v. The Department of Public Health, decided in November, 2003.

Despite dire predictions, there has been no adverse societal impact from this decision and most people now express little concern about same gender marriage.

Springfield and Western Massachusetts needs these families, and all our families, to help rebuild our neighborhoods and the peaceful and productive society to which I know, whatever our differences on some things, we all aspire. As a practical matter, I believe we simply cannot afford to marginalize our human resources. Most importantly, I feel strongly that no child should ever be made to feel "less than" or "second-best" nor should any of our children be exposed to a public campaign focused on adult matters of personal privacy. There is altogether too much unseemly information brought into our homes and schools already. It is in the best interests of our children that we accept fully these new families.

You can read her entire statement here.

A Conversation About Gay Marriage with W

The New York Assembly appears ready to pass a gay marriage bill (there those activist legislators go again). It's unlikely the Senate will pass it, but it's still an important step.

I'm spurred by the anti-gay-marriage comments to this news to re-post something I wrote and posted when I first started this blog: "A Dialogue Between Me and George W. Bush on Gay Marriage." I only had one reader then. Since then I've doubled in readership, and, being particularly proud of this post, I'm doing it again. I know W. is no longer on the forefront of active anti-gay marriage legislation, but he's sort of a stand-in for every anti who can't really defend their position. And when you get down to it, none of them really can.

Here's the conversation It's long, but I hope it makes some points:

One Afternoon in the Oval Office

Me: Thank you, Mr. President, for meeting with me.

Bush: You’re welcome, quite welcome.

Me: Now, we can probably agree, Mr. President, that we are fighting in Iraq to bring more freedom abroad, right?

Bush: You said we wouldn’t discuss Iraq – I’ve been reading your Blog. He-he.

Me: Well, I thought that was something we could both agree on.

Bush: Right. Well, yes, we removed a terrible dictator, Saddam Hussein, who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. Horrible dictator. But we got him. And there’s a safer world because of it. And the Iraqis are more free. Or will be once they stand up so we can sit down.

Me: But if we’re sending our soldiers over there to fight and sometimes die in the name of freedom, why are we holding back the cause of freedom here at home?

Bush: Excuse me?

Me: I’m talking about your support of a federal amendment against same sex marriage. Currently gay couples are denied the freedom to marry – and all the rights and responsibilities that go with that freedom. And you want to enshrine that prohibition into the U.S. Constitution. That’s anti-freedom.

Bush: No, it’s pro-family. The union of a man and a woman is one of our most important institutions. Honored in all cultures and religious faiths. Marriage promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Me: I agree. So why lock me and my partner out of such an important institution?

Bush: I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

Me: Why?

Bush: That’s the way it’s always been.

Me: You’ve read the Bible, haven’t you, Mr. President?

Bush: I read the Bible and pray to the Lord every day. I’m the guy who said that Jesus was my favorite philosopher.

Me: I heard that. Anyway, have you read Genesis 32:22?

Bush: Uh, not lately.

Me: It says Jacob – you know, Abraham’s grandson to whom God told that the descendants of Abraham would inherit Canaan. Anyway, it says there that Jacob had two wives. So’d his brother Esau. Now God must have thought that was okay, ‘cause He talks a lot about how much He likes Abraham’s descendants. God even changed Jacob’s name to Israel so he’s the namesake for the country and his countrymen. But Jacob’s marriage was not between one man and one woman. And God didn’t seem to care.

Bush: Well, things were different back then…

Me: Exactly! The institution of marriage isn’t immutable…I’m sorry, un-changeable. It changes with society. In fact, Esau’s wives were given to him in exchange for labor he provided for their father. Marriage used to be all about property. It’s changed, now, Mr. President. It’s about love. It’s about providing for children when children are present. And it’s about society supporting the union of two people that will make them more stable and more productive.

Bush: uh…the problem is these activist judges

Me: Excuse me, Mr. President, but – the irony of you using that term aside – these so-called activist judges are making decisions based on litigation brought to them by Americans questioning their denial of rights. It’s the judges’ job to make these decisions – a job given them by our Constitution.

Bush: These activist judges are making decisions the people should make.

Me: I’ll go along with that. I’ve made a decision to marry a man. He wants to marry me. We’re people. We made a decision. But the law won’t let us.

Bush: Legally recognizing your, um, your, relationship with another man would undermine the sanctity of marriage.

