Washington DC gay rights under federal attack

As you may know from civics class, the District of Columbia lives in a bizarre never never land where they are officially supervised by the Congress of the US--a Congress in which the DC residents have no representation, as they have no House or Senate member. They only were allowed limited self-governance with a mayor and city council in 1973. And darned if that DC city council didn't decide to recognize gay marriage. So Congress Has to Do Something. From Salon:

Some threats, apparently, are grave enough to justify throwing any principle out the window..... A group of conservative House members who believe in limiting federal involvement in local affairs introduced legislation Thursday that would block Washington, D.C., from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere in the United State. The bill would overturn local legislation that the D.C. Council passed last month. The nearly three dozen small-government conservatives who sponsored the House bill evidently decided the risk of letting gays and lesbians marry was far more dangerous than whatever evil might come from letting the federal government muck around with local business.

So much for consistency, principles, and justice. Poor DC is probably not surprised, but fortunately most people don't think this posturing will get very far.

Humorous videos

Speaking about "The Producers", when he was asked why he made jokes about Hitler, Mel Brooks commented something along the lines that ridicule is an extremely effective weapon against evil. In addition to fighting the lunacy of the anti-GLBT bigots, our side has used humor as an outlet, an expression, and to fight back. I've collected some of those videos and will continue to update this page as I find ones that amuse me. Some of these are pretty funny, not all of them are safe for work, and a few of them may be offensive to the humor-deprived.

The LIcense: what if civil marriages really WERE Biblically traditional?


Sex with ducks: what gay marriage inevitably leads to.


Betty Bowers explains Bible Based Marriage.


The GayClic Collab Against Homophobia


This one used a photoshop image that I made of LOLcats in response to the NOM video. A Kossack made the video, but since she started with my image, I include it here.


Another one suggesting you should be careful throwing stones from vitreous houses....


The classic: Prop8 The Musical

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from Jack Black

The Tipping Point

From Sunday's SF Chronicle:

Let us hereby be reminded, before sadness and frustration overwhelm once more: Proposition 8 and its ilk are merely the last, fitful gasps of a long-dying ideology, markers of a certain kind of sad, conservative desperation. They are the final clawings and scrapings of a reactionary worldview that attempts to outlaw and punish all it cannot, will not understand. Same as it ever was, really.

...... According to FiveThirtyEight, marriage bans like California's are losing support at a rate of about two percent a year. According to that model, more than half of U.S. states will vote against bans like the contemptible Prop 8 as soon as 2012, if not sooner. ....

You could say, then, that we are, right this minute, at the tipping point. You could say that very soon indeed -- sooner than many people expect, in fact -- we will all look back on this inane gay marriage hysteria and wonder, what the hell was that all about? What the hell were we thinking?
......
Do not misunderstand: Setbacks like this Prop 8 decision are painful and even cruel, and the gay couples and activists who've been at the forefront of the fight since the beginning are nothing short of heroic. Like civil rights activists of any stripe before them, the subsequent generations who will take gay rights for granted will have them to thank forevermore for paving the way and fighting the good fight.

What's more, there is still an enormous amount of work to be done, new referendums and protests and fundraisers and awareness-raisings. The change will not come without help and push. Hate and homophobia still seethe in myriad pockets of the culture and the populace at large....

But these setbacks are not insurmountable roadblocks. They are merely obnoxious speed bumps on what social conservatives see as our nation's ungodly highway to hell. They only slow us down a little.

A new campaign in the fight for marriage equality is already taking shape. Evolution is happening, the energy and momentum are unstoppable. Simply put, the ignorance and homophobia that fueled and funded Prop 8 in the first place will not stand.

Read the whole thing.

True colors

Because now and then, we all need a little soppy romance. Because it's supposed to be about love, and I'm attending a wedding today. Needless to say, not a same-sex one.

Frank Rich scolds Obama

Writing in last Sunday's NY TImes, Frank Rich takes Obama to task:

[T]he changes aren’t coming as fast as many gay Americans would like, and as our Bill of Rights would demand. Especially in Washington. Despite Barack Obama’s pledges as a candidate and president, there is no discernible movement on repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy or the Defense of Marriage Act. Both seem more cruelly discriminatory by the day......

The Democrats do have the votes to advance the gay civil rights legislation Obama has promised to sign. And they have a serious responsibility to do so. Let’s not forget that “don’t ask” and DOMA both happened on Bill Clinton’s watch and with his approval. Indeed, in the 2008 campaign, Obama’s promise to repeal DOMA outright was a position meant to outflank Hillary Clinton, who favored only a partial revision.

So what’s stopping the Democrats from rectifying that legacy now? As Wolfson said to me last week, they lack “a towering national figure to make the moral case” for full gay civil rights.....

“This is a civil rights moment,” Wolfson said, “and Obama has not yet risen to it.” ..... Relegating fundamental constitutional rights to the bottom of the pile until some to-be-determined future seems like a shell game.

As Wolfson reminds us in his book “Why Marriage Matters,” Dr. King addressed such dawdling in 1963. “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait,’ ” King wrote. “It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ ”

The gay civil rights movement has fewer obstacles in its path than did Dr. King’s Herculean mission to overthrow the singular legacy of slavery. That makes it all the more shameful that it has fewer courageous allies in Washington than King did. If “American Idol” can sing out for change on Fox in prime time, it ill becomes Obama, of all presidents, to remain mute in the White House.

Meet in the Middle

On Saturday May 30,take a road trip to Fresno for Meet in the Middle: take the discussion to the heartland where the battle must be fought. Check the website for facebook and twitter connections, carpools, etc. THere is an explicit request for people of faith. California Faith for Equality (CAFFE) is sponsoring a "Faith Tent" at the Rally to show the media that many faithful people support marriage equality.

More good news: EQCA called me last night--not for money, but to sign me up for phone banking and canvassing. (I didn't ahve my calendar handy but we will definitely be part of this.)




Update: the long hard slog to repealing 8 begins on a march from Selma to Fresno.
Photo LA Times

So if CA Domestic Partnerships are like marriage....

