thomascwaters.com

The linked article is about the mayor of Turin Italy who performed a symbolic wedding ceremony for two lesbians. My first thought when I read it, was how big this was given the control of the Vatican in Italy. But another aspect of it then settled into my head.

Here in the US, a few strategies have been tried when it comes to selling same-sex marriage. One of these, is to focus on the “civil” part of civil marriage. Same-sex couples who already live in committed relationships,  but they are denied the 1400+ rights and privileges that straight couples take for granted. In other words, it is a simple issue of equality and being treated the same as others. Another strategy has been to focus on the fact that gay families do already exist, and are all around us. Ads such as those used in the Maine battle showed same-sex families- they brought a real human face to the issue.

I have for the most part, focused on the first. It is logical, and non-confrontational. I have felt that it is also the best argument when trying to battle the religious fanatics because it has nothing to do with moral judgement. I have believed that the second strategy is as important, if not more important, but promoting the message, “our families are just like your families” has never really sat well with me. How I am alike a straight person is not why I deserve to be treated equal. My similarity or difference is not the deciding factor. All americans deserve to be treated equally. Period.

But another side of this issue is every bit as real as these, and one I have known, but haven’t really addressed, and it is this one that has all the religious crazies in such a tizzy. Getting married is a way that humans validate their commitment to each other, and set the stage for building a life together. The CEREMONY of it, including all the ritual and hoopla is important and meaningful and these things are every bit as valuable as the 1400+ rights that follow.

I have written quite a bit about the gender role basis of Christian opposition to gay marriage: God the Father and Son; the dutiful virgin mother; the church understood as Christ’s bride; even Adam and Eve. So much of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy relies upon gender roles and a male dominated power system. Same-sex marriage defies those gender and power dynamics and threatens the very nature of the Church’s (as institution) control of our lives.

The ceremony of marriage itself, spare and minimal expressed as a set of questions before a Justice of the Peace, or elaborately expressed through a series of rituals and vows called a Wedding, does something essential, by bonding two individuals together  within a community to be something that didn’t already exist. To be a family.

In some regard our oppressors are correct- same-sex marriage is a redefinition of family. Where they are wrong however is in suggesting that without same-sex marriage , family only means what they claim it does. Family has been redefined by many for a very long time. We are just giving voice to that reality. They are also wrong when they suggest that a redefinition of family will invalidate the meaning and value of their own marriages. The success or failure of straight marriages  is based entirely on the individuals within them, and not on some rule about what is supposed to be. This is why the “sanctity of marriage” argument is so laughable. Even if there was never a gay or lesbian couple who wanted to marry, it isn’t hard to look around and see the institution of marriage crumbling – families destroyed by lies, selfishness, betrayal,all that goes with these behaviors.

The creation of family happens regardless of the gender of the participants. Straight couples and gay couples, and the strength of those commitments over time are not dependent on the gender differences of the two participants. Doesn’t every family deserve the right to begin with a ceremony?

My partner and I have been together for 12 years, but we are not married in the legal sense. If one day we get married, it won’t be the ceremony itself that defines us as a family. It has been 12 years of work that has done that. The strength of our commitment to each other, and how that bond has been strengthened  or tested through the bad as well as the good times. We have not had a perfect relationship. But there is no doubt that it has been a strong, meaningful, and enduring relationship.

I remember as a young man just coming out as gay, reading that I would never be happy. The straight powers that be, have tried to define who we are as gays and lesbians, and tried to tell us what is and isn’t acceptable. Yet, they have been utterly wrong at every turn.  I have had a full , happy and amazing life that I wouldn’t trade for anything! For gays and lesbians, demanding same-sex marriage is one more step in the process of gays and lesbians defining themselves instead of allowing others to define us. For our culture around us, allowing same-sex marriage is simply an act of acknowledging what already exists- that family already means more than what a rigid gender-role definition suggests.

Turin, Italy Mayor ‘Marries’ Lesbian Couple in Symbolic Ceremony – Towleroad, More than gay news. More gay men.

