Had to share this.
I go to a web site where there's a lot of debate over gay marriage -- lots of really ignorant comments made, but always some very witty comebacks (that make a lot of sense, too).
So, the progression went something like this:
The question was asked, if we let gays marry, then why not let men marry monkeys or grandmothers marry their grandsons, etc. I'm sure you've heard them all before. So, the standard replies of "informed consent" and "consent to a contract" are made, but then the original poster claims that homosexuality is not about love, it's about sex. Someone else jumps in with how, if a homosexual truly loves their partner, they wouldn't ask them to "sin" by continuing the relationship. Someone pops in with the comment that homosexuality is biological, not spiritual, and so the question is asked "If it's biological, and there was a test for it, would you support abortion of the fetus if it was determined that the fetus would be homosexual?"
The reply, simply stated, was that "I'm thinking though, if they could detect homosexuality before birth, that suddenly abortion would become a sacrament to the Christian right."
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Thursday, February 17, 2005
See what I mean?
An anti-gay marriage amendment was defeated in the state's House in New Mexico this week. Votes were mainly along party lines.
Virginia had a couple of noteworthy news items this week as well. The senate turned down legislation that would have requied social workers to screen prospective adoptive parents for homosexuality.
From http://365gay.com:
In the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, opponents of the legislation attacked the credibility of the chief witness for the measure: Paul Cameron, chairman of the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Cameron equated gays with drug users and prostitutes and then went on to assert that all three groups have a much lower than average life expectancy.
But, under questioning by Sen. Janet Howell, D-Fairfax, Cameron acknowledged that the American Psychological Association expelled him in 1983 for violating the association's ethical principles. The American Sociological Association adopted resolutions in 1985 and 1986 saying Cameron had consistently misrepresented sociological research, he acknowledged.
Nothing like getting the best experts to testify for your cause, eh?
And, in the other noteworthy news item is that the "traditional marriage" license plate legislation was withdrawn, ostensibly because the anti-gay marrige bill would take care of things.
This sort of restores some faith in mankind, and restores hope to those that might otherwise not dare to hope.
Virginia had a couple of noteworthy news items this week as well. The senate turned down legislation that would have requied social workers to screen prospective adoptive parents for homosexuality.
From http://365gay.com:
In the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, opponents of the legislation attacked the credibility of the chief witness for the measure: Paul Cameron, chairman of the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Cameron equated gays with drug users and prostitutes and then went on to assert that all three groups have a much lower than average life expectancy.
But, under questioning by Sen. Janet Howell, D-Fairfax, Cameron acknowledged that the American Psychological Association expelled him in 1983 for violating the association's ethical principles. The American Sociological Association adopted resolutions in 1985 and 1986 saying Cameron had consistently misrepresented sociological research, he acknowledged.
Nothing like getting the best experts to testify for your cause, eh?
And, in the other noteworthy news item is that the "traditional marriage" license plate legislation was withdrawn, ostensibly because the anti-gay marrige bill would take care of things.
This sort of restores some faith in mankind, and restores hope to those that might otherwise not dare to hope.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Valentine's Day -- A time to reflect
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
My grandson
Of course, far be it for me to NOT show you a picture of my grandson -- I've not seen him physically since he was 3 weeks old, and yesterday was his second birthday.
But what a cutie he is!
But what a cutie he is!
There's a lot going on with marriage equality these days. Some good things, some bad things. I'd like to think that even the bad things eventually will lead to good.
Of course, the topic of discussion this week has been the ruling down in NYC by NY County Supreme Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan where she opined that, while she agreed with Elliot Spitzer's informal opinion that "...both the inclusion of gender-specific terms in multiple sections of the DRL [Domestic Relations Law], and the historical context in which the DRL was enacted, indicate that the Legislature did not intend to authorize same-sex marriage" the US Supreme Court has ruled, or, "...made clear that the right to marry is a liberty right..." Further, she further writes that "Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right to privacy, extend to protect marriage." She also cites the Loving decision, where Judge Skinner said "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men... Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." I think this is important because many of the religious fundies and/or neocons constantly assert that marriage is not a "right," per se and, with that in mind, denying marriage to same-sex couples doesn't deny any rights. This is a very important step that needs to be taken before we can ever hope to realize our dreams. We need to establish marriage as a right.
