Gay Marriage for All: The Week in Review January 25th-31st

Time once again to review the previous week in gay marriage:

January 25th:

+ LONDON, ENGLAND, UK: Labour MP Emily Thornberry told an Islington registrar who is suing her town council to avoid presiding over gay marriage to "Get on with your job."

+ ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND, USA: More than a quarter of Maryland's state lawmakers have signed up to sponsor a bill legalizing gay marriage in Maryland.

January 26th:

+ LONDON, ENGLAND, UK: The British soap Emmerdale will feature a gay wedding between two of the show's characters, Paul Lambert and Jonny Foster.

January 28th:

- INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA: The GOP controlled state senate passed a constitutional gay marriage ban, but there's little chance that the Democratically controlled house will follow suit.

January 29th:

- FLORIDA, USA: John McCain fans the flames of anti-gay bigotry in Robo Calls against his chief rival, Mitt Romney.

+ SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, USA: State Senator Ed Murray introduced legislation to extend domestic partner benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

January 30th:

+ PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC: A year after gay partnerships were recognized by the Czech parliament, nearly 500 couples have tied the knot there with the blessing of the state.

+ MADRID, SPAIN: New poll shows 75% of Spaniards approve of gay marriage law passed two years ago, and only 18% disapprove.

+ HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, USA: Colin Farrell to be the best man at his brother, Eamon Ferrell's wedding to his partner, Steve Mannion.

January 31st:

- SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, USA: After several months of inactivity, two groups appear to be gathering signatures again to put an anti gay marriage amendment on the California ballot in November.  The groups would need 700,000 valid signatures by April 21st to qualify.

- WASHINGTON, DC, USA: The Chief of staff of the Democratic National Committee, Leah Daughtry, is against gay marriage, helping to explain why the DNC has done little to fight anti gay marriage initiatives around the country.

- TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA, USA: The anti gay marriage group Florida4Marriage, bankrolled by the state GOP, has turned in 92,000 additional signatures to get their anti gay marriage amendment on the November ballot.  Only 22,000 additional signatures were needed.  The state elections division should release the results between Saturday and Monday.

- DES MOINES, IOWA, USA: Five conservative state lawmakers file papers with the state Supreme Court urging the court to overturn a Polk County judge's decision that struck down the state's anti-gay marriage law.

+ FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY, USA: Governor Steve Beshear vows to veto a bill working its way through the Kentucky legislature that would ban domestic partner benefits in that state.

+ DETROIT, MICHIGAN, USA: Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a staunch opponent of gay marriage, was caught in an extra-marital affair.

= WOODBURY, NEW JERSEY, USA: In the first dissolution of a domestic partnership to come before the courts in NJ, a judge ruled that property must be divided between each partner.

+ PORTLAND, OREGON, USA: Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples gathered in Portland to protest a court-ordered delay in the domestic partner law there that was supposed to go into effect on January 1st.

- TENNESSEE, USA: State Representative John Deberry (DINO) and Senator Paul Stanley (R) filed companion bills to ban gay and lesbian couples from adopting.  It would also ban straight couples from adopting if they are not married.

That's it for this week - more next Thursday!

:)

--Scott

New Mexico House Passes Civil Unions Legislation

In marked contrast to the shameful behavior of Democratic Governor Chet Culver in Iowa, who is pushing for an anti gay marriage amendment in his state, Democratic Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, lately retired from the presidential race, is pushing for civil unions legislation there that would allow partners hospital visitation rights, shared insurance coverage, inheritance rights, and responsibilities for child support, visitation, and custody in the case of divorce.

It's a refreshing change, seeing a Democrat stand up for the rights of the people instead of the rights of corporations, and makes up for his gaffe during the LOGO gay and lesbian presidential debate, when he answered that he thought being gay was a choice (he later said that he'd misunderstood the question).

That mistake notwithstanding, Richardson has one of the most pro-gay records of any of the Presidential candidates this time around, and we're sad he couldn't make more of a go of it.

The New Mexico House just passed the civil unions legislation for the second time in a year, at the urging of Governor Richardson.

Governor Richardson isn't the only hero in this story - Representative Antonio Maestas said: "Is this bill contrary to God, contrary to marriage?  And the answer is no. Not a single married couple in this state will get divorced because of this bill. Not a single couple that is engaged . . . will cancel that wedding as a result of this bill. Not a single straight person will become gay as a result of this bill."

Finally, another Democrat stands up to all the malarkey and mud slinging that surrounds the gay marriage debate, and does his part to wash the slate clean.

Next step, the New Mexico State Senate will vote on the measure.  A similar measure failed in the Senate in 2007.  Its fate there this year is uncertain, but we can only hope that they, too, will stand up and do the right thing.

At the very least, it puts the actions of Chet Culver and the Democratic Party in Iowa to shame, and gives the rest of us reason to hope for the future.

--Scott

Democratic Cowardice in Iowa - Governor Caves to the Republicans

As a gay man and half of a long-term gay couple, I'm not surprised when a Republican Mayor, Governor, Senator, Congressman/woman, or President reaches into the grab bag of irrational hatred and pulls out the gay card.

How could I be?  We've seen it again and again, and it's gotta have its own chapter, if not three or four, in the Rovian Playbook.

But rarely do I see one of our own, a Democrat, not only trying to dance on the fine line between courtship and rebuttal on the gay marriage issue, but actively leading the charge against us.

Such is the sad case in Iowa, where Democratic Governor Chet Culver, responding to a lower court ruling against marriage discrimination and to a pending Iowa Supreme Court decision, is beating the drums of anti-gay bigotry and pushing for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Iowa:

"We'll do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman," Culver said recently, urging the Supreme Court to hurry up its ruling so the Iowa legislature can settle things once and for all.

