On this, the anniversary of the San Francisco weddings, I look back over the past year and where marriage equality has made progress or, in some instances, where it has lost ground. I think that, overall, the progress may outweigh the loss of ground, in terms of significance.
Mayor Gavin Newsom lost a battle to keep the marriages performed in San Francisco legal and valid, but he pushed marriage equality in the spotlight in such a way that it will be a long, long time before it can ever be pushed out of that same light. Realistically (or maybe just in my own simplistic view), Mayor Newsom could very well go down in history as the man who was the catalyst in bringing marriage equality to ALL Americans, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, shoe size, or type of vehicle driven. Four THOUSAND marriages took place in those few weeks -- yes, they were later invalidated, but the courts cannot invalidate the image I have of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon in the moments after their marriage. The courts cannot invalidate the elation those two women felt at that very moment -- even knowing it could, and probably would be snatched away from them later on.
As he celebrated this anniversary over the weekend, with many of the participants, he said "Separate is not equal." "It is no longer acceptable for politicians to come to you every election cycle and ask for money and then say, 'It's too much, too soon.'" "Civil unions are not good enough," Newsom told the celebration. "Civil unions are not marriage. Marriage is marriage." "This door is open and nothing the president of the United States can do will ever shut this door." "I've never felt more resolved," Newsom told the crowd. "I don't care what happens to me, I care what happens to you and to this country." "Don't believe these folks who talk about tradition," he said. "They sit there and defend inequality because it's tradition. Tradition doesn't make something right," he said. "Don't give up this fight. Don't feel discouraged. Don't listen to the president of the United States." Newsom then led the crowd in chanting "shame on you." (Quotes, in part, from article at http://www.365gay.com )
The Shrub, as a result of the SF weddings, announced his support for a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage -- and the firestorm began.
On February 20th, for a few hours, Sandoval County in New Mexico issued a handful of same-sex marriages licenses. Unsure as to what the disposition of those licenses is but the issuance was stopped under threat of lawsuit.
On the opposite coast, not quite two weeks later, New Paltz, NY mayor Jason West announced on the late night news that he would begin performing same-sex marriages the next day. On February 27th, a dozen or so couples were married by Mayor West. At the time, we were getting network stations out of NY city, so we saw the news item -- and were electrified. The next morning I got to work about 7:30 and began calling the New Paltz City Hall. After only two attempts, someone actually answered the phone and directed me to a special web site where she said that, shortly, a link would be provided to put our name on a waiting list to be married. I went to the web site and began hitting F5 (refresh) every few seconds. Suddenly, the link appeared and I clicked on it, and filled out the information and submitted it. I knew we were pretty close to the top of that list.
On the first day that Mayor West performed those ceremonies, I was on AOL IM with a friend who had a friend who was at the ceremonies and was relaying a "blow by blow" over her cellular phone. It was uplifting -- I felt my chest swell with pride as my eyes filled with tears for those couples being married. The following week Mayor West performed more ceremonies, and then was charged with solemnizing marriage without a license -- 24 counts. The day after he was charged, we received a telephone call from someone from the "New Paltz Equality Initiative," asking us if we were still interested in getting married. HELL YEAH! Not only were we excited at the prospect of being married, but we were thrilled and honored to take a part in this little paragraph in the chapter of equality in this nation's history.
We were married in New Paltz on March 13 -- we were not issued a license, but under the NY Domestic Relations Law, we were given a "contract of marriage" which was signed and notarized by us as well as the clergy that solemnized the marriage. Two days later, two Universalist Unitarian ministers were charged with solemnizing marriages without a license in New Paltz -- more than 50 couples were married that weekend.
Ultimately, the charges against the clergy were dropped, and later the charges against Mayor West were dismissed by a judge who opined that denying same-sex couples marriage was unconstitutional. These charges were reinstated just a couple of weeks ago by a higher court, that court ruling that the lower court did not rule on the charges, and it wasn't about the constitutionality of marriage, but about the Mayor breaking the law. As sad as I am that this was pursued, I understand this ruling.