One of the few good things we can pull out of the decision on Tuesday--okay, maybe the only good thing-- may be the court saying that all they got was the word. The Court SAYS that aside from the designation, that otherwise gay couples should have a relationship that is basically the same as marriage.

So, it's time to start asking questions. Because right now, we know it's not.

Here's my first question: how come you don't get them the same way?

Here's how you get a marriage license (obl disclaimer: I am one of the 18,000)

1. Must go personally to county office with check
   
2. County officer sits down with you to review rules
   
3. Get married within 90 days with an appropriately certified person performing marriage (JP, Clergy, or one-day-commissioner)
   
4. get witnesses to sign
   
5. Submit for filing
   
6. receive copy of official filed version

Right now, getting a DP is like a notarized dog license (obl discl: I don't have one, but I looked it up on the website)

1. Download form
   
2. Go have it notarized at Kinko's
   
3. mail in with a check.
   

So if they are the same rights and responsibilities, really, shouldn't they have the same licensing requirements?

It sounds trivial. But if they claim it's the same, damn right we should make sure it's the same. SAME requirements for a licensed "presider". SAME requirements for witness. SAME DAMN FORM provided at the SAME PLACE.

There are other restrictions. DP's must currently share a residence; straight couples, not. Dissolution is different. Portability is non-existant (my marriage is recognized in several other states and numerous countries. A DP, not.) All of these differences must be eliminated. Will they be the same then? HELL, NO. The court in New Jersey found that civil unions are not the same, and indeed, our own court found just a year ago that the Word Matters.

BUT we should make them stick to what they said. They SAID it was the same. C'mon people. It's going to be 2010 before we get this back. Let's get everything we can in the meantime and prove the point. I want those fundies spending their money in court trying to keep us from getting our rights, so their bigotry is clear to see.

Is it time for a Federal suit?

We all are angry at Prop8, and the willingness of the justices to throw our rights to the mob. Of course, everyone has had to wrestle with the fact that Our Side argued against Prop8 on very narrow grounds of constitutional law ( "Amendment" vs "Revision") rather than on equal protection grounds.

The reasoning goes that arguing on equal protection grounds opens up federal issues, and since gays are not protected against discrimination nationally, this puts us at risk before a federal bench.

Let's remember that until the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in Lawrence v. Texas, just a few years ago (2003), a gay couple in some states could be arrested in their own home for making love. And 17 years before Lawrence, in Bowers v Hardwick, the court had held explicitly that such arrests were completely legal, that private acts between consenting adults could be criminalized. Many people believe that decriminalization of private behavior would have come sooner, without Bowers on the book. Still the court is no friend to gay rights. Justice Scalia complained bitterly that Lawrence would open the door to bestiality. And the Court is more conservative today than it was in Lawrence.

So everyone is reacting with some dismay to the news that two high powered attorneys are challenging Prop8 in Federal Court under US Constitution equal protection grounds. Because if they lose, it could be like Bowers, and set us back. Federal courts are conservative-dominated, thanks to 8 years of ideological Bush appointments.

And what's with the attorneys? Ted Olson and David Boies faced off before SCOTUS in the Bush vs Gore election battle. They don't have a record of any interest in GLBT issues. Olson, who was Bush 2's solicitor general, is if anything heavily tainted by his service in that administration. By this I mean I do not trust any Bush administration associated attorney with no record in this area. Is this is cynical ploy to shut the door on GLBT rights at the federal level? Or do they really believe?

I have my doubts.

Update: Excellent overview of the issue from a DailyKos diary. Another and very interesting set of views from Pam's House Blend.

What's next? A call to action.

I set up this blog because I suspected (as many did) the outcome we just saw: Prop8 upheld, and the 18,000 marriages "grandfathered in". I want to use this blog as a way to bring the 18,000 together, because we are the most important ambassadors for gay marriage in the state. We need to get it on the ballot in 2010, and then we need to win, against an onslaught of hate from conservative churches and out of state interests.

Both Equality California and the grassroots Courage Campaign are getting "boots on the ground" around the state. EQCA has hired new organizers and is setting up new field offices in places where the vote against us was strongest. The Courage Campaign has been running "Camp Courage" to train local activists. I really hope that these two groups and others are coordinating with each other.

We know what to expect this time. We will build better bridges to all the communities in California. Our religious allies will be more vocal. We will fight back against the hate.

But we, the 18,000 have to lead the way. We have to meet people, to show them that our marriages are no different than anyone else's. We have to be the witness for change as Harvey Milk called us to be.

Wear the button. Put on the bumper sticker. Start the conversation. Be the change. And tell your story!

They may not have won what they think they won.

Are you tired as I am, of the mob rule proponents? You know, the ones who say "majority rules!" It's pretty clear that they are lacking some fundamental understanding of our Constitutional democracy. The courts and the Constitution are essential to protect the rights of the minority from mob tyranny. This is why the minority consents to be governed.

There is a US State Department site that explains this concept, for those who have a problem grasping it, from a document called Principles of Democracy.

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

• Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

• Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate – enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

• Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity....

• Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

So, let's be clear. The California Supreme Court has made a decision that these Principles of Democracy do not apply in our state. They have upheld the tyranny of the majority and crushed the rights of the minority. They have failed in their constitutional role to protect us. And this was spelled out explicitly in Justice Moreno's withering dissent.

So, they have set a dangerous precedent that ANYONE'S rights are subject to modification by majority vote-- ANYONE. That means left-handed people, redheads, Mormons, the disabled, and any other definable group can have their rights legitimately eliminated by the mob.

BUT: Prop8 supporters did not win what they think they did. Because the court did say clearly that all this applies to is the term "marriage". The actual rights-and-privileges of marriage are still to be available to gay and lesbian folk, just not the name--that is an explicit statement that "whatever it is called" is a marriage in ALL but name. If the H8ers wanted to eliminate all the benefits of marriage from gays, then Prop8 would have been a revision, and unqualified. To qualify as an amendment, the effect of Prop8 must be limited to the name "marriage".

Think about it. This means that there must be state forms that include the DP'd folks: "Single or Married/unioned". This means that kids will learn that there are marriages and DPs in school, and yes, teacher may invite them to her wedding (because they didn't take the name wedding, just the name "marriage"). This means that under law, GLBT "whatever you call its" WILL be treated the same as "marriage" .