I received an email today from Dana Elmendorf, a Pittsburgh activist who has been very active for some time in issue advocacy. Not only is she a wealth of knowledge about advocacy work, but she has been at it for some time, and this history gives her a unique perspective. She was commenting on a letter she had received back from PA Senator Costa concerning PA SB 707. She wrote:

I am acutely aware of the work that was done with Senator Costa over the last four years.  Personal meetings and outreach happened with him and clearly that is now paying off.  There is, at times, a sense of impatience with advocacy work by the general community.  Change is like throwing stones in a pond.  A ripple starts and one thing leads to another.  Senator Costa’s clear support of our community is an example of that.

Many of us may get involved in advocacy work because of a specific situation or event. Like the November 2008 election where Obama won, and Prop 8 passed in California. These two votes happening at the same time galvanized a new generation of gays and lesbians to get involved in the political process and want to fight for equality. For me, the event was the 1987 March on Washington and seeing the AIDS Quilt display there. But as Dana suggests, change comes during the reverberations of events and situations, the ripples as it were, and it is seen over time.

Last week, Daylin Leach, the PA Senator who sponsored a Marriage Equality bill in the PA Senate (SB 935) was a guest speaker for the GLEC meeting here in Pittsburgh. We brought him in via conference call, and he stressed developing relationships with your elected officials. That translates into what Dana was referring to as “outreach over the past four years.”

We may start that relationship with a personal letter to our elected official, and follow it with phone calls, and then meeting with him or her. And over time, we keep contact. I don’t know here Senator Cost was 4 years ago, on issues of equality, but I know where he is today because of that ongoing contact- not by just one constituent, but by a number of folks.

I also received this in an email message from a someone who had attended the GLEC meeting:

This ia a new thing for me, I’m almost ashamed to say, but everything in its own time, I guess. But I do feel the time is now to be actively interested and attentive politically.

It is never too early to start this relationship if there is a specific issue or bill that is important to you and others. But real change isn’t about one legislative bill or one issue. So, it is never too late to get involved in issue advocacy work if real equality is important to you. We need to find a balance in a pursiut of urgency for individual parts of the whole and endurance as we seek the whole of equality.

For me, PA SB 707 is at the top of my list of issues, followed closely by PA HB  300. At the top of the blog are buttons that lead to pages with info of what you can do about these important issues.

I want to close this with another quote from Dana, which sums it all up:

I want people to know that advocacy work happens by everyday people just doing everyday things like having a conversation.

The link below is to a DCAgenda article by Lou Chibbaro:

The D.C. Court of Appeals Friday denied a request by a Maryland minister for an injunction to block the city’s same-sex marriage law from taking effect March 3, ending the last potential obstacle to the start of gay nuptials the following week.

Most interesting to me was this snippet from the Judges’ ruling:

The three-judge appeals court panel also held that Jackson and others who have joined him in requesting the injunction failed to show that allowing the marriage law to take effect would cause them “irreparable harm.”

This is important as one of the primary arguments used against gay marriage is that it will cause irreparable harm to others by destroying the family. A claim that is laughable, but one still capable of evoking fear at the ballot box.

via Last hurdle removed to start of D.C. same-sex marriages | DC Agenda.

Earlier, I posted that PA Senator Eichelberger introduced a bill that would amend the PA constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Pennsylvania, already has a DOMA-type law that doesn’t permit same-sex marriage, but this would go further and try to write it into the constitution. This will be the third time, such a constitutional amendment has been introduced, with the last time being in 2008. After beating this twice before, it might seem like it will be easy to beat again, but there is reason to think that this time they may get it passed, and that would be a horrible thing for Pennsylvania. While we are far from the most progressive state, it is shameful to watch some try and move the state towards the far extremes of the religious right.

What PA does in this regard is very telling, and will impact the future of the state in big ways. We are already a state where people flee for other places to live and work, and guess what? They aren’t fleeing with states that are more conservative socially! If we want to help Pennsylvania grow and thrive, we need, as a state to be focused on creating an environment that invites industry and business as well as an environment that people seek for a quality of life.