Then she takes it a step further. She actually waded into the conservative argument that the laws don't bar anyone from entering into a civil marriage. This is an argument that is encountered time and time again that, as the laws exist, homosexuals are not prevented from marrying. However, she doesn't stop the argument there, she presses on with the second part of this argument which is the right to choose who you marry. She cites the Goodridge v MA decision which stated, in part, "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice..."
In order to legally (and constitutionally) prevent two people from marrying, the state has to show a compelling interest in doing so. The state offered two reasons: a) supporting the "traditional" definition (institution) of marriage and b) saving us from ourselves so that we won't have problems in other jurisdictions which won't recognize the unions. According to cases cited, the NY courts as well as the USSC have both made it clear that tradition can't be a reason to deny rights to people. She writes "It is clear that moral disapproval of same-sex couples or of individual homosexuals is not a legitimate state purpose or a rational reason for depriving plaintiffs of their right to choose their spouse." The state apparently further argued that marriage between a man and a woman is for procreation and has been since the book of Genesis. The court observes that "...it is indisputable that the DRL does not bar women who are past child-bearing age to marry, and that the long-term union of a man and woman is no longer the only familial context for raising children." She goes on to say that, while the state beautifully stated the huge role that marriage plays in the lives of people, they were unable to define how that role would be harmed by the marriage of same-sex couples OR how the marriages of opposite gendered couples would be harmed by the marriages of same-sex couples.
Addressing the claim that they're "saving homosexuals" from legal difficulties in other states, the court first stated that, while they may be prevented from marrying, same sex couples will still cohabitate and have children either biologically or through adoption. The court then stated that "It would be 'irrational and perverse' (Carey v. Population Services Intl., 431 US 678, 715 [1977]) to deny such New York resident couples and their children the protections of marriage that they would enjoy uner the laws of New York, on the grounds that they will not have those protections under the laws of other states, or under those of the United States." She ruled that this claimed state interest was irrational and a "grave disservice" to residents of NY state. The state also argued that the purpose of the federal welfare program (and its reform) was to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock and to foster conditions where children were raised in two parent families. I was grinning when I read the judge's comments regarding this -- "As this Court is not the first to recognize, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples would actually foster these goals, rather than undermining them, and it would reinforce the importance of marriage in creating stable relationships and two-parent families for the raising of children."
She also addressed the argument of "traditional marriage" that is so often seen and heard -- that same-sex marriage would change "traditional marriage." She correctly points out that history has shown that "...marriage is not a stagnant institution." She notes that prior to the 19th century, marriage was synonymous with "coverture," that is, that once married, the husband and wife become one person under law and that, for all intents and purposes, the woman gives up her identity and has no legal standing. What I didn't see was the argument that sometimes marriage was a business deal, whereby a man bartered his daughter for a dowry or for other personal gain -- a practice no longer seen or even allowed in this country. Men also had universal rights over his wife's body, back in those days -- not so now.
"Permitting plaintiffs to marry would confer innumerable tangible and intangible benefits for them and their children while causing harm to no one. Defendant has articulated no such legitimate state purpose that is rationally served by a bar to same-sex marriage, let alone a compelling state interest in such a bar." Judge Ling-Cohan ruled, unequivocally, that the NY DRL (Domestic Relations Law) violates due process of rights under the NY Constitution.
It was further argued by the state that if same-sex couples were to be allowed to marry, it should be through the legislature, not through the courts. The court notes that this argument was also used to argue to the Supreme Court that the ban on interracial marriages should be a states issue and that the Supreme Court should not rule on the unconstitutionality of the issue.
Her ruling, in a nutshell, is that the DRL should be rewritten to replace the words “husband, wife, bride and groom, his and her” with the word “spouse” and that this word be applied equally to men and women.
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted; it is further
ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied; it is further
ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that the Domestic Relations Law violates Article 1, Sections 6 and 11, of the Constitution of this State; it is further
ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that the words ‘husband,’ ‘wife,’ ‘groom,’ and ‘bride,’ as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law are and shall be construed to mean ‘spouse,’ and all personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women; it is further
ORDERED that defendant is permanently enjoined from denying a marriage license to any couple, solely on the ground that the two persons in that couple are of the same sex; it is further
ORDERED that implementation of this order is stayed forthwith, to and including 30 days from service of a copy with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this decision to the Attorney General’s Office and serve a copy upon defendant, with notice of entry, within 10 days.”