Prop8 is still wrong, of course, and the court did fail. Separate is not equal, and we must over turn it. But I wonder how long it takes The Forces of H8 to figure out that they didn't really succeed doing what they thought they were doing.

As the expression goes, the arc of history may be long, but it bends towards justice.

From the dissent

Yay, Justice Moreno, who had been suggested as a SCOTUS candidate. I suspect his chances for that are scuppered by this dissenting opinion:

Under the majority’s reasoning, California’s voters could permissibly amend the state Constitution to limit Catholics’ right to freely exercise their religious beliefs (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4), condition African-Americans’ right to vote on their ownership of real property (id., § 22), or strip women of the right to enter into or pursue a business or profession (id., § 8). .....

Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification. The majority’s holding is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. This could not have been the intent of those who devised and enacted the initiative process.

In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.

Wherever you are, join the Day of Decision rallies throughout CA and across the country.

The Decision, 2

(UPdate) The commentators are starting to speak up. It may have a few peeks of silver. For analysis, go to LawDork, or to Word in Edgewise, or to this Dailykos diary which argues that all Prop8 supporters got was the name, not the substance.

From the opinion:

The principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution.

There were three questions argued before the court.
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

It is not our role to pass judgment on the wisdom or relative merit of the current provisions of the California Constitution governing the means by which our state Constitution may be altered. (See Wright v. Jordan (1923) 192 Cal. 704, 711-712.) In the absence of an explicit subject-matter limitation on the use of the initiative to propose and adopt constitutional amendments, and in light of the history of the relevant California constitutional provisions regarding the amendment/revision distinction and the numerous California precedents interpreting and applying that distinction, we conclude the existing provisions of the California Constitution governing amendment and revision cannot properly be interpreted in the manner advocated by petitioners.

Accordingly, we hold that Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision.

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

Because the California Constitution explicitly recognizes the right of the people to amend their state Constitution through the initiative process, the people, in exercising that authority, have not in any way impermissibly usurped a power allocated by the Constitution exclusively to the judiciary or some other entity or branch of government.

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

Indeed, the absence of a very clear and unambiguous statement that the measure would have the effect of invalidating the estimated 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples that already had been lawfully entered into is particularly telling in this instance, because if this asserted effect of the measure “had been brought to the attention of the electorate, it might well have detracted from the popularity of the measure.” (Evangelatos, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1219.)

Id. at 132-33. The Court concludes:

Under these circumstances, we conclude that interpreting Proposition 8 to apply retroactively would create a serious conflict between the new constitutional provision and the protections afforded by the state due process clause. In the absence of a clear and unambiguous statement that the new provision is to have such an effect, the general legal guideline that requires courts to interpret potentially conflicting constitutional provisions in a manner that harmonizes the provisions, to the extent possible, further supports the conclusion that Proposition 8 properly must be interpreted to apply only prospectively.

Accordingly, applying these well-established principles of interpretation relating to the question of retroactivity, we conclude that Proposition 8 cannot be interpreted to apply retroactively so as to invalidate the marriages of same-sex couples that occurred prior to the adoption of Proposition 8. Those marriages remain valid in all respects.

The Day of Decision: Join the rallies in your city. See the list here. Show your pride, show your love. Keep it peaceful! We have to win hearts and minds, not simply show our feelings. The eyes of the world are upon us.

The Decision

LA Times reports Prop 8 stands, and so do the marriages.

Tuesday is the day of decision.

The Day of Decision: Join the rallies in your city. See the list here. Show your pride, show your love. Keep it peaceful! We have to win hearts and minds, not simply show our feelings. The eyes of the world are upon us.

And remember, on Saturday May 30, road trip to Fresno for Meet in the Middle: take the discussion to the heartland where the battle must be fought.

IT's story, 2: Reflections on being married

When we got married in October 2008, it caused us to reflect on why it was so important, and why it felt so different. Of course, it has not changed what we mean to each other. I have loved my beloved partner-spouse for many years with every part of my being, nothing different there.

But what HAS changed is something of our view of our relationship. We were rather surprised to find that we both felt this change.

First, of course, there is the weight of the State. (This became particularly apparent with some minor issues regarding the proper filing of the license). We are legally tied together with the ponderous ropes of officialdom. Yes, that is a difference; not that we ever took our relationship casually, but it is something much more weighty than an informal agreement between two women--not just a private leap over a broomstick, but real in every official sense with its rights and also its responsibilities. The visit in advance to apply for the license...the interview....the submission. A lot different than a $10 notarized Domestic Partner form, which by comparison seems more like a dog license. (If it is the same thing, legally speaking, why is it treated so differently?)

Second, there is the amazing feature of standing before family and friends and making our vows in public. That was stunning, really, truly stunning. We were both blown away by the love and focus of those around us, reaching their hands to us, robustly and vocally offering their support of us as a couple. What an amazing feeling!

Third, there is the sense of belonging to the tapestry of community. As a lesbian couple, we have often felt unwanted and on the outside, but now we are undeniably part of the whole. We now are a new thread in this fabric, another married couple contributing to its strength and texture.

Finally, we were struck by how, well, very normal this all was as an event. It was a pretty typical wedding, with tears of joy and laughter, food, wine and celebration. Nothing made this a "gay" wedding. It was simply a wedding, of two people who love each other completely, gathered to unite in a shared life together.

Yes, it matters. It makes a huge difference.

Originally posted at Friends of Jake

The Day of Decision is Tuesday, May 26th. BE THERE!

It's not just about the word "Marriage"

During the Prop8 campaign, the supporters of Prop8 argued that they weren't against legal protections for gay couples, but it was the very special word "marriage" that they opposed.

We can see now that was a lie.

• Item: Equality Utah took the Mormon church at its word, and launched a series of initiatives for a few basic protections (NOT marriage) called "common ground". All were voted down. At that time, in the Salt Lake City newspaper, an advertisement was run demanding that "Gays should be forced not to display their conduct to our children", you know, like holding hands? Imagine a major newspaper running an ad that said that about blacks, Jews, or Mormons.
  