Even those opposed to same-sex marriage know, that in the end, it will be the Supreme Court that decides this issue, just as it was in terms of segregation and the schools, and interracial marriage, among other things. And in many states, it has been shown that trying to deny marriage rights based on the sex of the two partners is a violation of the state constitution or the federal constitution. So why this move now?

Pennsylvania isn’t anywhere near seeking same-sex marriage rights, in any practical way. While Daylin Leach did introduce a same-sex marriage equality bill, it only has two co-sponsors, so it isn’t going anywhere. In this regard, PA, isn’t any different than most states, where there are some people who support same-sex marriage, and others who oppose it. So, if there is no chance of same-sex marriage passing in Pennsylvania, why would our elected officials put time and energy into writing this discrimination into the state constitution?

There is no good answer to this question. Even for those legislators who oppose same-sex marriage, there is no good reason to put time, money and energy into this issue since same-sex marriage has no chance of passing here in the near future. It is a clear case of a few pushing through legislation that is unnecessary and does nothing to propel the state forward. It serves only to make a theological stand and nothing more.

No matter what they believe is their reason, anyone who wants Pennsylvania to focus on the important things like health care, jobs, education, and public safety, must come out and ask the Senate to say no to  this piece of legislation.

This is an interesting article about Washington DC ad a poll on some of the hot topic items like gay marriage, and I’d encourage you to read it.

A Washington Post poll conducted last month finds majorities favor same-sex marriage, want medical marijuana to be legalized and support the creation of an elected attorney general.

Nearly six in 10 residents say they would prefer to vote on the issue. City leaders have said a public vote would be discriminatory. “I don’t think it should be a decree made by the government,” said Pablo Barreyro, 72, of Chevy Chase. “I don’t think it should be left to a small party of politicians. . . . I really wonder what the outcome would be if it becomes available for public input.”

The point of the article may be to talk about the progressive atitudes of DC, but there is a different point I want to focus on today.

It is easy to say that individual’s rights should not be put up for a vote, but past saying it (it is a catchy phrase) what does that really mean? No matter if it is a direct vote, like a ballot initiative, or not, the people do vote. They vote to elect council members, representatives, senators, governors, and even some judges. So, why do we work hard to keep gay marriage, or other gay rights off of a ballot for a direct vote? Because not only is there the issue of getting it passed, there is also a second but connected issue of combating and fighting the lies, and misinformation. And everyone knows this happens!

The 60% who want to see this put to a public vote demonstrates that in general, the public has no faith in their elected officials to do what is in the best interest of the people. Even if, the people agree with the positions of their elected officials, they still don’t trust them. This is enormously important!

From a theoretical perspective, we can wonder if a representative democracy is dying. That is an interesting question, but there is an urgency that pure theory does not accommodate. And any move towards a democracy where everything, including other’s rights are voted upon by the public at large, will mean the death of any real progress for America. As we already slip behind other countries across the globe in other ways, we will sink further and further behind.

So, the solution is for individuals to get more involved during the 363 days a year that the voting booth is closed. By engaging their elected officials through phone calls, personally written letters (not form letters) and meetings with their elected officials or their staff. These people work for us! We have to be able to trust them to make and pass legislation that benefits  us all as a whole, so the way to accomplish that is by getting more engaged with them.

Majorities polled in D.C. back gay marriage, medical marijuana – washingtonpost.com.

Harrisburg, PA – Tuesday, January 26, 2010, State Senator John H. Eichelberger, Jr. formally introduced Senate Bill 707, a joint resolution to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to include the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman…

If you are a regular reader of my blog, you know that while I’m all for Marriage Equality, when it comes to Pennsylvania, it is low on my list of issues to work towards. In a state where a person can be fired for simply being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, what is the value of having gay marriage? The simple act of applying for a marriage license could place many people across the state in jeopardy of losing their jobs, being denied housing or public accommodations. but for me, this move by Senator Eichelberger isn’t really about gay marriage. At it’s core, it is all about writing discrimination into the PA constitution, and that is just plain wrong!