Me: Oh, please, Mr. President…straight people don’t need any help from gays in undermining the “sanctity” of marriage. Need I say “Bill Clinton?” “Britney Spears?” And shows like, “who wants to marry a millionaire?”

Bush: Allowing same sex marriage would make it worse.

Me: How and why? Where is your proof?

Bush: It’s a well known fact – and I don’t mean any disrespect to you – that gay people are promiscuous and unstable.

Me: Well, -- oh, hey, Mr. President, that little room right there, off the Oval Office, that’s the private study where Clinton and um, well…?

Bush: Ah, yes. (clears throat) You were saying?

Me: When you married Laura, did the county clerk do a background check on you?

Bush: No, of course not.

Me: Well, assuming for a second that you are right in your sweeping generalization about gay men, which I will address in a minute, why subject us to a higher standard than straights have when getting a marriage license? We allow any straight couple to get married, regardless of their likelihood of fidelity, their ability to be productive members of society and to actually care for their kids. If you’re straight you get a blank check, regardless of your behavior. Yet, here you’re saying gays can’t marry because you assume we behave in a way you don’t approve of. If a philandering gay man cheating on his partner undermines marriage, doesn’t a straight man cheating on his wife? What are you doing about that?

Bush: Well, we…

Me: And, so you’re saying, Bill Clinton’s affairs, excuse me, “problems” in his marriage made you love Laura less.

Bush: Of course not!

Me: And it made you more likely to seduce interns?

Bush: This is getting a little personal, here. No, I would never do anything like that. I brought dignity back to the White House. I love my wife. Nothing is going to change that until the day I go to the Lord.

Me: Amen, brother. Your relationship is none of my business, and forgive me for bringing it up…but I’m glad you’ve affirmed my assumption that the love that led you to make a lifelong commitment to someone isn’t undermined by the actions of someone else. You’re not shallow in that.

Bush: Thank you.

Me: Now, let’s talk about your homophobia.

Bush: Hey, now, I was hoping we could have a good discussion without bitterness or anger.

Me: Oh, so sorry, Mr. President. Um, let’s see; let’s talk about your pre-disposed negative image of an entire class of people that leads you to make decisions that hurts them. Better?

Bush: Yes, thanks. I think.

Me: Mr. President, do you know any gay people?

Bush: Well, I suppose over the years I’ve known a few.

Me: Like that crazy slut, the vice president’s daughter?

Bush: Hey, now, Mary Cheney is a fine person. Laura and I are very fond of her.

Me: So she doesn’t fit the description you used earlier about gay people?

Bush: Mmmm, well, no, she doesn’t.

Me: Do any of the gay people you’ve known over the years fit that description?

Bush: Now that you mention it…I guess not.

Me: Mr. President, gay people are no different than straight people. We have our champs and chumps. We deserve to be treated the same, no better or worse than anyone else. That’s what this is all about.

Bush: Wait a minute! Children! Marriage is about the children! And gay people don’t have children.

Me: My partner and I have a two-year-old son.

Bush: But that’s artificial.

Me: My turn to say, ‘excuse me?’

Bush: I don’t know how you had a child, but two men can’t have a baby. You had to uh, go get one.

Me: So, what you’re saying is that couples who have kids by means other than giving birth themselves don’t deserve the stability and support of legal marriage, to help that child?

Bush: I don’t think I said that.

Me: But if marriage is only about children – and you defined it as children acquired through the traditional biogenetic birth process, within the marriage – then all the straight couples who adopted or who don’t have kids shouldn’t be married?

Bush: No, I’m just saying marriage assumes there will be kids and it’s for the kids.

Me: Right. And my son deserves no less than to see his parents supported in legal matrimony.

Bush: He could have it; you just need to find the right woman.

Me: There is no “right woman” for me Mr. President. Is there a “right man” for you?

Bush: Well, I think pretty highly of Dick, but I don’t think of him in that way…

Me: Well, there’s something else we agree on, Mr. President! Oh, you meant Cheney. Sorry. But my point was, our society doesn’t expect you to condemn yourself to a lifetime of misery by marrying someone who can’t meet your physical and emotional needs – who can’t help you be happy. That’s what so many gay men have tried --- to hide their gayness inside a sham marriage. If we legalized same sex marriage, you be helping to end those sham arrangements and bring MORE sanctity and honesty to marriage, and help these poor men and women who spend their lives in quiet despair find stability and happiness.

Bush: Can we talk about Iraq? He-he.