On March 4, NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer issued an informal opinion which clearly stated that, while it appeared that the legislature never meant to allow same-sex couples to be issued marriage licenses (therefore, it is "illegal" to issue a license to same-sex couples), the laws and the Constitution of NY State were written in such a way that the state must recognize and legal and valid, any union of same-sex couples that originates outside the jurisdiction of NY state (such as Vermont Civil Unions -- something we did in July 2001). This AG opinion would later provide the foundation of our lawsuit against my employer.
On that same day of NY AG Spitzer's opinion, Multnomah County, Oregon began issuing same-sex marriage licenses as well. Interestingly, Oregon law defines marriage only as "a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable." Four days later a judge refused to stop the issuance of these licenses saying, “I am not satisfied by the standard of clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiffs would prevail under Oregon public meeting law considerations.” In those 4 days, more than 1200 marriage licenses were issued. On April 20, a judge ordered the marriages to stop until the matter could be sorted out in courts and the legislature, but he refused to invalidate the marriages that had already occurred. More than 3,000 couples married in Oregon. Last month, a new hearing was undertaken in order to determine the fate of those marriages.
Legal marriage was on the horizon in Massachusetts, with a suspense date of May 17th. Throughout the country, same-sex couples made plans to travel to MA where they could legally marry. However, in the week prior to the legalization, MA Governor Mitt Romney (R) announced that marriage licenses would be refused to anyone out-of-state who resided in a state where same-sex marriage was illegal -- he was acting on an old, dusty law that had been enacted in 1913, which originated in the spirit of stopping interracial marriage. Interestingly, NY state should not have been one of those states, per AG Spitzer's opinion, but NY Governor Pataki confirmed to MA Governor Romney that same-sex marriage was, in fact, illegal in NY state. Provincetown and some other smaller communities refused to adhere to the discriminatory 1913 law and issued licenses to any same-sex couple that applied. Within a week, Governor Romney ordered a review of all marriage licenses issued in those cities and villages, and had any out-of-state licenses invalidated. P-town continued to issue the licenses anyway, until they were threatened with legal action. I know of some couples that have since traveled to MA and been issued marriage licenses without any problem at all -- they waited until the intensity of the fire had burned down a bit. All they had to do was sign an affidavit saying that they planned to move to MA. Planned. Often our best plans are laid aside by future, unforeseen events, aren't they?
June 10th saw the one year anniversary of the legalization of same-sex marriages in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Just today there was a news article that noted that 59% of Canadians are completely comfortable with same-sex marriages. Today, most of Canada now allows same-sex marriage and there is a bill before the Canadian government which will legalize same-sex marriage throughout Canada. Of course, the right-wing fundies have crossed the border to stop that, as well, probably knowing full well that the floodgates from America will not be tamed. Recently, supporters of same-sex marriage in Canada issued the traditional "Yankee Go Home" chant to these religious fundies. A vote on this bill will occur in the Spring.
Campaign 2004 was one of the dirtiest, nastiest campaigns I can ever remember. Lies, deciet, fear-mongering, and bullying were the tactics most widely used. Eleven states had anti-gay marriage amendments on their ballots. All eleven passed -- several are under appeal. More initiatives are already in the works this year.
Virginia has, by far, passed the most discriminatory and hateful laws of any state in the nation. Are Virginia lawmakers that hate-filled, or is Jerry Falwell's money that effective in ensuring that his religious beliefs become law? Everyone has their price... Virginia's legislature is apparently entertaining the possibility of "Traditional Marriage" license plates. And then there's Jimmy Swaggart -- "If one of them looked at me in that way, I'd kill him and tell God he died," followed by a resounding round of applause from his congregation. Violence against gays, met with applause. Oh sure, he apologized, but a person doesn't seem genuinely contrite when they're forced to apologize due to public pressure, do they?
