Tag Archives: Same Sex Marriage

Yes to FCKH8! (NSFW)

Thanks to Dan Savage at the Savage Love blog for sharing this with me. Now I’m sharing this with my five (plus) friends. F-bombs abound… (Don’t waste a moment! Go straight to the website & buy the shirt here.)

Prop. 8 Trial Closes with a Lisp of Hot Air

Charles Cooper, the attorney defending Proposition 8

Of all the reports on the web today about the closing arguments in the trial contesting California’s Proposition 8 – the 2008 voter initiative that banned same-sex marriage – I really enjoyed this one by Roger Brigham, the San Francisco editor of EDGE.

Brigham did a fine job of conveying the absurdity of the 5-hour marathon of statements, at the peak of which, the attorney defending Proposition 8 actually minced and mimicked the defendants of same-sex marriage, using a falsetto.

This may be my favorite passage from the story:

The threat alluded to repeatedly by Cooper was the idea that by allowing same-sex couples to marry, heterosexual couples who would otherwise marry and breed would not do so. How this would happen Cooper did not explain and he offered no evidence.

Now, that’s showing us.

Take the time to read the rest of the story on EDGE.

This Pride, Commit to NOT Recommitting

Last weekend, I was at the Sonoma County Pride celebration in the sweet little, and oh-so-gay, river town of Guerneville. The parade was tiny but enthusiastic, the Dykes on Bikes could be counted on both hands, and maybe a toe or two. The local Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence rode Segways, courtesy of a tour company, waving regally to the crowd from their two-wheeled perches.

After the parade there was a gathering at a nearby resort. There was the usual collection of booths and vendors, and a stage featuring enthusiastic musicians of every ilk, from polka to drumming to rock-n-roll.

But at 3:15 p.m., the entertainment stopped for the annual spectacle known as the Commitment Ceremony.

Ack.

Described on the Sonoma County Pride website, the Commitment Ceremony is an en masse public event that “is a powerful statement about a couple’s relationship and their devotion to each other. Straight couples are welcome to participate, and in doing so, to show their support for all loving relationships.”

Ack. Ack.

Understand, I’m all for same-sex marriage, but I believe the time has come when our vows need to stop being a novelty act.

Getting married* or recommitted in the middle of a public festival during the band break, just yards from the beer and wine booth, isn’t sanctity. And, it’s not dignified, no matter how much Vaseline you smear on the lens.

After all, straight people don’t stand up at their events – county fairs, NASCAR races, hockey games, what have you – and get group committed. Hell, their friends would have them committed if they kept that up.

One of the best ways to show the world the lesbian and gay community understands the sanctity of marriage is to act like we’re serious about it – and that means no public pageantry, no using ceremonies for shock value, and reining in the urge to make our special days political press events.

Getting married on the steps of City Hall and having reporters show up is one thing (and hopefully the intrigue will wear off once we’re doing it in cities all over the state). Exchanging your vows with a whole group of tearful, beery, sunbathing, rainbow-clad dancing fools, is another.

In past years, there have been prominent newspaper pictures of this annual folly, and they make me cringe.

So, I’m requesting you to help stop the queer madness! This year demonstrate your belief in same-sex marriage by publicly committing not to publicly marry or recommit. When the moment comes, wear white, don’t wear white, be barefoot on a beach, be with family and friends, or be alone in a temple, but for God’s sake, do it like you mean it.

* Call it marriage if you want too, but California doesn’t recognize it unless you were part of the lucky group married between June 16 and Nov. 5, 2008, or were married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage.

Kitty’s Wedding – A Creative Protest

My thanks to Dan Savage for the tip-off about this awesome video. Watch as two lesbians apply for a marriage license in New York state and are then refused. Then a gay man they’ve never met steps in for one of the women. They introduce themselves to each other and a license is immediately issued. Now that’s sanctity!