  
• Item: The Seattle Times reports on the new "everything but the name marriage" civil unions law in Washington. However, "A network of conservative and religious organizations, through a public action committee called Protect Marriage Washington, plans to begin collecting signatures to repeal the measure. " Now, remember, this new Washington law does not grant marriage equality. But the fundies are opposed because it grants things LIKE marriage.
  
  
• Item:Nevada Governor vetoed domestic partnerships on the grounds that they are "interference of government in private matters". Okay, then outlaw all those Vegas marriages!

Don't forget that Prop8 in California was the milder of the two initiatives that competed for a place on the ballot. The other one would have eliminated any domestic partnerships.

You see, it isn't about the word "Marriage" per se. It's any civil recognition of us, any protection, any rights. And that's not protecting the "sanctity of Marriage". It's about entrenching bigotry.


The Day of Decision is Tuesday, May 26th. BE THERE!

Silencing Harvey Milk

There's an effort in California to have May 22nd, Harvey Milk's birthday, noted as "Harvey Milk Day" in the state. Not a holiday, but simply a named remembrance of someone who was a tireless worker for social justice as well as the first openly gay man elected to public office in the state. (The governor doesn't agree.) Of course, Harvey Milk was the subject of a recent biopic, and was a victim of assassination.

In Ramona, CA, a rural, conservative town in the hills of San Diego County, a student who wanted to do a presentation on Milk was forbidden to present it to her classmates.

Jones was told she could not talk about Milk because it violated the school district's strict policy on "family life and sex education." Days later, Jones was told she could only give the presentation during recess, and students would be required to get parental permission before they could attend.

The school's policy stresses that parents will be notified if their children are being exposed to lessons about "human reproductive organs and their functions, processes, or sexually transmitted diseases" as well as "family life, human sexuality, AIDS, or sexually transmitted diseases."

Bonnie Jones, Natalie's mother, called the ordeal "unbelievable" in a press release on Wednesday. "To say my daughter's presentation is 'sex education' because Harvey Milk happened to be gay is completely wrong."

Unfortunately, this makes perfect sense in the current right wing strategy. It has nothing to do with Milk's sexuality, which (aside from the adjective "gay") has nothing to do with his story. It's not about gay marriage, which wasn't even on the radar when he lived. It's nothing explicit about his sex life. It's his act of existence...it's OUR act of existence, that the school, and the conservatives, want to eliminate. This is about enforced discrimination.

"Schools that act as if any mention of the existence of gay people is something too controversial or 'sensitive' to discuss are doing a disservice to their students," the ACLU's Elizabeth Gill said in a statement.

Indeed. No newspaper or television is free of "teh gay". Will and Grace, Queer Eye, the L Word, are all years old. It's not as though kids are unaware that some people are gay. What are they afraid of: Milk's sexuality, or his message of equality and social justice? "My name is Harvey Milk, and I'm here to recruit you!!" was not just a rallying cry for the GLBT community. It was how he brought together a coalition of groups for a progressive agenda in the City.

But they are trying to hide that because he was gay. Because we are gay, they are trying the same thing. Claiming we are too controversial for prime time has been increasing of late. Trying to hide us. To deny us rights, and protections. Do not be silenced. Be Harvey. As he said, “I finally reached the point where I knew I had to become involved or shut up.”. Now it's up to us to be the change we need.

The Day of Decision is Tuesday, May 26th. BE THERE!

Day of Decision is May 26th

Okay, folks, here we go. The Day of Decision is Tuesday, May 26th. The court will release the opinion at 10.00 am. There will be demonstrations all around the state; protests, if as expected, it goes against us, celebrations, if we are unexpectedly victorious. For a list of cities, go here (includes cities outside California!). Show your pride, show your love. Wear white if you can. And above all, keep it peaceful! Don't give them any excuses to point at us.

And remember, on Saturday, May 30, road trip to Fresno for Meet in the Middle: take the discussion to the heartland where the battle must be fought.

I will continue to post here this weekend (I have a couple of important posts that should get us ready) and then will repost the protest plans for my handful of readers.

Possible outcomes:

• Prop 8 upheld, and 18,000 couples forcibly divorced possible
• Prop 8 upheld, and 18,000 couples "Grandfathered" and remaining legal pundits say, most likely
• Prop 8 overturned, and the 18,000 are the vanguard of the movement. wouldn't that be something!
• Prop 8 upheld, but all marriages (straight and gay) converted to civil unions, would serve them right!

Mapping the future of marriage equality

What's the outlook for marriage equality across the country? Not surprisingly, it looks a lot like the distribution of blue states in politics. We don't expect much progress from the South, of course. But who would have thought we'd come this far?

More here.

Meanwhile, the Box Turtle Bulletin shows us where we are today, compared to a year ago, where dark blue is marriage, light blue is full civil unions, and yellow is moderate levels of protection. The newest entry is Washington state, which has signed an everything but marriage law.

Of course, one must remember that there is already conservative pushback (for example, against the "civil unions light" in Colorado and a referendum planned in Maine.) So those colors may still reverse.

And that's a lot of white space left to cover, some of it in "hate states" with amendments.

Dear Maine

Dear Maine,
I hear that you have joined the ranks of the enlightened in the Northeast, and got yourselves a great new gay marriage law, passed by the legislature! I'm sure you are especially proud of your governor John Baldacci, who said,

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State. It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government."

Way to go, Maine!

Unfortunately, I hear that your law allows those opposed to collect signatures to put a referendum on the ballot in an attempt to overturn this. Oh, be very careful, Maine.

Because you will be assaulted in parking lots and shopping malls, as professional signature collectors harass you. At churches, signature-getters will chase congregants across the parking lot insisting they sign, even if they don't want to. They may tell you that you are signing something completely different, or that you are signing to SUPPORT gay marriage.

And if the referendum gets on the ballot, it's just beginning. Because out-of-state money, and out-of-state Hate, will pour into your state.

You will get angry advertisements that are full of lies and more lies, and if those don't work, there will be threats and vandalism.

And, Maine? Regardless of the outcome of the election, there will be anger and deep bitterness and injury that will not heal easily. And your civic, civil discourse will be deeply damaged for a long time to come. People will stop speaking to each other. Work relationships will degrade. Neighbors will shun one another. Long after the election, people will flip each other off on the freeway and wariness and anger will simmer for a long time.