Of course, just hours after the release of this ruling, NYC Mayor Bloomberg announced that he'll be appealing this ruling, because "...it's the right thing to do." He cited the couples in SF that had their marriages "snatched away" because they weren't legal. Apples and oranges because SF had no ruling allowing those marriages. Bloomberg's a politician -- a Republican who, along with all the other conservatives, wants to save the GLBT community from heartache and pain by continuing the discrimination.
As I read this ruling, I think about my own case and how this ruling can (and likely will) affect the outcome of it. I know that the lawyers were electrified with this ruling, and are busily discussing it and what it means – what parts of it they can use for our case. What bothers me is that there are too many judges sitting on the benches today that don’t rule based on law but, rather, their own sense of morality or, in some instances, straight down the party line. NYC is a “liberal” sort of town while here where I live, there’s a prevailing conservative tone. The county legislature is predominantly conservative and not receptive in any way, shape or form, to anything other than the rendering of lip service to same-sex unions.
I think it’s easy to hang onto those words that you want to see in a ruling of this nature, but I do find this ruling heartening and I find myself hopeful that it is yet another cornerstone in the foundation of equality that will be built here in this state – and that this state becomes a foundation stone for the nation.
Finally, for those of you out there who won’t dare allow yourself to hope – let go, let yourself hope. Hope is a beautiful, shining light that adds to our sense of purpose every single day – to deny that light is to live in the shadows of fear, doubt, and self-pity.
Dare to dream – but keep it real!
Of course, the topic of discussion this week has been the ruling down in NYC by NY County Supreme Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan where she opined that, while she agreed with Elliot Spitzer's informal opinion that "...both the inclusion of gender-specific terms in multiple sections of the DRL [Domestic Relations Law], and the historical context in which the DRL was enacted, indicate that the Legislature did not intend to authorize same-sex marriage" the US Supreme Court has ruled, or, "...made clear that the right to marry is a liberty right..." Further, she further writes that "Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right to privacy, extend to protect marriage." She also cites the Loving decision, where Judge Skinner said "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men... Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." I think this is important because many of the religious fundies and/or neocons constantly assert that marriage is not a "right," per se and, with that in mind, denying marriage to same-sex couples doesn't deny any rights. This is a very important step that needs to be taken before we can ever hope to realize our dreams. We need to establish marriage as a right.
Then she takes it a step further. She actually waded into the conservative argument that the laws don't bar anyone from entering into a civil marriage. This is an argument that is encountered time and time again that, as the laws exist, homosexuals are not prevented from marrying. However, she doesn't stop the argument there, she presses on with the second part of this argument which is the right to choose who you marry. She cites the Goodridge v MA decision which stated, in part, "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice..."
In order to legally (and constitutionally) prevent two people from marrying, the state has to show a compelling interest in doing so. The state offered two reasons: a) supporting the "traditional" definition (institution) of marriage and b) saving us from ourselves so that we won't have problems in other jurisdictions which won't recognize the unions. According to cases cited, the NY courts as well as the USSC have both made it clear that tradition can't be a reason to deny rights to people. She writes "It is clear that moral disapproval of same-sex couples or of individual homosexuals is not a legitimate state purpose or a rational reason for depriving plaintiffs of their right to choose their spouse." The state apparently further argued that marriage between a man and a woman is for procreation and has been since the book of Genesis. The court observes that "...it is indisputable that the DRL does not bar women who are past child-bearing age to marry, and that the long-term union of a man and woman is no longer the only familial context for raising children." She goes on to say that, while the state beautifully stated the huge role that marriage plays in the lives of people, they were unable to define how that role would be harmed by the marriage of same-sex couples OR how the marriages of opposite gendered couples would be harmed by the marriages of same-sex couples.