Now, the reason they want to write discrimination into the constitution, is in the hopes of slowing down any progress towards marriage equality. I almost wrote “killing the possibility of marriage equality.” But we know from looking at other states, that when brought before the courts, constitutional bans are seen as unconstitutional. So, in the end, even if this makes it into the constitution, at some point farther down the road, it will be found to be unconstitutional, and will eventually be overturned. but when and at what cost, both in literal dollars and other ways?

Opponents to same-sex marriage claim that whenever this issue is put up to a vote by the people it loses. That is not really a fair statement. A more accurate statement is this: Whenever same-sex marriage is put up for a vote by the people, opponents can launch a campaign of fear mongering, lies and misinformation that is successful at scaring people to vote “No”

Pennsylvania already has a law that bans same-sex marriage. Is there really a need at this time to go farther and write discrimination into the PA Constitution? Is this what we want our senators and representatives spending their time on in Harrisburg? Is this the state we want to see for our children, our families, our friends and our neighbors? As a state, we already see young people leaving in droves, moving to other places across the country where they have a better chance at a full and happy life. Do we really want to continue to push people away by stepping back in time and embracing discrimination?

The following 15 state senators are co-sponsors of the PA Marriage Amendment! Join me by calling them and asking them to remove their sponsorship from this legislation.

• Sen. Richard Alloway: 717-264-6100
• Sen. Michael Brubaker: 717-627-0036
• Sen. Jake Corman: 814-355-0477
• Sen. John Eichelberger (Lead sponsor): 814-695-8386
• Sen. Edwin Erickson: 610-853-4100
• Sen. Mike Folmer: 717-274-6735
• Sen. John Gordner: 570-784-3464
• Sen. Richard Kasunic: 724-626-1611
• Sen. Bob Mensch: 215-529-1215
• Sen. Raphael Musto: 570-654-1483
• Sen. Jeffrey Piccola: 717-896-7714
• Sen. Robert Robbins: 724-588-1323
• Sen. Joseph Scarnati: 814-726-7201
• Sen. Lloyd Smucker: 717-397-1309
• Sen. Donald White: 724-357-0151
• Sen. Gene Yaw: 570-322-6457

via Senator Eichelberger.

While Civil Unions do not provide for full equality, and they are seen as a step into accepting second class citizenship, they provide more rights and benefits than gay and lesbian couples currently have. I’d call this progress. Is it enough no- but 9is it better than nothing at all? Yes!

But I want to draw attention to one quote out of the story from the Hawaii:

“Instead of redefining the institution of marriage, legislators should be focused on improving public education and balancing the state budget,” Aiona said in a statement.

Aiona is the Lt Governor. What is most important to notice here is that how, even Civil Unions are being equated with redefining marriage. Some opponents to Gay Marriage claim that it is the institution of marriage, a religious bonding of a man and a woman that they are trying to protect. Civil Unions don’t touch the religious covenant in any way at all, and so opposition to civil Unions on that ground illuminates the real bigotry behind any of this opposition.

The quote also highlights the level of invisibility and lack of worth gay and lesbian couples ( and GLBTQ people overall) have in the eyes of the opposition. When a Republican (who are generally speaking famous for cutting money from Education) claims that improving education is more important than treating people fairly, it again highlights the bigotry.

In every state and region, the importance of this type of legislation may vary. Ibn states like Pennsylvania, where gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgenders can be fired simply for being gay, other laws like non-discrimination may be more important. Why would a couple  seek a civil union when that disclosure could jeopardize their jobs? but in other states and regions, civil unions, domestic partnerships, second parent adoptions and other laws must remain at the forefront of our movement.

We must use every means possible to point out bigotry where it is is. Bigotry is destroying the fabric of our society.

Hawaii Senate passes civil-unions bill, 18-7 | honoluluadvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser.

We Republicans have often found ourselves on the wrong side of civil rights struggles since the 1960s, but there was a reason that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s father is said to have supported Republicans.