When I read that a governor of a midwestern state was advocating a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I wasn't at all surprised.  When I found out he was a democrat, I was stunned.

Am I the only one out here who thinks it's time to take the old RINO moniker (Republican in Name Only) and flip it around?  It seems like we were sold a bill of goods in the 2006 election, when we added all these "middle of the road" or "blue dog" democrats - most of them are barely democrats at all, with their opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights, and most recently, the ten or so in the senate who crossed party lines to help defend the rights of the telecom companies to spy on us without fear of reprisal.  Is this the new face of the Democratic Party, where individual rights are forgotten in the rush to protect multinational conglomerates from the little people?

What's even sadder here is that the Republicans tried before to get this amendment passed through the Iowa legislature, and even though they controlled the Iowa House and were tied with Democrats in the Senate, they were unable to get this mean-spirited piece of legislation pushed through.

Now that Democrats control both the legislature and the executive branches, you'd think that their chances were nil.  But the difference is that the previous governor, Tom Vilsack, while against gay marriage, was pro civil union and respected gay and lesbian relationships.  And he was willing to stand against the forces of intolerance when it came to amending the Iowa constitution.

Apparently, Governor Culver has no spine - rather than do the right thing and risk public anger, he's willing to not just aid the Republicans in their efforts to enshrine discrimination in the Iowa Constitution, but to actually lead the charge against a group of Iowans who are unable to defend themselves against this government intrusion.

We all know what happened to the dinosaurs - let's hope these DINO's eventually have to face the consequences of their own actions, and become extinct too.

--Scott

Gay Marriage For All - The Week in Review, January 18th-24th

Here's our weekly recap of news from the gay marriage front:

January 19th:

+INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA: State Rep. Scott Pelath, chairman if the Indiana House Rules and Legislative Procedure Committee, refused to bring up a bill to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, saying the House has much more urgent matters, including property tax relief.

January 21st

+ BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA: Two of Argentina's gay rights leaders got married in Madrid in defiance of their country's ban on gay marriage.  Congratulations to Cesar Cigliutti and Marcelo Suntheim!

+ BOISE, IDAHO: Idaho took a small step toward gay rights, proposing a bill that would make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal for employers with 5 or more employees.  Churches would be exempted.

- INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, USA: Gay marriage opponents, frustrated in the Indiana House, are taking their case to the Indiana senate, hoping to pass a measure to amend the Indiana state constitution to ban gay marriage.

+ SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO: The New Mexico House Judiciary Committee passed a domestic partnership bill, which would give gay and lesbian couples in New Mexico the same legal protections and benefits as married couples.  Governor Bill Richardson supports the bill, which will go to the full House for a vote later this week.

January 22nd

+ SWEDEN: A new poll shows that 70% of Swedes support gay marriage.  Sweden has offered civil partnerships since 1995, and is currently studying the possibility of offering full marriage rigts to GLBT couples.

- SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO: Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila plans to sign a bill authorizing a May vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Puerto Rico.

- DES MOINES, IOWA: Governor Chet Culver asked the state Supreme Court to hurry up its ruling on Iowa's ban on gay marriage, and promised to rush through a constitutional amendment should the court strike down the defense of marriage law in the state.  Shame on Governor Culver, a Democrat, for betraying his gay and lesbian constituency.

+ SEATTLE, WASHINGTON: The Washington state legislature is considering legislation that would provide for end of life rights, nursing home visitation, and te dissolution of gay relationships in the state.

January 23rd

+ MARYLAND: Two state senators, Rich Madaleno and Jamie Raskin, have taken up sponsorship of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act in Maryland, which would legalize gay marriage there while allowing churches to continue to decide whom they would marry.  The two take over for Gwendolyn Britt, the outspoken former sponsor of the bill who tragically passed away last week.

+ NEW YORK, NEW YORK: Former Vice president Al Gore has come out in favor of gay marriage in a blog posting on the current.com website.

January 24th

+ AUSTRALIA: Greens MP Lee Riannon promises to introduce a civil unions bill in State Parliament later this year.

+ PHOENIX, ARIZONA: Governor Janet Napolitano has proposed extending benefits available to state workers to their same- and opposite-sex domestic partners.

- DES MOINES, IOWA: Gay marriage foes here delivered 6,000 signatures to the Iowa Legislature demanding impeachment of Polk County Judge Robert Hanson, the judge who ruled that the anti-gay-marriage law there was unconstitutional last summer.

- WAVE, KENTUCKY: A state senate committee has approved legislation that would amend Indiana's constitution to prohibit gay marriage.  The bill appears to have little chance of passage through the full house and senate this year.

That's it for this week - more next week.

--Scott

2007 Polls Show 6% Increase in Support for Gay Marriage Since 2006

We're all bombarded with polls about everything around us - who's the best news channel?  Who will we vote for in the next primary/election?  Do we support this cause or that one?

It got me thinking.  I've heard of several polls about civil unions and gay marriage over the years, but I don't really know, other than anecdotally, how things are going - is support really increasing?  Are detractors really losing ground?  And how quickly are things changing?

I did a bit of research online, and found a great site - PollingReport.com - that gives the results of all kinds of polls, including nationwide polls on gay marriage and civil unions.

So now, I had the raw numbers, but what did they really mean?  Different polling companies use different methods, samples are different, and questions can vary, yielding different results even when the polls are taken at the same time.

So I decided to take matters into my own hands.  Using the raw polling numbers from 63 nationwide polls taken on gay marriage and civil unions between 1996 and 2007, I created an online chart showing all the data in one place.

As you might expect, this yielded a bit of a mixed picture - with poll numbers moving up and down within a month or two of each other.  Data was also mixed between gay marriage and civil unions, so I had to sort that out.

In the end, I averaged all the poll numbers by year to get a clearer picture of where things are going, and here's what I found (to see the details, click here):

1996: 27% for, 68% against gay marriage

1999: 35% for, 62% against

2000: 34% for, 62% against

2003: 34% for, 59% against

2004: 34% for, 60% against

2005: 35% for, 57% against

2006: 36% for, 57% against

2007: 42% for, 52% against

Admittedly, this isn't a scientific summary.  But nevertheless, I was thrilled to see a 15% increase in support coupled with a 14% drop in the against numbers in 12 years.  And even more interesting is the fact that our support increased 6% in a single year.  One poll, a Gallup poll in May, 2007, even found a startling 46% of respondents in favor of gay marriage.

In some places, the numbers are even closer - in California, for instance, a 2006 Public Policy Institute poll showed 47% of likely voters in the state supported gay marriage, while 46% were opposed.

On the civil unions side, we have data going back to 2003, shortly after several states began to offer domestic partnerships or civil unions as a substitute for full marriage.  Once marriage was suddenly, dramatically put on the table in 2004 with the advent of marriage in Massachusetts and Gavin Newsom's opening of city hall to gay and lesbian couples, civil unions suddenly became an attractive option to many folks on the right as a way of staving off the rush to full marriage rights.

Those of us in the gay marriage trenches saw it a bit differently, of course.  Something (in this case, civil unions) was certainly better than nothing, but still smelled a little of second class citizenship.  In the earlier part of the 20th century, after all, African Americans had access to many of the same services that whites had, but on a separate basis.  And as we all know, the courts eventually declared the "separate but equal" doctrine to be the lie that it was.

Don't get me wrong - my partner, Mark, and I have been signed up as domestic partners with the state of California since 1997, and the state has gradually added more rights and responsibilities to couples on the registry, including hospital visitation rights, joint tax filing (state only), and the application of Prop 13 tax property tax rates to surviving domestic partners.  And these are all good things.  But they still aren't marriage.

In any case, along with support for gay marriage, support for civil unions has increased as well:

2003: 42% for, 50% against civil unions

2004: 47% for, 47% against

2005: 50% for, 42% against

2006: 52% for, 42% against

2007: 53% for, 42% against

It feels like our country reached a tipping point here - not just on civil rights issues, but on global warming, the war in Iraq, and the economy - where prople are finally waking up and seeing the light.

Fully 53% of the country now supports basic rights for gay and lesbian couples, and in at least some states, a majority of voters now also support full gay marriage.

My partner and I have been together now for almost 16 years, and the closest we've come to marriage is the day we stood in the San Francisco City Hall, at the top of the marble staircase, and spoke our vows to each other on March 11th, 2004, the same day a state judge ended flow of gay and lesbian couples to The City.

And although our marriage license was invalidated a short time later, it meant something.  Standing there under the dome of city hall, professing our commitment for one another under the approving eyes of the city felt real in a way that's hard to describe - something that can't be taken away by tearing up a piece of paper.  For a few days, we weren't just two guys signing a contract.  We were married.

We hope that the next few years will bring real change, either from the California Supreme Court, which is finally due to rule on the issue in 2008 after four long years of silence, or from the voters themselves, as public opinion continues to shift away from the politics of hatred and intolerence and toward support of committed relationships.

Only time will tell, but time, so far, has been good to us.

--Scott

Gay Marriage - An End to Life on Planet Earth?

I've been sampling stories around the web about the state of the country and the Republican primaries, and I have to say my eyes have been opened.  I thought that the Iraq war and the drain on our nation's finances that it represents was one of the biggest issues confronting the United States in this election year.

Or maybe the shaky economy, hurt by the housing crash, the credit crunch, and the sudden drop in consumer confidence.

Or maybe even the threat of global warming, and the massive social, economic, and environmental changes it threatens to force upon us.

But no, I've apparently been mistaken.  To listen to our Republican friends, all these issues pale when compared to the gravest threat our country faces this decade - the erosion of traditional marriage, specifically by the tides of happy gay and lesbian couples lapping upon its banks.

In Iowa, for instance, one of the liberal, godless, activist courts is set to force gay marriage down the god-fearing Iowans' throats, and brave Governor Chet Culver has announced his plans to stand up and "do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman."  I'd assume that would include hand to hand combat, if needed.

Then we have Mike Huckabee in South Carolina, his holiness be praised for reminding us what it is the gays really want: "I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and an animal."  Silly me - I thought gay and lesbian couples wanted to get married to each other and settle down in a house with a dog and a white picket fence, like everyone else.  But Mr. Huckabee has opened my eyes - it's really the dog these couples are after - oh, the howling we'll have to put up with at night if these dog-loving people get their way.

If you aren't up on the bible, Stephen Baldwin (the one from the movie Threesome) can help set you straight - "I don't believe that gay marriage is in line with God's word, which is found in the Bible... the Bible says that gay marriage is not acceptable."  I haven't been able to find that particular passage, though I did find the part about not eating shellfish, so I'm giving up on shrimp cocktails.  But I'd like to offer my sincere thanks to Mr. Baldwin for his assurances that the good book does indeed cover homosexual nuptials.

In Vermont, where the sudden onset of gay civil unions in 2000 has wrecked havoc with perhaps tens of straight marriages across the state, the newly formed Vermont Marriage Advisory Council is working hard to change that, and to prevent the unimaginable damage full gay marriage in Vermont would bring.  "We're very much opposed to changing the definition of marriage, because it is a very solid institution when properly understood," Stephen Cable, one of the group's founders, said.  Apparently those gay and lesbian couples clamoring for man on dog unions simply don't have the necessary understanding of the solidity of marriage, and that lack of understanding might make it collapse under the first heavy wind.