Think hard, Maine. The legistlature did their job. So did the governor. Be proud, and decline to sign.

Love, California

(Keep track at Equality Maine.)

Same sex marriages accepted in MA

In a new article from the AP, we find out that, guess what? Gay marriage is no longer a big deal in Massachusetts.

"Holy cow, the sky hasn't fallen." That assessment of five years of same-sex marriage came from Jennifer Chrisler, who advocates for gay and lesbian parents as head of the Boston-based Family Equality Council.

And politicians who supported it survived:

One of the striking developments, since 2004, is the fading away of opposition to gay marriage among elected officials in Massachusetts. When the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, there seemed to be sufficient support in the Legislature for a ballot measure that would overturn the decision. But efforts to unseat pro-gay-marriage legislators floundered; a gay-marriage supporter, Deval Patrick, was elected governor; and a climactic push for a referendum was rejected by lawmakers in 2007 by a 151-45 vote.....

The near-consensus now among political leaders is a far cry from 2003-04, when the debate was wrenching for legislators such as Sen. Marian Walsh. Her district, including parts of Boston and some close-in suburbs, is heavily Catholic and socially conservative, so when same-sex marriage became a public issue, "there wasn't an appetite to discuss it, let alone support it," Walsh said.....

"It was a lot of hard work," she said. "I came to the decision that it really is a civil right — that the constitution was there to protect rights, not to diminish rights."

She described the reaction as a "firestorm" — embittered constituents, hate mail and death threats, rebukes from Catholic clergy, but she won re-election in 2004 and again in 2006 over challengers who opposed gay marriage.

Of course there are still those opposed, but they are fighting a rearguard action. Gay families in MA are protected, and that's the important thing. Are you listening, California?

Commonmass's story

Commonmass writes,
My Married Californian Friends have been visiting here in Massachusetts for a week. They were among those married in California prior to prop 8. Over dinner last night we talked about the future of the legality of their marriage. They are understandably concerned that there is a very real possibility that the court ruling could dissolve their union. They have been together for over 10 years.

What is interesting is that while here in New England they took a side trip to Montreal. I pointed out to them that as they drove from Massachusetts through Vermont to Quebec their marriage was valid and recognized everywhere they traveled. It was clearly liberating for them to realize this.

I can't get out to California to demonstrate, but many of us here in New England are behind our West Coast comrades. Coming face to face with prop 8 in the persons of my good friends this last week has made me count my blessings--and has re-energized my commitment to marriage equality for all.

Do you have a story about being a gay married Californian? Put it in the comments and I will post it.

Answer, NO.

Update; no decision this week. Probably wise as tomorrow is the anniversary of the White Night Riots that erupted after the verdict against Dan White. The 22nd is Harvey Milk's Birthday. That would not have been an auspicious day for this. At least one blogger reports that someone figured this out and scuppered the announcement at the last minute because of the date. Another says that the someone was SF Mayor Gavin Newsom, though that's been discounted.

More discussion at my DailyKos diary, since no one comments over here!

Keep an eye out Friday to see if they will announce for Tuesday next week.

Is the decision coming this week?

Rumor reported by AmericaBlog that the Prop8 decision is coming Thursday. The San Francisco PD is dropping off crowd control barriers in the Castro.

Keep an eye the California Supreme Court website where they will post an announcement on Wednesday to tell us what decisions are coming. Full opinions are released on Monday and Thursday mornings at 10am. (Except next week, it would be Tuesday because of the holiday).

Remember, you should try to participate in the Day of Decision demonstrations, and to meet in the middle in Fresno on the Saturday following the decision. More about the court case on this previous post.

If you're in LA, go here for the Day of Decision plans in the City of Angels. San Diego here, and San Francisco here. Other California cities with demonstrations (and there are a lot of them) are listed here.

The Children Question

One of the big talking points of the enemies of marriage equality is "the children", as in, what will happen to them? If I had a nickel for every time some pontificating pundit has droned that children must have a father and a mother....

Let's deal with some of those questions shall we?

First of all, the statistics the right wing uses for that argument are generally statistics comparing married parents to single parents. Now, I don't know about you, but in my opinion raising a child on your own is a very hard job, and presumably that single parent is single due to loss of a partner which leaves a whole host of other issues ranging from death to divorce. So, yeah, being a child of a single parent is probably harder for most kids.

Of course, the right doesn't compare straight couples to gay COUPLES raising kids, because those data generally show that Gay families raise well adjusted kids, and children of gay parents are pretty much the same as kids from straight homes. Children of gay couples are no more likely to be in trouble, and no more likely to be gay. They do have one difference: they tend to be a little more tolerant.

So, there's no evidence that kids do better---or worse -- in straight households. SO that's a FAIL for their first argument.

The second question is more puzzling. Because the right acts as though there magically won't BE any kids being raised by gay parents if they just ban same sex marriage. This leads me to wonder; do they think that all those gay parents are going to suddenly become straight and marry heterosexuals? Or, do they think that we will somehow not have kids if we can't marry, and all the children of gay parents will suddenly disappear if they deny us marriage? Or, do they think if we marry we will go steal other people's children? I really wonder how they finish that thought, because it makes no sense.

The FACT is that we will continue to have and raise children whether or not we can marry legally, whether our natural children, or adopted. The LA TImes reported back in the fall that 25% of the gay families in California were raising children. Thus the only effect of preventing our marriage is to leave our children vulnerable and our families at risk. I think, really, that's what they want: they want our families to be at risk and disadvantaged for a "punishment" for the "sins of the parents". Rather sad, when you think about it. And that would be a FAIL for their second argument.

Update: Here's some great language from the Iowa court decision:

The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children. This conclusion suggests stereotype and prejudice, or some other unarticulated reason, could be present to explain the real objectives of the statute.

Updated again:
The American Academy of Pediatrics finds gay marriage has a positive effect on children.

Third grader organizes equality rally

A third grader in Denver has organized an equality rally):

Ethan is a Denver third-grader who believes that everyone has a right to marry. In fact, he is so concerned about marriage equality and equal protection that he has organized a rally on the West steps of the state Capitol building to talk about it.