Republicans were historically the party ever-expanding freedom to disenfranchised minorities, from newly liberated slaves to giving women the right to vote.  Susan B. Anthony was a Republican.  By supporting the AFER trial we have an opportunity to establish our historic credibility on civil rights issues once again.  But we should support marriage equality because it is the right thing to do.

I have no clue how true any of the above assertions are, but reading the piece by Margaret Hoover, got me wondering if the Republicans could steal the Gay vote away from the Democrats. Imagine, if the Republican Party came out in support of gay marriage, what might happen?

First, it could save the Republican party from complete collapse, or at the very least split off the ultra-religious zealots into some fringe 3rd party, allowing the Republican party to get back in the game as a real viable choice as a national party. Second it could attack the vast majority of gay and lesbian voters who are outraged at the way the Democrats promise everything and deliver close to nothing. For many, “marriage” seems to be the end all issue, and I wouldn’t be surprised if many people would jump at any chance for it, even at the risk of losing the chance for other needed rights. So for moderates and those within the GOP who look for small and cost effective government, this could be a win, as well as for those gays and lesbians who are partnered.

Republicans don’t have to become gay friendly to do this either. They can still oppose all other gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans rights, leaving the community still disempowered and victimized by our culture and political system.

But the more I thought about this, it seems like such a long shot. Will the far-right religious ever give up their stronghold over the party? They seem more intent on pushing moderates out, so I’m not sure this could come to pass.

But more likely, any push from within the Republican party to accept gay marriage could cause greater friction between the gay and lesbian communities and the Trans community and other smaller factions that see themselves as fitting under the GLBTQ umbrella. I have spoken to too many gays and lesbians who will say they care about rights for all, but if push came to shove, they would let go of pushing for Trans rights just to get legislation through. The Trans community is fairly used to being thrown under the bus, and while some of us believe this is never an acceptable option, others are willing to entertain it.

Same-sex marriage is here to stay and over time will become acceptable everywhere just as inter-religion marriage and inter-racial marriage have in the past. As a coalition of communities with like needs, the GLBTQ communities must continue to seek liberation and full equality for all, and not be hyper-focused on one isolated right. And most importantly, we must not allow the political parties to use us and our equality issues for their own gains.

Read there: FoxNews contributor argues for marriage equality.

While most eyes will turn this week to the Federal Prop 8 trial in San Francisco, It may be useful to remember that same-sex marriage already exists successfully in a number of states. Even there however, the battle really isn’t over, at least for some.

There will remain some amount of catch up everywhere. Sometimes laws and judicial decisions lead, and the culture has to catch up, and elsewhere, culture leads, and laws follow. Both shifts are needed, for real equality is about how people live, and this is supported by the laws that govern us. California, where, in general, the culture is more progressive, appears to be lagging behind Iowa.  But this says more about the legislative process of California, than it says about how progressive the state is, or isn’t. Iowa, on the other hand, is far less progressive when it comes to the culture, but everything aligned for the legislative (and judicial )process to work in favor of equality. Across the country, we will see progress in both ways in different places, and we need to recognize these differences, while striving for change everywhere.

Republicans have promised to make same-sex marriage an issue during the 2010 legislative session, and the Iowa Family Policy Center is organizing a rally on Tuesday calling on lawmakers to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But after Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, told The Iowa Independent he would not allow a vote on marriage this year, social conservative conceded that their chances of passing a constitutional amendment are remote.

via One Iowa launches ad promoting marriage equality « Iowa Independent.

The linked story is on the American Foundation for Equal Rights web site, and details an AP story.

The Supreme Court was asked to halt the video dissemination of of coverage via delayed posting on YouTube, and today announced that it is blocking it for at least the first few days. This order was handed down by Justice Kennedy (I believe). Interestingly, Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed the videotaping to be done and shown while the justices spend more time considering the issue.

At the very least, this demonstrates how important this trial is, although that offers no real peace of mind or satisfaction. We, the American public who care about the outcome of this trial must rely upon the quality and quantity of reporters coving the case now.

AP: Court blocks taping of gay marriage trial | American Foundation for Equal Rights.