One of the anti-gay amendments was recently used as a defense for a man that physically abused his live-in girlfriend -- the argument was that the new amendment didn't recognize ANY non-marriage relationship and, as such, it couldn't be considered domestic violence. A judge has refused to rule on this argument, stating that the charge had been laid before the amendment was passed. But it sure gives pause as to how these amendments are going to affect heterosexual relationships as well.
Same-sex marriage foes are currently involved in a last-ditch attempt to get the Massachusetts law repealed, but it doesn't look like they've got much hope in succeeding. Even the legislature has passed on the opportunity for another vote, which would have sent the measure to the voters next year. Apparently the promised "Gay Apocalypse" didn't happen and now that the Chicken Little types have egg on their face, the legislature and the people in MA just don't see gay marriage as the horrific thing it was made out to be. Dogs and cats are not sleeping together, no frog-filled rainstorms have happened, locust have not attacked the crops, and disco music is still dead. The world, as the citizens of MA knew it, remained virtually unchanged.
Last month, in Connecticut, gay marriage groups and supporters appeared before the legislature to push for marriage. One legislator asked why marriage and not the less politically charged civil union. The response was that, in the five years since Vermont passed their civil union law, complacency seems to have set in and nobody seems interested in revisiting the issue. They don't want the same thing happening in Connecticut. That makes all the sense in the world to me -- if we settle for civil unions (separate but not equal), then same-sex marriage foes will always use that against any argument we make...that we were happy enough with civil unions and that we should be grateful we have that.
Finally, rounding off our year of same-sex marriage history, last week a NY County judge ruled that NY same-sex couples must be allowed to marry. In her 62-page ruling, State Supreme Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan said that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people, and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. This applies only to NY City and, of course, Mayor Bloomberg announced quickly that he would appeal the ruling -- he claims because he doesn't want those poor folks flying in from all over the country, only to have their marriages invalidated at a later date like the SF couples did. Isn't he a stand-up kind of guy, protecting us like that?
So, where are we headed in the next year?
I guess that depends on a lot of things. My primary focus for the future is the Supreme Court, and who is appointed under the Shrub (assuming Rehnquist retires). I've heard that as many as four justices could be replaced in the next four years under the Shrub. Judge Roy Moore is unemployed, last I heard... Seriously, these appointments will affect an entire generation of Americans and our focus should be on relentless communication with our lawmakers in both houses to ensure that they approve only fair-minded judges who are interested in ruling based on the Constitution, not the Bible, not special interest groups, and certainly not their own morals or values.
I see the marriage issue gaining ground and then losing ground, just as it did in this past year. Small victories here and there, and large defeats which will make us despair for a few days.
The marriage issue in NY State, I believe, will have a favorable outcome. Governor Pataki will be gone in 2006, I'm quite sure, but I also believe that, by then, same-sex marriage will be a reality in this state.
Finally, I see the same-sex marriage issue becoming such a huge issue, it will inevitably breed violence from both sides. The extreme right-wing nutcases will start setting fire to community gay and lesbian resources. Potshots will be taken at revelers in gay pride celebrations. The likes of Fred Phelps will be elevated to hero status in some circles, and more and more groups like his will spring up. In the end, equality will prevail, but equality in this nation has never been achieved without violent opposition.
A morbid outlook? Perhaps, but it's still realistic. The question is, though, do we have the courage that it takes to fight this battle, even though the potential for violence exists? Will we only fight for so long and, when it gets really tough, just give up or give in? Will we settle for less than full equality because it's easier than a long and protracted fight? I don't know. I think there are some of us that feel that, if we get even most of the benefits of marriage, that's good enough for now.
For me, however, anytime I start into that defeatist mode, I'm going to try to remember to look back on this past year and see all the gains that we have made. History can still give us something wonderful to look forward to -- hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment