New York marriage equality bill sponsor Senator Tom Duane - Discussing the defeat of marriage equality
I wasn't expected to be betrayed, and so I have some justified anger.
But it's just going to propel me to - I don't want to say redouble my
efforts, because my efforts have been pretty strong - but I'm not going
to let up. I'm angry. I'm disappointed. I am let down. I'm betrayed.
But I am not going away...Unfortunately, I think there was a contagious
lack of backbone that occurred here today. And I’m angry about that and
sad about that, but it was contagious. Similarly, the opposite would
have meant far more votes than anyone had expected but unfortunately
that wasn’t the way it went today.
It's been a couple of days now, and it's starting to sink in that the LGBT community had one win and one loss on election day. On the east coast we had Maine and their attempt to overturn the state's legislatures passage of same-sex marriage; our loss. Then there was the west coast and Washington voting for the passage of their "everything but marriage" referendum; our win.
I think the past two days I've already gone through the five stages of grief over Maine.
Tuesday night while the results were coming in (I was following my Twitter pals to see how we were doing), I experienced denial. I was reading their tweets and thinking, "it's still too close to we'll have to wait a until 100% of the precincts are reporting."
Later Tuesday night on into Wednesday morning I started feeling anger. Anger at the people who would vote to deny my LGBT brothers and sisters the right to enter into a legally recognized union. Anger at our "fierce advocate" President Obama for not making use of his bully pulpit to speak out against Prop1.
Thank you for saying you're a fierce advocate of the LGBT community.
Oh wait, you've really not shown that you're a fierce advocate. If
you were truly our advocate you would have made use of your bully
pulpit to encourage the people of Maine to vote no on Prop1.
Gay marriage has now lost in every single state -- 31 in all -- in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine -- known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate -- and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.
I'm tired and angry, so it's probably a good idea for me to go to bed before saying something like "hey Obama and everyone that voted in favour of Prop1 go listen to Lily Allen's Fuck You."
Any Canadians or Brits want to get gay married? I'm about fed up with this shit hole of a country.
During the time I lived in Oklahoma City I was a victim of hate crime two different times. The first time the police didn't find my attackers. The second time they did. If I would've had the ability to try and get the crime into federal jurisdiction instead of the state I would have been more likely to follow through on pressing charges.
When I was attacked the second time, I got lucky and an off duty police officer saw what was going on, called for back-up and then stopped my assailants. He then reported to the officers that arrived on the scene that the attackers had been calling me faggot while beating on me.
One would think with an officer making that kind of statement I would have pressed charges. Well this was in Oklahoma which is one of the most homo-unfriendly states around. The on duty officer that took my statement actually seemed to be encouraging me to not press charged. He said that at most the attackers would spend the night in jail, get out the next morning and only have to pay a fine.
Given what I knew about Oklahoma, I decided not to press charges.
If I would of had the protection of hate crime legislation I would definitely have pursued prosecution. With the off duty officer's statement about the attackers calling me faggot, I can't help but think that would have moved it from the state level to the federal level. The one attackers that hit me in the head with a beer bottle would have been facing a lot more than just a fine.
So Mr. Savage, just because the hate crime bill doesn't directly affect every member of the LGBT community, it's still an important piece of legislation. Honestly I feel it's much more important than trying to get the White House to move on marriage as you seem to want them to do. I personally feel that the repeal of DOMA is the least of our concerns.
If you want to discuss something that will affect more LGBT citizens then let's talk ENDA. It is currently legal in 29 states to fire an employee simply for being gay. Surely that would affect more LGBT citizens than the hate crime bill.
Maybe you want to talk about something that affects every American citizen. If so let's talk about DADT. During a time when we are fighting two wars, both in the Middle East, it is insane that we are discharging service members that can translate Arabic. Lt. Dan Choi is a perfect example of this. An Iraq war veteran, and West Point graduate that studied linguistics, and is fluent in Arabic was discharged for challenging DADT. Is America safe now that we don't have him translating intelligence reports that could indicate another attack here in the US?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for marriage equality. That issue, however, is one that I feel needs to be fought on the state level. Once we achieve a victory in more states would it be necessary to pressure DC to repeal DOMA. Sure Obama could come out and say he opposed Proposition 1 in Maine and for the approval Referendum 71 in Washington where you live. I think that would be a wise move for him. After all he did say he was a "fierce advocate" of LGBT rights.
If I was to be 100% honest, when Mr. Savage and other respected LGBT advocates spend so much time in the national press talking about marriage; it makes me feel like a bad queer for not wanting it as bad as they seem to want it.
I will admit that you are probably right that the passing of the hate crime bill affects fewer members of our community. I still feel having been a victim of a hate crime that it is a much needed piece of legislation. I'm glad to see it finally passed, and that we have a President that has stated he will sign it into law.
A Mormon couple are now waiting to see if the Utah State Supreme Court is going to say their marriage was valid or not.
Neldon
and Ina Johnson had filed for divorce after a 35-year relationship in
which they shared insurance policies and joint tax filings, according
to the Deseret News.
However,
during divorce proceedings it was revealed that they were never
actually married. Since they split in 2001, Ina Jo hnson claims that
she is still owed alimony, while Neldon counters she is ineligible
because their marriage was never valid. Court papers show they claimed
to be married in Arizona in 1964, and then had their marriage blessed
at a Mormon temple in Manti, Utah, in 1965.
They never had to provide a marriage license when having the marriage blessed at the Mormon temple.
Looking at Wikipedia it doesn't look like Arizona recognizes common-law marriages. If that's truly the case, I don't see how the court can say that their marriage was legal. Just because you had the religious ceremony doesn't mean you're married if you don't have that lovely piece of paper from the state.
After I wrote my piece about the White House making the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling in Iowa a bit bittersweet, a UK reader had a question for me. Dyl asked, "What's
wrong with the law calling it "civil unions" if you have the same
rights as straight marrieds? Serious question, since that's what we
have in the UK."
I tried my best to answer that question in the comments, but the more I got to thinking about it the word marriage and all that it entitles really does matter. I'm by no means a legal expert, so this is all just from a lay-person's point of view on the subject.
I don't know all the details of what a civil union in one state offers that may be missing in another state, but that could eventually lead to problems for GLBT couples in my opinion. Let's say for example that we lived in a time where some states allowed full marriage equality for straight and gay couples, and the rest only allowed civil unions. Will that then mean that the civil union state gets to treat the gay married couple differently when they move to that state?
For the most part marriage is fairly uniform across all 50 states. The only real difference is some states may require than one party be a resident of the state. Other states may require waiting periods between the time you obtain the marriage license and the actual wedding, but once married they are the same under all 50 states law.
To further complicate matters, not only do we have to worry about differing laws between states, there is the Federal Government we have to deal with. Right now Washington is prohibited from recognizing any GLBT partnership performed in any state. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) not only allows states to choose if they want to recognize a GLBT partnership, it flat out prohibits the Federal Government from doing so. Once we get everything settled between states, we'll then have to take the issue to DC and fight to get DOMA repealed, if not sooner.
There's also an issue with our military service-members. In the UK gays and lesbians can serve proudly and openly. Here of course they have to remain silent and in the closet. Until GLBT service-members can openly serve, we would still have a segment of our population that would be denied the right to marriage or civil unions. Once it was found out they had married, they would quickly be discharged from military service.
I think in the UK it's easier to have the two separate but equal recognitions of marriage versus civil partnerships. You don't have 50 different states deciding what is legal and what's not. Therefore, what's legal in the Greater London Urban Area is the same as in the Greater Manchester Urban Area once Parliament enacts a law. The only thing I've seen in the news that may muck things up in the UK was the Scottish Parliament was looking into allowing gay marriage to be performed by a faith group, if the religious institution consents. This wouldn't change the overall legal status of GLBT partners as far as I can tell. I would think that a marriage, if performed at an Anglican Church in Edinburgh would be as valid as a civil partnership performed in London. It will all be a difference in where and who can perform the ceremony.
In the end, marriage really is an important institution that we will eventually achieve. I think in some cases we may have to take a long winding route to get there. Maybe more states will follow the lead of Vermont and allow civil unions, followed later by full marriage recognition. Other states such as Iowa may just jump in with both feet and allow GLBT couple to marry. With the exception of things like residency requirements or waiting periods, marriage is treated the same in all 50 states. That's really all we're asking to be given. Let's not have a hodgepodge of laws across the nation conferring some rights to GLBT couples and denying some. Let's not muck things up by forcing each state to look at where a civil union was performed so they then have to decide what rights a couple has and what rights they don't. I hope this clears up for Dyl, at least from my point of view on why marriage is important to me.
From the summary of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, "the court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated beliefs and popular opinion."
I think this perfectly sums up the role of the court. It has always been my belief that the courts are here to protect the rights of the minority. They were created to prevent those rights from being trampled upon by the majority. With their ruling that denying GLBT citizens the right to marriage is unconstitutional they have done their job to protect the minority.
Since November's passing of Prop 8 in California marriage and any celebrations related to it is a sensitive subject among the GLBT community. It's become so much so that some gay bars in the Chicago area are no longer allowing bachelorettes to hold their parties in their establishments.
"The women are a hoot, and some can be just delightful," said Geno
Zaharakis, the owner of Cocktail, a gay bar on North Halsted Street.
"But because not everybody can get married, watching them celebrate,
it's such a slap in the face. Prop 8 just reopened the wound."