Ethan was inspired by his neighbors, who have a child his age but are unable to officially get married in Colorado. He decided that marriage equality is a civil rights issue and that all people, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, color or race, should have this right.

Most of the kids in Ethan's generation accept that homosexuality is a biological variant like red hair, or left handedness. And they believe that marriage is something that should be available to two adults who love each other. It makes no sense to them to prevent gay people from marrying, any more than it makes sense to block inter-racial marriage, or marriage with left-handed people, or marriage where one partner is disabled.

As the saying goes, the kids are all right.

Here's the video:

Bob and Kenneth: why it matters (updated)

This diary was posted at DailyKos. You should read the whole thing!

Tonight, surrounded by his family, my best friend Kenneth took his last assisted breaths in a hospital known for its “compassion and care” in the area. His family held his hands and whispered their loving goodbyes while the life slipped from his body and he went to his rest. A sudden heart attack claimed him.

But someone was conspicuously absent…

In the parking lot, Bob, his partner of 26 years, said goodbye to a photograph....

The hospital, at the behest of Kenneth’s family, had banned Bob from Kenneth’s room, or seeing him in the hospital at all. 26 years treated as though they were mere passing acquaintances or work colleagues. Simply because Kenneth’s family could never accept their son’s orientation...

Tonight, a nurse sympathetic to Bob’s situation and in violation of the hospital policies, came to the car window and delivered the news to Bob that Kenneth was gone. And Bob said his goodbyes and wishes of love and peace to a picture.... Held to his chest as though he were holding his loved one in tears. Because that was all he had.

Go read the whole thing. This is the result of denying two people who love each other, the rights of marriage, to love honor and cherish each other, until the end.

And even people in states with "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" have numerous stories like this. For example, there's a case in Miami where a hospital denied a gay woman access even though she had the necessary documents. And in the State of Hate, Virginia, those documents are specifically void.

Update: Today, the NY Times had a piece on partners being denied access to their loved one, even though in these two cases

the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.

Their legal documents were IGNORED. Straight people don't have to carry a legal file full of notarized documents. But we do. And even then they are meaningless. And that's WRONG.

Marriage matters.

Killer of Sacred Cows' story

Killer of Sacred Cows writes,

As I start writing this diary, it's 9:50 p.m. on Tuesday, June 17th. I've been legally married for seven hours.

It hasn't quite sunk in yet.

I'm a man who has a husband. Legally. Under the law. Recognized by the state.

Equal.

It is impossible to describe what finding out you're equal is like.

Was it the moment when we filled out the license application and got a license, instead of a "sorry, you can't get married because it's against the law for two men to marry each other"?

Was it when we stood before our pastor on the courthouse steps and said "take this ring as a seal on the covenant I make with you today," instead of sitting and watching our straight friends as they said those words and received a new status in return?

Was it when we turned in the completed license and they didn't shred it?

Perhaps it'll hit me when our copy of the marriage certificate arrives. One thing I know for sure, it will hold pride of place on the wall, in a frame, forever.

There were no protesters. We got two or three people walking by giving us dirty looks. Nobody showed up with signs or tambourines or gospel choirs to sing us into shame. It was a party from start to finish.

There weren't many people there throughout the day, but my Unitarian church group gave flowers and wedding cake to each couple married in the morning. There were two before I had to leave to go make my own preparations, and then me and my husband in the afternoon. Apparently it was a quite slow day for marriages outside the courthouse. It looks like many people in my area simply came in to get their licenses.

I almost cried when we said our vows.

And from three days later:

Fri Jun 20, 2008

So, I've been legally married to my man for three days now. At least, in about two hours, it'll be three days.

Everything is different now. It's better. Two nights ago, we were kicking back and talking, and one of us (I forget who) said something like: "Being married makes everything different. It's more real. It's serious. Before, it felt like we were just two teenagers playing house. It doesn't feel like that anymore."

Before marriage, we'd say 'husband' with this sort of wistful 'yeah, that'll happen... not' feel to it. We attended weddings with a bittersweet feeling - happy for our straight friends, but ripped up inside that we couldn't have that too. There was always this thread of "this is temporary" running through our lives, simply because our promises to each other weren't taken seriously by most people - including, in some cases, members of our families. We've been waiting for at least four years to get married - we actually decided we would after the 2004 weddings in San Francisco - and sometimes it just seemed like it would never happen, like our whole relationship was a joke because the state wouldn't acknowledge us as equal to other married people. (And don't get me started on domestic partnership. It's a second-class status.)

That feeling of "this is temporary," of "this isn't really serious" - that feeling is gone now. It's been replaced by a feeling of seriousness, of permanence, of validity.

I participated in a wedding of two straight friends about two weeks ago as the best man. Because I knew that he and I could get married now, the feeling of bittersweet ouch was almost nonexistent that day. It was replaced with a feeling of anticipation - of "we will have this soon, too."

And on our wedding day, when about ten or twelve people from our church and a few of our friends and our Unitarian pastor stood around us in a rough circle on the courthouse steps and said, repeatedly, "bless this marriage," I almost fell apart and cried. We wanted minimal ceremony with maximum meaning, and that's exactly what we ended up with.

Every time I look at my wedding ring, I hear him saying his vows to me. And I well up. I can't help it.

Being married has meaning. It has weight. It's almost a tangible thing, this connection he and I have made. It's something we're aware of all the time now. It's powerful.

And your support and help and generosity - that helped make this happen.

Thank you.

Do you have a story to tell? Please put it in the comments and I will post it!

Anti-GLBT politicians in the closet: Outrage

Someone I know online is coming out right now, and it is a painful, scary, liberating process. During her cautious opening of the closet door, there has been a lot of discussion on her blog about the decisions we make to be in, or out, of the closet.

While I will testify that being open and out is a relief, I also recognize that not everyone has a job or family or safety situation that allows it. And I respect that people have to make their own judgment about when they can finally be honest about who they are. So I would never "out" someone publicly, only encourage them to make the move when they feel safe enough to do it.