In Indiana, the Republicans are busy trying to put another constitutional ban on gay marriage on the ballot.  "...the people of Indiana need the opportunity to vote to protect marriage," Eric Miller, founder of Advance America, says.  So not only have the gays and lesbians misrepresented their ultimate aims here, the very solid institution of marriage has a fatal weakness, a kryptonite, if you will - it can fall apart if touched by too many gay or lesbian hands (or hearts).  So we need to build a protective wall around it to protect this most solid of concepts from the poor, misguided homosexuals with kryptonite hands.

John Stemberger, the head of Florida4Marriage.org, the group trying to qualify the constitutional ban on same sex marriage for the ballot in Florida, supplied the capper: "Same-sex marriage inflicts a vast untested social experiment on children, and that's an experiment that we're not willing to take."  You see, it's not merely the solid/collapsible institution of marriage itself that's at stake, nor the vast army of dogs and cats that we put at risk with gay marriage.  It's also the poor children, who have managed to survive this country's poor health care, no child left behind, and indoctrination in intelligent design in school have to suffer the final indignity - living with a same sex couple.

So turn your eyes away from the howling winds of global warming, the human bombs of the Iraq war, and the man knocking at your door from the bank who wants to take away your house.  Look over here, at the great gay menace, and vote for the nice white men who will keep you, your children, and your pets safe.

Let's get real.  This isn't about marriage, or children, or dogs and cats.  It's about the politics of fear.  DL Hughley said it best on Friday night on Bill Maher's show, Real Time.  Talking about Mike Huckabee's sudden, surprising defense of the Confederate Flag and his promise to change the constitution to prevent gay marriage, he said:

"...the flag to me, and just as well as the gay issue, is always code name for... "we'll keep you safe from gays and blacks, and keep this country where it's supposed to be, in our hands."

Wake up, America, and look at the man behind the curtain, not the smoke screen he's puffing out to keep you all blinded.  He's a lot scarier than the gay bogieman he'd like you to fear.

--Scott

UK Companies Defy the Civil Partnership and Equality Act

Hi all,

One of our allies in the UK, Gino at Pink Weddings, recently sent out an email detailing several companies that are ignoring the Civil Partnership and Equality Act, the law recently passed in the UK to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights and responsibilities as straight married couples.  We thought the information was worth reprinting here, with his permission:

"Over the last few months it has been bought to my attention that a number of mainstream companies are not acting accordingly with the Civil Partnership and Equality Act. We want to share these thoughts and see if you have any stories you wish to share as part of our ongoing commitment to Equality. So far we are investigating the following ORANGE FACT : Have no way of registering a Civil Partnership, we are simply ticked under “marriage or other” UPDATE : We are awaiting news from Orange EGG CARD FACT : Do not recognise Civil Partnerships and causes problems when couples try to change their surnames on their accounts UPDATE : We have spoken to their press office and EGG are speaking with relevant managers to find out more about this PEACOCKS SHOPPING CENTRE, SURREY FACT : the charity Gay Surrey we refused access into the shopping centre to promote World Aids day and other promotional days with the NHS and THT UPDATE : this matter is still ongoing and is at present with the Equality and Human Rights. Mr Keeping, manager of the peacocks centre stated to the press "I don't think the promotion of lesbian or gay activity is appropriate in this centre but I'm not saying it isn't appropriate elsewhere" Read the full story http://www.gaysurrey.org/press.htm Please sign our petition http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gs_peacocks Do you have a story? Please let us know. It seems strange that with all the new laws in place that these companies feel they are above the law and are able to discriminate as they see fit. This cannot happen and we must stop this immediately."

If you have stories about marriage discrimination in the UK, email them to boyzngirlz@pinkweddings.biz - Gino would love to hear from you!

--Scott

Gay Marriage Means Special Responsibilities, Too!

When you've been watching the debate over gay marriage for as long as I have, you start to see certain recurring themes in the debate.

One of these that we hear over and over is the whole "special rights" thing - the idea that we, as a gay couple, want rights not given to anyone else.

It's never quite clear what these "special rights" actually are - the right to be fashionable?  The right to front row seats at the oscars?  And yet, it's worked before - it stirs up resentment among straight folks, and obscures the very real civil rights issues involved.

Here's my favorite version of this little chestnut.  In an actual court case on gay marriage in NY in 2006, the court said:

"And about sex discrimination, it states that if gay people want to marry, they have every option to marry someone of the opposite sex and, since the sexes are equal in that regard, there’s no discrimination."

But why do these arguments work?

I've given this a lot of thought, and I think it's this - we keep asking for the rights we think we're due, and with a little help from these snake oil salesmen, we come off as a bit whiny, and, well, entitled (and don't get me started on that one).

So a new approach is needed here.  We need to grow up a little, and realize that it's not all about what everyone else can do for us.

When a couple gets married, it's true that there are many benefits that come to them automatically, including tax breaks, inheritance benefits, hospital visitation, and much more.

But we often overlook the flip side of the coin.  When a couple gets married, they also take on a number of responsibilities, including promising to support and care for each other - and not just emotionally.

When people legally marry, they take over the burden of each other from society.  They promise to help pay the debts their spouses have or may incur.   They agree to create a stable relationship that will further the stability of society, and they become fiscally responsible for any children the relationship bears.

Right now, without the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage, we can pretty much do what we want.  If the relationship isn't working, we can walk out the door at any time, no repercussions.  There's no law that says we each own half of what was earned during the relationship.  And if one of us has a child, the other partner has no legal rights unless they go through the adoption process.

If we're going to ask for the door to legal marriage to be opened, we need to remember that we're not just asking for a candy-colored basket full of "special rights", but also a new set of responsibilities to society and to the one we love.

We need to step up and say "we're ready".  Ready to shoulder our share of responsibility for each other for the good of our relationship and for the stability of our society as a whole.

And with that responsibility will come the associated rights and benefits of civil marriage.

Then maybe we can throw off the charge of "special rights" once and for all.

--Scott

Gay Marriage for All - the Week in Review, Jan 11-17, 2007

In our weekly feature, we recap the stories making headlines during the last week in the fight for marriage equality, + for positive, - for negative:

January 11th:

+ ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND, USA: Maryland lawmakers define who's eligible for Domestic Partner status for health insurance purposes.

+ SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, USA: Salt Lake City Mayor Ron Becker wasted no time making good on a campaign pledge to create a domestic partner registry, sending it to the city council for a vote on January 22nd.  

January 12th:

- BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, USA: Gay rights supporter and former Sixties Freedom Rider Gwendolyn T. Britt passed away after being admitted to a hospital.  Britt had planned to introduce gay marriage legislation this session, and will be greatly missed.

January 13th:

+ CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE, USA: In the two weeks since New Hampshire enacted a new civil unions law, more than 100 couples have taken advantage of it.

January 14th:

+ TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA: Toronto's Church of the Holy Trinity bucks the Anglican Church and vows to continue blessing gay weddings.

+ MADRID, SPAIN: Conservative Popular Party Leader Mariano Rajoy promises not to repeal gay marriage in Spain if elected Prime Minister in early March.

- NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Pioneering lesbian couple whose test case on gay marriage reached the NS Supreme Court files for divorce.

+ CARSON CITY, NEVADA, CANADA: The board of the Nevada Public Employees Benefits Program votes to expand coverage to unmarried couples and their dependents.

January 15th:

+ SERBIA: Serbian Presidential Candidate Cedomir Jovanovic says he would remove all discriminatory provisions against GLBT folks from Serbian law if elected.

+ SWEDEN: The Swedish Legislature, with the support of the Church of Sweden, announces its intention to legalize gay marriage there, upgrading the current civil union laws established in 1995, and overturning laws dating back to 1987 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

- MIAMI, FLORIDA, USA: the anti-gay Florida for Marriage Coalition falls 21,000 signatures short of 611,009 needed to get an anti-gay-marriage initiative on the fall ballot.  The group has until 1/29 to try to collect the additional signatures

- DES MOINES, IOWA, USA: Republicans try to force the Democratic-controlled legislature to add an anti-gay-marriage amendment to the Iowa constitution, an effort to pre-empt a pending Iowa State Supreme Court ruling on the state's Defense of Marriage law that's already suffered one defeat in Iowa courts.

- WARREN, MICHIGAN, USA: Mike Huckabee tells supporters he wants to change the US Constitution to match the Bible - "it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God.

January 16th:

- RABAT, MOROCCO: A Moroccan appeals court upheld prison sentences for six men arrested on "homosexuality" charges at what the local press has called a "gay marriage".

- SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, USA: Republican Mayoral candidate Steve Francis says he would have vetoed s city council vote in support of gay marriage if he had been Mayor. The current Mayor, Republican Jerry Sanders, tearfully announced his support for the measure in a moving speech last year.

+ MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, USA: David Dillon, CEO of a Twin Cities printing company, announced he'll run for congress in Minnesota's 3rd District as an Independent, a seat formerly held by Republican Jim Ramstad, who is retiring.  Dillon is pro-gay-marriage.

- LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, USA: Huckabee supporters using infamous Republican robo-call tactic to slime opponents for supposed support on gay issues and gay marriage - 546K calls planned to Nevada residents.

January 17th

+ AUSTIN, TEXAS, USA: University of Texas lecturer Uri Horesh entered the third day of his hunger strike to protest UT's lack of health care fopr domestic partners.  UT has a non-discrimination policy, but claims Texas's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage prevents it from providing any domestic partner benefits.

Mixed bag this week.  More next time!

--Scott

Standing Up for Gay (& Straight) Marriage

It's a challenge writing a regular blog about a single topic - trying to bring a fresh perspective to the issue each time, and looking for little bits of interest tom your readers.

So today I thought I'd reach back a bit in time to my first gay wedding, or at least the first celebration of a commitment between two of my gay friends that I ever attended.

Gay marriage seems like such a modern invention - until San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the floodgates in February, 2004 with weddings at City Hall on Valentines Day, the very idea that we might see the rights and responsibilities of marriage in the GLBT community in our lifetimes seemed absurd.

But for as long as there have been GLBT relationships, there have been many among us who have sought ways to express our love and commitment to each other in front of friends and family.

It was 1989 or 1990, and I was just a couple years out of high school.  Though I had known about what I then thought of as my "gay side" since junior high, I was still in the closet, thinking I could have it both ways - have these gay feelings, but still live a straight life.  I remember thinking I had these feelings to help me be a better person - to realize that GLBT folks were worthy of respect, too, even if I chose not to act on them myself.

I was dating a woman at the time, and one of her friends came to us and said he wanted to exchange rings with his partner.

So my girlfriend and I, another friend, and the happy couple got together at the Huntington Library - an amazing place in Arcadia, California, that includes several art museums and lush gardens that are regularly open to the public.

If you've never been to the Huntington, let me paint a picture for you: the grounds surround a grand mansion, and include tropical and subtropical gardens, a Japanese garden, a cactus garden, and some amazing stands of bamboo by a quiet pond, where the couple had decided to exchange vows.

We arrived at the Huntington on a sunny afternoon, made our way down the hillside through the subtropical gardens to the bamboo forest, and filed through the soaring shoots of bamboo to a quiet, secluded clearing near the pond.  Above us, the wind whispered through the bamboo; all around us, other visitors wandered by now and then.

I, my girlfriend, and friend gathered around the couple, creating with our bodies a safe place that blocked out the rest of the world, and with a nervous glance around, the little ceremony began.

The couple shared their vows, and then exchanged rings, and I remember how quickly it went by - there was such a feeling of love and protection there, but also of urgency - that we help these two seal their bonds before anyone else could stop us.  Then we all filed back out of the forest, into the real world once again.

I've since thought about that day many times, and in light of the current fight for gay marriage, I'm thinking about it once again.

Here, in bold relief, is another point of commonality between gay marriage and its straight cousin - whenever we attend a civil union, commitment ceremony, or state sanctioned gay marriage, aren't we all, in effect, gathering in a circle around the happy couple, using our own love as a shield for all the ills of the outside world that may mean their relationship harm?

Aren't we, in the most basic sense, providing a support system for this new relationship, to help it grow and mature in a healthy way?

In The Laramie Project, there's a scene that always moves me to tears.  If you haven't seen it, it's about the beating and death of Matthew Shepard, and the community response afterward.  At the funeral, Fred Phelps, the rabidly anti-gay "minister" from Kansas showed up with a few supporters, carrying "God Hates Fags" posters.

Can you imagine burying someone you love, and having to deal with such naked hatred at the same time?

But then something beautiful happened.  A group of angels appeared - volunteers all in white, with angel wings, who walked up silently to stand in front of Phelps and his ilk, and blocked them from the view of the funeral party.

It was breathtaking to see, even in re-enactment, an act of such simple beauty, love, and heartbreaking dignity.

And this is, to me, the essence of what each of us, gay or straight, need to bring to this marriage debate.  This is where we find common ground - whenever two consenting adults ask us to support their relationship, we show up.

We need to spread our wings, block out the ugliness of the world outside, and create a safe space where they can live and love and grow together.

--Scott

The Sanctity of (Gay) Marriage

In her post on the Sun Sentinel website, writer Nancy Heist makes the case for sacred marriage, and I couldn't agree more.  I just don't agree that straight couples have a lock on the word sacred.

If we take out the strictly religious definitions of the word (since even in straight marriage is not limited to religiously inclined couples), we're left with these definitions:

--Dedicated or devoted to a single person

--Worthy of respect, venerable

And I defy anyone, including Mrs. Heist, to tell me that my 15 year relationship with Mark is not a sign of devotion and dedication.  Or that such a commitment is not worthy of respect.

Don't get me wrong - I'll be the first to congratulate her on her successful relationship.  God knows, it's hard enough just to find the right guy (or gal) and anyone who can keep a marriage fresh deserves my respect.

And here's where the title of this blog comes in, because I truly believe that gay marriage is a good thing for everyone.  Although it's hard to adjust to a new paradigm, I'd like to extend an olive branch to Nancy Heist and all the other folks out there who can make it halfway, to rights for gay and lesbian folks, but who are having a hard time getting the rest of the way to gay marriage.

So just for a moment, let's forget the religion part.  Let's see if we can agree on a few basics:

a) We're not trying to take the religion out of your marriage

b) We're not trying to force your church to marry us

c) Anyone who can stay together in a committed relationship deserves respect and recognition

d) Supporting committed couples is in the best interest of society at large

So even if you believe all the stereotypes - in fact, especially if you think that all gay people sleep around, that men are by nature inclined against commitment, or that gay culture has an unhealthy obsession with sex - then you should be for gay marriage.

Why not use societal pressure to enforce cultural norms?  It works for straight folks - couples stand before their friends and families (and if they choose, their God) and pledge to be faithful and to take care of one another whatever may come.  If your objections to gay marriage are really rooted in rational arguments, this should be a no brainer.  Getting gay couples to marry and commit to each other reduces promiscuity, the transmission of STD's, health care costs (happily married people live longer), and creates more positive role models for the next generation.

Of course, like many other social issues, much of the reason for opposition to the idea is not rationally based.  Though we like to come up with rational-sounding reasons to mask our own discomfort with unfamiliar ideas, at their base these objections are often rooted in fear or disgust, not rational thought and fact.

This is why even close friends who fully support our relationship can get a little squeamish when we kiss in front of them.  This is why gay-themed jokes almost never fail to get a sniggering response from straight men.

I understand this response.  I don't like it, but I get it.  Believe me, I get the same shudder you straight guys get when I think of men and women having sex.

But I believe we are rational beings.  That we can learn, if we have the courage to try, to put aside our base-instincts and gut-level reactions in favor of the greater good.

Think of it this way - who likes to picture their parents having sex?  Not one of you, I'll bet (and if you do, I have the number of a great therapist for you).  But would you take the next step and suggest that your parents shouldn't be able to get married because of your own personal disgust at what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom?

I am devoted to Mark, my partner of 15+ years, and our relationship is sacred and worthy of your respect, just as yours is worthy of mine.  And in our culture, we have a word for a committed, loving, long-term relationship between two adults.

It's called marriage.  And it's good for everyone.

--Scott

Gay Marriage for All - the Week in Review, Jan 3-10, 2008

In a new weekly feature, we'll recap the stories making headlines during the last week in the fight for marriage equality:

January 3rd:

OREGON, USA: Same sex couples hold vigils throughout the state to protest a court ruling delaying the implementation of a domestic partner registry.

January 4th:

MARYLAND, USA: The Maryland state legislature gets the gay marriage ball punted to them from the Maryland courts - will they pass gay marriage or civil unions legislation this year?

ISRAEL: Tel Aviv announces a plan to recognize same sex couples for all muncipal services, including taxes, making it the third Israeli city to do so, after Lod and Mevaserat Zion.

January 5th:

NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA: A gay couple gets married along with two straight couples at the opening of the Sydney Festival in front of 20,000 people.  Though their union is not legally recognized, newlyweds Greg Small and Avan Tiong hope the new government will take steps to recognize same sex unions.

January 7th:

IRELAND: Equality Minister Seam Power announces that Ireland will pass legislation in the spring to allow civil unions, and to recognize same sex marriages and civil unions performed elsewhere, to be in place by this summer.

SOUTH AFRICA: HIV/AIDS activist and Nobel Prize nominee Zackie Achmat married his partner, Dalli Weyers, at a ceremony near Cape Town.  Same sex marriage has been legal in South Africa since 2005. 

USA: Threesome star (ok, we use that term lightly) Stephen Baldwin comes out against gay marriage and for Mike Huckabee - and says "what I think doesn't matter."

January 8th:

FLORIDA, USA: The head of the NAACP came out against the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment, a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage that is being readied for the November ballot.

INDIANA, USA: In Indiana, state senator Brandt Hershman pushed for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage in that state, even though Indiana already has a version of the Defense of Marriage act on its books.

VERMONT, USA: The Vermont Marriage Advisory Council announces a plan to "educate" Vermonters about the evils of gay marriage.

January 9th:

ENGLAND, UK: A wedding registrar in Islington is suing the city council for forcing her to perform gay marriages, which she says is against her religious beliefs. 

CONNECTICUT, USA: Rumors surface that the Connecticut Supreme Court may hand down their decision on January 11th in favor of gay marriage in the constitution state.

January 10th:

ONTARIO, CANADA: Anglican Bishop John Chapman to decide soon whether to allow blessings of same sex unions in the Ottawa Diocese.

FLORIDA, USA: Secretary of State Kurt Browning requires submission of signature counts for ballot initiatives on paper, after an audit reveals overcounts in electronically submitted numbers, including a 400% over-count on signatures for an anti-gay-marriage amendment from Lee County in 2005.

Mostly good news this week, with the glaring exception of the Florida amendment.

More next time!

--Scott

Ireland Okays Gay and Lesbian Civil Unions

Taking a great step forward, another European nation has leapfrogged gay civil rights in the United States.  According to the Irish Times, planned legislation for "civil unions or weddings will have the same legal recognition as new civil partnerships in Ireland, as long as they meet a number of conditions."

Thanks to Tony Grew at pinknews.co.uk for bringing this to our attention.

Though it's not full-fledged gay marriage, legislation will be brought up this Spring that will recognize gay marriages and civil partnerships performed for gay and lesbian Irish couples in other countries, and would grant most of the rights of marriage to same sex couples.

Granting actual marriage to gay and lesbian couples would require a change in the Irish constitution, which currently bans gay marriage in that country.

So here we have another heavily Catholic country offering more civil rights to gay and lesbian couples than our own supposedly secular government.  Spain did it too!

And what's more, 53% of Ireland supports gay marriage, as opposed to approximately 45% here.

Could that have anything to do with the concerted right-wing effort to use gays as a wedge issue here in the US, stirring up hatred and fear among the oft-mentioned "base"?

Many folks here in the US have bought the big lie, that gay marriage is about shoving man on man sex (or, as Santorum famously put it, man on dog) down the throats of the American Public.  Funny, though, how most of the folks peddling this nonsense are straight white men.  How much experience have they had with actually being gay?

I came out to my friends and family at 22, and met my life partner at 23.  We've been together ever since, going on 16 years now.

In the "normal" course of things, I would have met a pretty girl, dated her for a couple years, then popped the question - and had my friends, family, and the state supporting my relationship.

In real life, I met a cute boy instead.  And the family and friends are there and ready to support us.  But we're still waiting for the Federal Government to catch up.

I could go on and on about the thousands of rights and responsibilities that come with actual marriage - hey, it's been done before, ad nauseum.  But instead,  I want to address this on a more personal level.

Beyond all the political stuff, I want to marry Mark because of the funny little smile he shows me when I make him laugh.

I want to marry him because of the way his shoulders shrug in delight when I give him a back-rub, and because of the way he listens when I have an idea, as if I am the only other person in the world, and because he knows I like my grande frappucino with two pumps of peppermint and no whipped cream.

I want to marry him because he "gets" Arrested Development, and because he likes to order cheese plates before dinner, and because he's learning Italian with me for our next trip to Rome.

And let me set the record straight.  I don't need marriage to define our relationship - we've done a great job of that ourselves over the last 16 years.

But if marriage is such a great institution, as even the opponents of gay marriage admit, why continue to deny its inherent support of a loving relationship to my partner and I?  Denying marriage to gay couples and then chastising them for not being committed enough stinks of the rankest hypocrisy.

So hurray to the government of Ireland for taking an historic first step.  And fingers crossed that our own government isn't too far behind.

--Scott

Oregon Anti Gay Marriage Forces Run to the Courts

We've heard it again and again from the opponents of gay marriage.

Activist judges are rewriting the laws of the country.

Gay marriage supporters run to the courts when they can't get their way at the ballot box. 

There's nothing more important than the will of the people when it comes to important social issues like gay marriage.

Yeah, right.

Did you hear the latest news out of Oregon?  Oregon recently passed a domestic partners registry,  a halfway-step that would guarantee registered partners the right to visit each other in the hospital, file joint state taxes, and take sick leave to take care of their partners, among other rights.

Unfortunately, a group called the Alliance Defense Fund didn't like the idea of extending these rights to gay couples, because, you know, it'd be uncomfortably close to marriage.  Even though the word marriage doesn't appear anywhere in the new law.  And even though the few rights granted by the registry, as important as they are, represent a small fraction of the rights and responsibilities automatically granted to straight couples when they marry.  Just goes to show what good, Christian hearts these folks have.

But fair enough - you disagree with the law, you work to change it.  So they did what they're always telling us to do - they took the fight to the people.  They organized a ballot drive to put a measure before the Oregon people to block the new registry.  Unfortunately for the ADF, they were unable to get enough valid signatures to get their measure on the ballot.  Democracy 101 in action.

So did they follow their own rhetoric?  Did they respect the will of the people of Oregon and drop the matter once and for all?

Well, not exactly.  See, what I've learned about these people is this - they stop at nothing to impose their will on everyone around them.  So forget all the blah blah blah about the will of the people.  And all the malarkey about the evils of changing the law from the bench.

The ADF took their case to a Federal Judge, who, like the Grinch before Christmas, put the new law on hold just days before it was to take effect on January 1st, pending a hearing next month.  And if the appeals go on, don't expect to see the law take effect any time soon.

In the meantime, our hearts go out to the couples who now have to wait to have hospital visitation rights and sick leave benefits, and who once again have been cast in the role of second-hand citizens.

In the end, the registry will come to pass.  It's the way of the future, and the ADF and their ilk are fighting a desperate rearguard action to slow it down, but they won't be able to stop it.  Not forever.  The numbers of people opposed to gay marriage are steadily dropping across the board, as more and more folks get to know gay and lesbian couples, and the numbers in support are rising steadily too.  In 1996, 68% of Americans were opposed to gay marriage, and only 27% supported it.  By 2004, that had changed to 61% opposed and 33% in favor.  And in 2007, only 53% opposed it, vs. 46% in favor.  That's a huge change in just 11 years.

So we take comfort in the fact that it's just a matter of time.

And we can wait.

--Scott

Why the Word "Marriage" Matters

So here we are, thousands of gay and lesbian couples standing by the alter, or in a field of daisies, or under a gazebo, waiting for our Democratic Prince (or Princess) to come and open the doors of marriage to let us in.

We lined up in San Francisco for the slightest promise of marital bliss.  We lined up in Massachusetts for a glass half full - state marriage with no attached federal rights or responsibilities.  And this week, we lined up again in New Hampshire for official recognition of our "civil unions".

But somehow, the phrase, "Honey, remember the day we got civilly unified?" just doesn't have the same feeling as "Honey, remember the day we got married?" - and it's on that one word that the whole thorny issue spins.

Sometimes a single word or phrase can change the context of an argument, and which side controls those words often controls the spin.  Look at the "war on terror", for instance - who among us would be for terror?  But flip it around as "an unjustified invasion of a sovereign nation", and things look quite a bit different.

One of my favorite examples of this is the abortion argument.  When I was younger, it was pro-abortion and anti-abortion, and the anti-abortion folks had the upper hand in the language war - after all, who really wants to be for something like abortion, a procedure that in the best of cases can be emotionally devastating.  But somewhere along the way, those in favor of access to abortion for women re-framed the argument.  Pro-abortion became pro-choice.  Who would be against choice?  That one change in the language had a huge effect on the ongoing debate, effectively deadlocking it by providing two symmetrically opposed arguments.

On the gay marriage front, "marriage" is the main verbal sticking point.  Many folks who generally support GLBT rights simply can't get around the phrase "gay marriage", either because they have a religious affiliation with the word, or because it makes them confront their distaste for what GLBT couples for in the bedroom and clashes with their romantic views of marriage, or just because it's such a new idea.  Drop the word, and support for recognition of GLBT unions rises.

But here's the rub.  Civil unions and domestic partnerships are wonderful ideas that confer upon gay and lesbian couples some of the same basic rights as marriage, such as the right to visit your partner in the hospital.  But these state-based laws do nothing for us on the Federal level - we still have to file taxes separately, don't automatically inherit, and if we leave our home state, we may not even be able to visit our partners in the hospital.

But even if (and right now, it's a big if) a Federal Civil Unions bill ever passed, granting us the same rights and responsibilities of marriage at the Federal level and at the State level, it still wouldn't be marriage.

"Why do you have to call it marriage?" we're often asked by straight friends.  "Why not just settle for civil union?"

The answer is complicated.

Most of us grew up in a home where finding the right person and getting married was the ideal.  We're surrounded by the romantic iconography of marriage - I'll date myself by saying I remember the hype around Luke and Laura's wedding on General Hospital.  Even gay boys and girls grow up wondering what it would be like to stand up there with that someone before all of your friends and families on what's supposed to be our perfect day.

My partner Mark and I were there in San Francisco when they were offering gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses back in 2004.  We got married in San Francisco on March 11th, the last day, maybe two hours before a judge shut the whole thing down.  And yes, they called it marriage.

And you know what?  Even though they told us later that the whole thing meant nothing, legally, the reality is that it did mean something.

We had been domestic partners for 7 years in the eyes of the State of California, but now, for the briefest of moments, we were Married.  For a few minutes, under the dome of City Hall, we were just like everyone else.  No better, no worse.  And it was amazing.

So I'm sorry if I have a hard time giving up the word "marriage", even if it might be politically expedient (and don't kid yourself - even without the word, we'd still be attacked and opposed - witness the current attempt to repeal California's Domestic Partner law, even though it specifically avoids the word marriage).

So what happens now?  I look at the current crop of Democratic candidates, and I see a stronger field than I have in decades.  Yet not one among the front leaders is for gay marriage - in the current political environment, it's still considered a poison pill, and positions on the issue have to be carefully nuanced.

But if nothing else, I've learned patience these last seven years.  I will hold on to my hope that positions will continue to evolve: that John Edwards, who is "not there yet", will get there with the help of his wonderful wife.  I will hope that Hillary will find her voice on this issue, and will remember her many gay and lesbian friends, including David Mixner, who helped get her husband into office.  And I will hope that Barack Obama will continue to be "open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided."

And I thank both Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich for being man enough to stand up and say that gay marriage is a matter of basic equality.  They give me hope that I may yet live to see gay marriage become a reality in the United States in my lifetime.

And wouldn't that be something.

--Scott

Click here for The Pew Forum's breakdown on 2008 Presidential Candidates and their views on Gay Marriage