Zaharakis told me that Cocktail stopped hosting bachelorette parties a
couple of years ago when he noticed his gay patrons weren't just
complaining about the women being minor irritants but about them
"flaunting" their right to marry. So Zaharakis hung a sign on the front
door of his establishment that says, "Bachelorette Parties Are Not
Allowed."
Many of the bachelorettes attending parties in gay bars are doing so to avoid possibly having too much to drink and waking up with Mr. Wrong the next morning. Having witnessed some of these parties I can see where that can be a concern for the bride. The problem from some of the ones I've seen is the bride and her party get so drunk that it's hard to tell them from the polite women who entered the bar; or the men they are seemingly trying to avoid when partying.
At one such party, I saw the bride throwing herself at any gay man that walked within arm's reach. To top it off she was being disgustingly rude telling each man she got her hands on that he just hadn't had the right woman, and she could take care of that for him. She was one of the sloppiest drunks I had ever seen. The bar management only asked them to leave after the gay and lesbian crowd complained and left to go to other bars.
I haven't been out to a bar since the passing of Prop 8. I can see where a bride acting like a sex starved animal can add to the injury GLBT patrons feel since California passed Prop 8. Even when the majority of bachelorette parties are respectful of the other customers, I don't doubt that there is still a feeling of unfairness among the GLBT customers.
Personally I'm having a hard time reconciling my feelings about this. I understand that bar owners have a some say over who they serve this is, however, a discriminatory act.
Living in a state where GLBT citizens have very few protections under the law makes me sensitive to this issue. For example, a what reportedly was a simple misunderstanding lead to many gays being denied entry into a Houston straight bar. While this was resolved, it brought to light for me that discrimination is still alive and well in Texas.
I feel that a blanket denial of bachelorette parties is just wrong. It makes me feel that we are no better than the people who would deny us the right to marry.
On the other hand, do we have to allow such a blatant reminder of what we are denied taking place in our establishments?
Feel free to leave any comments to help me understand if this is a good policy or not. Also check out my poll.
We should all be prepared for the news that Rush Limbaugh has been admitted to hospital because his head has exploded. The new leader of the Republican party, Michael Steele is now saying that homosexuality is not a choice.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice? Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay." It's like saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black."
I have no doubt that this is the end of his GOP leadership. This is so contrary to his party's belief. Especially when just late last month he followed party lines in saying that there should be no conversation on civil unions.
Well Mr. Steele in light of your recent words on homosexuality I have to agree on one point there should be no conversation about civil unions. We should instead be holding a conversation about 100% equal marriage for the GLBT community.
As Mr. Steele points out, one can not stop being black. Well there once was a time when blacks and whites could not marry in some states. A black person could only marry another person that was black. That was until Loving v. Virginia was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967. Being black or white is something that can not be changed, and yet it used to be okay to deny them equal protection under the law.
If, as Mr. Steele says, I can't stop being gay there should be no reason to deny me the right to marry. GLBT couples that decide they want to marry should have the same equal protection under the law as mixed raced colour. By stating being gay is non-changeable all arguments denying us the right to marriage becomes invalid.
It seems to me that we spend so much of our time condemning Republicans for their voting record on GLBT issues. Well I was reminded today that not all Republicans are the bad guys. Rep. Pat Childers, R-Cody, and Rep. Sue Wallis, R-Recluse, of the Wyoming House of Representatives helped defeat a proposed amendment to the state constitution. The amendment would have denied state recognition of same-sex marriages.
Childers had a personal reasons for wanting to see the bill defeated. He has a daughter in Montana that is a lesbian.
“Folks, to my dying breath, there’s not anybody in this country who can
say that she is a terrible person, or some person who has to have her
rights restricted,” Childers said. “She lives a quiet life with her
significant other. Most people wouldn’t even know she’s gay.”
Also growing up in Texas during segregation reminded Childers of the injustices that blacks fought to change, and that helped him decide that the bill was not in the state's best interest.
Rep. Sue Wallis, R-Recluse, said it appeared that the anti-gay
sentiment behind the bill was based on biblical interpretation.
However, she said there are similar biblical admonitions against
charging interest for a loan, sowing a field with mixed seed or eating
shrimp.
Rather than calling the bill the “Defense of Marriage Act,” Wallis said
it should be called, “The Defense of State-Sponsored Religious Bigotry
Act.”
Rep. Wallis hit the nail on the head. Biblical interpretation was what helped Prop. 2 pass here in Texas. It was what drove the different churches in California to donate time and money to get Prop. 8 passed.
I would now encourage the two of them to help other Republicans see that denying the GLBT community equal rights helps no one. It actually hurts GLBT citizens by making us second class citizens that feel we have no protection under the law.
Recent Comments