With one exception. The one class of people for whom I have no compunction about outing would be the hypocrites who use the closet to cover their own gayness while they attack and abuse their GLBT brothers and sisters.

Have you seen the movie Outrage yet? This film exposes supposedly gay politicians who have significant anti-gay voting records.



I just learned of this film, which a lot of you probably know about, from the Advocate's web site, which described the self-censorship of the press. Many reporters will not repeat the names mentioned in the film, which has led to a whole sideline of discussion about Newspaper policies. The LA Times didn't hesitate, however, in their interview with the director, Kirby Dick.

The LATimes also reviewed the film, here, finishing with a sentimental note,

While the anger of "Outrage" is to be expected, the surprise of the film is how much sadness you take away as well, the sadness of people who feel compelled to pretend to be what they are not. Both McGreevey and his ex-wife, Dina Matos McGreevey, interviewed separately, talk eloquently about the kind of chaos this kind of deception causes. And then there is activist Elizabeth Birch, who says, "I've had members of Congress crying in my arms because they didn't know how to come out." It's a significant moment in a significant film.

I'm sorry, I really don't work up a lot of sympathy for these guys. They sold themselves for power, which requires lies and deflecting suspicions. (How many of them are married to women, living the lie?) I suspect they are resentful and angry at the healthy, out gay men they see. They are so deeply, deeply invested into the closeted life that they can't afford to admit they are mistaken, and that they have made a hideously wrong choice. One could have sympathy for that, if they weren't so often working against the rights of the GLBT community. Is this to "prove" their straight-ness, or simply striking out in anger to hurt the people who have something they can't?

They would be fine, if they were willing to acknowledge the lies and give up the power. But it's so seductive to be one of the elect, isn't it? And so scary to step out of the closet. Regardless, it's using their power to attack the community that makes me lose all sympathy for them, and want to "out" them.

Cooper888's story

Cooper888 writes:
My better half (husband) and I met in SF over eleven years ago and tied the knot in August 2008. Its the easiest relationship either of us has ever been in. We are probably the most boring couple we know, our standing joke is that when we have a fight its usually about trying to do something for the other before they can get to it (dishes, laundry, etc). We weren't thinking of marriage but when the SC originally allowed the marriages to start we thought 'we can... so lets!'. When it looked like Prop H8 would pass we thought oh well, its just not time for this yet and it doesn't really matter. Well a funny thing happened Wednesday November 5th... we woke up and boy DID IT MATTER. We both felt kicked in the gut. I spent the next couple weeks in a severe funk. If the SC lets H8 stand and lets the marriages that happened stand it will be a very strange limbo indeed. Thank you for putting together the blog site. Feel free to share our story.

In the event the court rules as expected and we are put into limbo, I would love to see a social networking site especially for the 18000 couples. NING.com is a cool site for that if anyone has an inclination for that kind of thing - hint hint. ;)

Do YOU have a story? put it in the comments and I'll post it for you!

Ruben and Hector

Another video, of real people leading real lives. More stories. Don't forget to send yours!

NH Gov to sign gay marriage bill, with one addition

Gov. Lynch of New Hampshire will sign the gay marriage bill, legalizing gay marriage in that state, as long as there are explicit protections for religious groups. New Hampshire Public Radio reports the actual language, which includes the following:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

Now, there are three points to this text that I notice. First, is the persistent use of the term "religious organization"; and second, a very precise specification of people who have a formal relationship with that organization. What I get from this , is that any exceptions that are covered in this text that allow someone to deny service or accommodation, are specifically limited to formal religious groups and their direct affiliates and employees. That means, the average man on the street who may be a member of this religious organization but is not acting as their agent (for example, someone at the florist) is not covered by the exemptions and therefore not excused from providing service under usual anti-discrimination laws. Third, this text is very specific about marriage-related services.

SO, my understanding (and I'm sure legally minded readers will correct me if I'm wrong) is that this text allows any religious group and their formal affiliates to deny marriage associated services to anyone they choose. Which I believe, is a right they already had for the most part.

In any case, I can live with it.

LA Times: Marriage equality back on the ballot in 2010

From the LA Times, about the next stage of the battle in California:

Both sides are already gearing up for another political campaign likely to come in 2010.

As recently as a few months ago, some gay activists feared 2010 would be too soon. But the fact that same-sex marriage is now legal in five states, with New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire poised to follow, has changed the political climate, they say.

"There is no doubt we are witnessing an enormous and unprecedented sea change in both public opinion and momentum on the issue of marriage equality," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "I believe the electorate nationally and in California is in a different place when it comes to marriage equality than it was six months ago.".....

"The more states that come on board, the more people in California wonder, 'What did we do here?' " said Marc Solomon, the newly hired marriage director for Equality California. "Are gay couples in Bangor, Maine, and Dubuque, Iowa, really going to be marrying when people in Pasadena can't?"

Answer: Yes. Next question?

Pico's story

Pico writes:
My better half and I both come from very conservative areas of the country, and we'd relocated to California for work. We got engaged back when we were living in Michigan, with no expectations that it'd be legal to follow through anytime soon. When California gave us the opportunity - and when the Prop 8 battle was looming overhead, we got on the phone with the parents and said, "Can you get a plane ticket next month? We're getting married." And so we did.

Sorta sucked in that we couldn't have friends there, but at the same time it felt great to follow through with something we'd long planned on doing.

Funny story: the judge who presided over the ceremony forgot the last part of the text. As she was wrapping up, she said "I now pronounce you..." and then froze in horror... shuffled through her papers, looked up and said, "Married!"


Do YOU have a story? put it in the comments and I'll post it for you!

Will the Obama White House step up?

Andrew Sullivan writes a strong piece in The Fierce Urgency of Whenever.

I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away.

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

I can't say I'm surprised. Disappointed, yes, but we knew it was coming, didn't we? We even knew it was coming when the Pro-Prop8 forces used Obama's voice, with only a very tepid response.

Washington politics is a lot like the end of Animal Farm. Everyone gets corrupted there. "No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Douglas Kmiec speaks: civil unions for ALL, straight or gay

Kmiec is an interesting character. A conservative Roman Catholic lawyer, he was denied Communion by his priest for the "sin" of supporting Pres. Obama (though later reinstated, as it was the priest who broke the rules).