Addressing the claim that they're "saving homosexuals" from legal difficulties in other states, the court first stated that, while they may be prevented from marrying, same sex couples will still cohabitate and have children either biologically or through adoption. The court then stated that "It would be 'irrational and perverse' (Carey v. Population Services Intl., 431 US 678, 715 [1977]) to deny such New York resident couples and their children the protections of marriage that they would enjoy uner the laws of New York, on the grounds that they will not have those protections under the laws of other states, or under those of the United States." She ruled that this claimed state interest was irrational and a "grave disservice" to residents of NY state. The state also argued that the purpose of the federal welfare program (and its reform) was to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock and to foster conditions where children were raised in two parent families. I was grinning when I read the judge's comments regarding this -- "As this Court is not the first to recognize, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples would actually foster these goals, rather than undermining them, and it would reinforce the importance of marriage in creating stable relationships and two-parent families for the raising of children."
She also addressed the argument of "traditional marriage" that is so often seen and heard -- that same-sex marriage would change "traditional marriage." She correctly points out that history has shown that "...marriage is not a stagnant institution." She notes that prior to the 19th century, marriage was synonymous with "coverture," that is, that once married, the husband and wife become one person under law and that, for all intents and purposes, the woman gives up her identity and has no legal standing. What I didn't see was the argument that sometimes marriage was a business deal, whereby a man bartered his daughter for a dowry or for other personal gain -- a practice no longer seen or even allowed in this country. Men also had universal rights over his wife's body, back in those days -- not so now.
"Permitting plaintiffs to marry would confer innumerable tangible and intangible benefits for them and their children while causing harm to no one. Defendant has articulated no such legitimate state purpose that is rationally served by a bar to same-sex marriage, let alone a compelling state interest in such a bar." Judge Ling-Cohan ruled, unequivocally, that the NY DRL (Domestic Relations Law) violates due process of rights under the NY Constitution.
It was further argued by the state that if same-sex couples were to be allowed to marry, it should be through the legislature, not through the courts. The court notes that this argument was also used to argue to the Supreme Court that the ban on interracial marriages should be a states issue and that the Supreme Court should not rule on the unconstitutionality of the issue.
Her ruling, in a nutshell, is that the DRL should be rewritten to replace the words “husband, wife, bride and groom, his and her” with the word “spouse” and that this word be applied equally to men and women.
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted; it is further
ORDERED that defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied; it is further
ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that the Domestic Relations Law violates Article 1, Sections 6 and 11, of the Constitution of this State; it is further
ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that the words ‘husband,’ ‘wife,’ ‘groom,’ and ‘bride,’ as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law are and shall be construed to mean ‘spouse,’ and all personal pronouns, as they appear in the relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law, are and shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women; it is further
ORDERED that defendant is permanently enjoined from denying a marriage license to any couple, solely on the ground that the two persons in that couple are of the same sex; it is further
ORDERED that implementation of this order is stayed forthwith, to and including 30 days from service of a copy with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this decision to the Attorney General’s Office and serve a copy upon defendant, with notice of entry, within 10 days.”
Of course, just hours after the release of this ruling, NYC Mayor Bloomberg announced that he'll be appealing this ruling, because "...it's the right thing to do." He cited the couples in SF that had their marriages "snatched away" because they weren't legal. Apples and oranges because SF had no ruling allowing those marriages. Bloomberg's a politician -- a Republican who, along with all the other conservatives, wants to save the GLBT community from heartache and pain by continuing the discrimination.
As I read this ruling, I think about my own case and how this ruling can (and likely will) affect the outcome of it. I know that the lawyers were electrified with this ruling, and are busily discussing it and what it means – what parts of it they can use for our case. What bothers me is that there are too many judges sitting on the benches today that don’t rule based on law but, rather, their own sense of morality or, in some instances, straight down the party line. NYC is a “liberal” sort of town while here where I live, there’s a prevailing conservative tone. The county legislature is predominantly conservative and not receptive in any way, shape or form, to anything other than the rendering of lip service to same-sex unions.
I think it’s easy to hang onto those words that you want to see in a ruling of this nature, but I do find this ruling heartening and I find myself hopeful that it is yet another cornerstone in the foundation of equality that will be built here in this state – and that this state becomes a foundation stone for the nation.
Finally, for those of you out there who won’t dare allow yourself to hope – let go, let yourself hope. Hope is a beautiful, shining light that adds to our sense of purpose every single day – to deny that light is to live in the shadows of fear, doubt, and self-pity.
Dare to dream – but keep it real!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)