Kmiec was recently interviewed by the Economist, about six Big Questions. The interview is well worth reading overall, but I am (predictably) going to focus on one of his answers:

Question: You've argued that the state of California ought to get itself out of the business of overseeing marriage. But at the same time, you maintain that "the state has an interest in officially recognising some relationships just to ensure that society is well organised". By what sort of standards should the state decide which relationships to sanction?

Mr Kmiec: As I see it the state has an obligation to observe both equality and religious freedom. It cannot do both if it disavows its finding that sexual orientation is a suspect classification or presumes to perform an act that should be reserved for religious congregations–namely, marry two people in the sight of God in accordance with whatever doctrinal teaching the couple’s voluntarily-chosen church, synagogue, mosque, or temple observes.

This incompatibility became even more obvious when the people of California passed proposition 8, restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. In a case pending before the California Supreme Court, it was conceded by the measure's advocate that it was not aimed at depriving gay and lesbian citizens of equal rights and benefits, which the state Assembly had already provided to them in statute. That concession seemed unavoidable, especially given the status of sexual orientation as suspect. So the effect of proposition 8–assuming it is upheld as a valid amendment–is solely to make the nomenclature of marriage available only to one class of citizens–heterosexuals. Since the state has the primary obligation of equality for all, the effect of the proposition is to direct the state to issue a license by a name other than marriage to all couples–gay or straight–who apply. The concept of marriage, of course, is then fully remitted to religious bodies who can indulge same-sex marriage within their respective religious communities or not in accord with the religion’s doctrine.

Now, I hadn't even considered that the Court would find this way out: that if Prop8 applied, NO ONE gets the title "marriage" for their state-sanctioned union. Of course, many folks (me included) have said that this is the most sensible answer to separate church from state, a solution used in Europe. But to even think that SCoCal would, could do it? ....oh my. I'd love to see the Other Side hoist on this petard.

Aw, well. It'll never happen.

DMiller's story

DMiller writes,
... I married my wife yesterday. I was a little too wrapped up in the event to write and post a diary about it on the day that I did it.

We "eloped." In other words, all our friends had been pressuring us to have a big wedding and instead we took our son out of school, went to the county courthouse and got married. Just the three of us. We expect we'll have a big party afterwards and invite the swim team and the neighborhood and the rest of our friends, but this was really nice just to have our little family for this ceremony.

To provide a little background, I met my wife in my sophomore year of college. I was 19. She was 21 and a senior. We dated for a couple of weeks and our roommates found out (we lived in the dorms) and threw us out. Therefore, we became roommates. It was a little traumatic, but it worked fine for us and the rest is history. That was 27 years ago last March.

You'd think that after twenty-seven years, a civil union in Vermont and a domestic partnership in California, not to mention untold contractual and legal procedings, (all attempting to provide one another the most legal protection we could) getting an actual honest to god California wedding license and wedding certificate really wouldn't make that much of a difference.

It really did make a difference, we didn't think it would beforehand, because we'd felt married for years and years, but the ceremony was amazingly meaningful to us.

The weight of the legal proceedings made a difference. Hearing the vows and saying the vows made a difference. There's something about the traditional wedding vows in our culture that does make a difference and we both felt it.

We wrote our own vows in our civil union ceremony and they meant a lot to both of us. We went with the state's ceremony in for our marriage at courthouse and, with certain tweaks, it was a traditional marriage ceremony .... "In sickness and in health till death do you part."

Our 13 year old son wept. We had no idea that it would affect him so much. Later he explained that his friends' parents are all getting divorced. It meant a lot that we still loved one another enough to want to get married after all these years.

It's made a difference to our friends and family. We've been flooded with telephone calls and emails congratulating us on our marriage. Our house looks like a florist shop. Our neighbors have stopped by to make sure that everything is okay because of the regular flower deliveries and are delighted by the news. They've all asked for invitations to the reception, whenever it happens.

Our family and friends are a little annoyed that we didn't invite them to our wedding, but we're not really sorry and they'll understand once they think about it. Our son never would have been comfortable enough to cry if he'd had an audience and this clearly meant so much to him.

My wife (gotta get used to saying that instead of partner) worries that the fundies will take away our marriage certificate somehow and I try to reassure her that the only way she's gonna get rid of me now is to divorce me.

It's hard for people to understand loving and living with someone and having your relationship and your family always subject to question and/or ridicule. Being able to get married, legally, helps overcome that. Now we have legal standing for our relationship, just like everyone else.

It makes a difference.

This was posted at DMIller's Daily Kos Diary last fall. Go there to see the congratulations!

Do YOU have a story? put it in the comments and I'll post it for you!

Where's that passionate advocate for equality?

Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post:

Before his inauguration, President Obama called himself a "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." Now, with the same-sex marriage issue percolating in state after state and with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy ripe for repeal, it's time for Obama to put some of his political capital where his rhetoric is.

Robinson goes on to point out some of the issues with "civil unions".

Favoring "civil unions" that accord all the rights and benefits of marriage -- but that withhold the word marriage, and with it, I guess, society's approval -- amounts to another dodge. I'm concerned here with the way the law sees the relationship, not the way any particular church or religious leader sees it; that's for worshipers, clergy and the Almighty to work out. Marriage is not just a sacrament but also a contract, and the contractual aspect is a matter of statute, not scripture.

Obama took the "civil unions" route during last year's campaign and has stuck with it. While I see the political calculation -- that was basically the position of all the major Democratic candidates -- I never understood the logic. If semantics are the only difference between a civil union and a marriage, why go to the trouble of drawing a distinction? If there are genuine differences that the law should recognize, what are they?

It seems to me that equality means equality, and either you're for it or you're not. I believe gay marriage should be legal, and it's hard for me to imagine how any "fierce advocate of equality" could think otherwise.

More and more voices are asking, why the president is MIA on this issue. Robinson concludes,

I'm not being unrealistic. I know that public acceptance of homosexuality in this country is still far from universal. But attitudes have changed dramatically -- more than enough for a popular, progressive president to speak loudly and clearly about a matter of fundamental human and civil rights.