Continue reading

The Little Ladies in Black Can Marry

My grandmother – my mother’s mother – emigrated to the United States from Portugal when she was a girl of 12. Accompanied by an older brother, she came through Ellis Island just after the turn of the 20th century. They were on the way to California, where they’d been promised a home with cousins. They were emissaries of parents that wanted to give their children a chance at a life better than the one they had known. Grams and her brother were the first to arrive in the United States. Others came later. They were sent first because, although young, they showed promise – promise the family hoped would be nurtured here. Their parents never emigrated.

Continue reading

California Continues to Muddy Same-Sex Marriage Laws

While across the country, people marked National Coming Out Day, and the LGBT community gathered in a show of strength in Washington, DC, at the National Equality March, in California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quietly signed a bill adding new rights for gay and lesbian couples in the state.

However, the new rights only serve to add layers of complexity to the state’s already tiered marriage equality situation.

Continue reading

I Am Protected… With Some Help From Microsoft

This heart-rending ad, “I Am Protected,” is running in Washington state in support of Referendum 71, which supports more partnership rights for Washington state’s gay couples.

In related news, Microsoft Corp. has donated $100,000 to the campaign in favor of Referendum 71.

That’s the largest single donation in favor of of the referendum. Microsoft is based in Redmond, Washington.

Considering that Alan C. Ashton, a co-founder of WordPerfect, gave $1 million to the campaign supporting 2008′s Proposition 8, the initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage in California, we can surmise that Microsoft’s Word is now the preferred word processing software of  gays and lesbians everywhere.

The “approve” campaign committee, called Washington Families Standing Together, has raised about $780,000 overall, and spent about $200,000. The “reject” campaign, called Protect Marriage Washington, has raised about $60,000, and spent about $35,000.

**********************

Lesbian Marriage? Nyet!

A Moscow court has denied the request of lIrina Fedotova-Fet and Irina Shipitko to marry in Russia.

The two women appeared in court sporting the global symbols of lesbian solidarity – mullet haircuts and loosely tied neckties.

Despite these displays, the Tverskoi district court ruled against Fedotova-Fet and Shipitko, upholding the assertion by the city’s civil registry that marriage is restricted to opposite-sex couples in Russia.

The women and their lawyer plan to continue to fight the ruling, according to the Associated Press.

“The two women said they planned to fly to Canada later this month to marry and then return to Russia, in a bid to force authorities to recognize the marriage,” the Associated Press reported.

**********************

MA Shows Us “Defense of Marriage”

When I heard this on Rachel Maddow , I knew I had to track it down to share on GPG:

**********************

Prejean Who?

Does anyone remember Carrie Prejean? The pro “opposite sex” chick who was briefly Miss California USA?

(It’s a healthy sign if you don’t.)

Well, Carrie is still seeking attention, and unspecified damages.

Her career hasn’t taken off the way she’d like, even with the topless photo scandal, her mother’s rumored lesbian affair, and all the bells, whistles, cat-calls, and snaps.

She’s blaming the Miss California USA pageant (remember this isn’t the Miss California pagent).

And, she’s suing.

Prejean, who was stripped of her Miss California crown in June, has filed suit against two Miss USA California officials, claiming that she lost her crown solely for her religious beliefs. She is seeking unspecified damages.

“Over the past two months, we have worked hard to provide overwhelming evidence that Carrie Prejean did not violate her contract with Miss California USA and did not deserve to have her title revoked by Keith Lewis,” said the attorney who is representing Prejean. “We will make the case that her title was taken from her solely because of her support of traditional marriage.”

Oddly enough, on some level he’s right. It was Prejean’s unauthorized campaigning for National Organization for Marriage, a political organization that “supports traditional marriage”, that cost Carrie her job. If she had stayed in California and cut ribbons and supported politically neutral endeavors, she’d still be Miss California USA today.

***********************

Gay Wedding Bells Ring in Vermont

Same-sex couples are now able to marry in Vermont (as of 9/1/09), but don’t expect a tidal wave of weddings, officials say.

“It’s not a weekend, it’s not a holiday,” say Willie Docto, who heads the Vermont Gay Tourism Association. “There are practical reasons why people aren’t getting married on September 1st. I think expectations are too high for that one day.’

The Associated Press surveyed several town clerks and found only a handful of licenses have been issued for gay marriages in the month of September, nothing like the rush seen around civil unions in 2000. But gay marriage advocates say there’s an easy explanation for this.

Greg Trulson, a Duxbury Justice of the Peace who says he is preparing to perform several same-sex marriages, said, “What I have found, that a lot of the gay marriages that I’m officiating starting September first are other civil unions that I have officiated in the past. And they’re coming back to get married. What we’re finding is they’re coming back on the day of their civil union, to keep the same day [as their wedding anniversary].”

Vermont Public Radio reports many couples are planning small, low-key ceremonies: “Some say they’ve already had several celebrations of their relationship over the years and don’t plan a big wedding.”

**********************

Comments and Marriage Equality

I try to remember to write thank you notes for the comments people leave on this blog. Finding a well-thought-out or enthusiastic comment always makes my day. It lets me know what people are thinking, and it motivates me to keep writing.

There were some special ones this week. One woman, new to the site, wrote effusively to say;

Your blog is  fascinating, educational, hilarious, mesmerizing, intellectual, entertaining, inspiring and a bit naughty all at the same time.  I feel drunk now, thank you.

No, thank you. You made my day.

Another, a guy in Canada who follows me on Twitter and has been caring for his elderly father, wrote with kind words about the death of my friend, the veteran.

A regular reader, the author of many well-crafted comments, left her thoughts about the potential 2010 marriage equality push in California.

And, sometimes – in the way the best comments can – it motivated me to write more on the topic. One minute I was writing her a note of thanks, and in the next, I realized it would make an opinion post of its own:

Thank you for your thoughtful comment about the same-sex marriage push. I’m with you. I felt really disenfranchised through the last go-round – not by the idea of marriage equality, mind you – but by a campaign that appeared to be reactionary and fractured. Even at my local level, I wasn’t sure where money was going, or who was in charge.

The amount of money spent by both sides of the campaign – an estimated $73 million – is appalling, especially in light of the economy and all of the social and human services that are struggling or going unfunded. Church organizations who helped to fund Proposition 8 should be especially ashamed. When did God’s work become persecution and diverting resources away from the needy and the poor?

I think California marriage equality needs a better public relations campaign, one that starts at the grassroots level. Along with our rallies and fundraisers (which tend to attract our own and become media spectacles) we need more public speakers visiting service groups and churches.

We need to be reaching into communities up and down the state and talking about the economic impact of marriage equality to Realtors, Rotarians, and business organizations, about the need for recognized unions and families to educational and church groups. We need to talk about the potential impact of gay marriage on the state’s over-taxed adoption and foster parenting programs. We need to talk about civil rights to labor and ethnic organizations.

We need time to field questions and answers, to shake hands, and have rubber chicken lunches and punch in church halls. We need people to understand that marriage equality is about much more than government-recognized gay sex.

I love the queer craziness of our community as much as the next native California lesbian, but we have to remember that when we try to change the public mind by show up at rallies in flamboyant drag or holding kiss-ins, we’re going to lose as many votes as we gain. The same things that make great media images on the 6 o’clock news, and colorful photos on the front page of the newspapers serve to substantially increase the “ick” factor of homosexuality in communities that already aren’t voting with us. They can’t separate extremism from the core message.

Most importantly, we – the gay and lesbian community –  have to remember what we’re trying to sell. We’re trying to sell the conservative heartland of the state on the idea of equal recognition of loving relationships, not on the media reduction of the “gay lifestyle”. We’re talking wedding rings, children, Pottery Barn, and “until death do us part” – not leather parties and Dinah Shore.

I personally don’t think we can get it together for a 2010 election. I think it’s going to take a couple of years to gather resources, and most importantly, focus.

We need marriage equality to win big in California, not by two percent, or five percent. We need a landslide, an outpouring of support from people who understand and sympathize. We need unimpeachable language. We need a victory that won’t have to immediately be defended in court, or at the polls, yet again.

And that’s going to take some time, because first we need people to meet us and understand.

They don’t have to love us, but they do have to understand.

**********************

The Gay and Geeky Weekly Heap

Here’s the complete collection of Geek Porn Girl posts, serious and silly, from the past week:

Why Are There No Talking Vaginas? – Well, why aren’t there?

Postcards From a Lesbian Mommy A roundup of links to my parenting & kid posts

D.C. Now Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages, Thanks to U.S. Congress – This post has a growing collection of lawyer jokes in the comments.

Julianne Moore and Annette Bening as Lesbian Moms – Yes, please!

Jan and Marcia Brady in Dyke Drama – Didn’t you always suspect, or at least wish?

**********************

D.C. Now Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages, Thanks to U.S. Congress

Just after midnight, early this morning, same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries became legal in the District of Columbia.

Back in May, the Washington D.C. City Council overwhelmingly approved a bill recognizing these marriages.

What’s significant is that after the vote, the bill required approval by the D.C. mayor and then a legislative review by the U.S. Congress. By law, Congress is charged with oversight of the laws of the District of Columbia, and therefore this new law was subject to review by committees in the House and the Senate. Many observers felt this review was the biggest congressional test on the same-sex marriage issue since the approval of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

The time period for congressional scrutiny ended last night at midnight.

The measure that takes effect today, the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, immediately provides the city’s same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions with more than 200 rights, benefits, and obligations associated with marriage under D.C. law.

Spokespersons for D.C. Council members Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large), the lead sponsor of the same-sex marriage recognition law, and Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), a longtime advocate of same-sex marriage, said no implementing rules would be needed for the city to carry out the marriage recognition law.

City Hall sources said the  D.C. Attorney General was preparing a memorandum for the heads of city departments and agencies reminding them that the law is now in effect and that they should be prepared to provide same-sex couples with all the rights and benefits of marriage that have long gone to heterosexual married couples.

Similar to six other U.S. states that have legalized same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian married couples in D.C. won’t be able to receive any of the more than 1,100 federal rights and benefits that come with marriage.

Federal marital rights and benefits are denied to same-sex couples under DOMA.

Gay activists hailed the development as an historic landmark for same-sex couples throughout the country and noted that it opens the way for the Council to pass a separate law later this year allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the District.

The city’s sweeping domestic partnership law provides nearly all of the D.C. rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex and opposite sex domestic partners who register their relationship with the city. But many activists consider domestic partnerships and civil unions — another form of legal recognition for same-sex couples — to be a “separate and unequal” status that denies full equality for same-sex couples that activists say can only come with the right to marry.

The law took effect one week after a D.C. Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Maryland minister and six supporters seeking to put the law on hold until they completed requirements to overturn the measure through a voter referendum.

Approximately 55 percent of the population of the District of Columbia is black, and churches in the area with large black congregations have been extremely vocal in their opposition to the new law. Ministers have expressed hope they can rally their congregations in opposition to the recognition of same-sex marriage.

In May, when the council first voted on the measure, The Washington Post reported:

After the vote, enraged African American ministers stormed the hallway outside the council chambers and vowed that they will work to oust the members who supported the bill. They caused such an uproar that security officers and D.C. police were called in to clear the hallway.

Read the entire Post report on the May incident here.

In dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Judith Retchin, in a 15-page decision, upheld an earlier ruling by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics that a referendum seeking to block the same-sex marriage recognition measure would violate the city’s Human Rights Act. The election board and Retchin each ruled that the referendum could not be held because it would violate the human rights law’s provision banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Bishop Harry Jackson Jr., pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., vowed to continue his efforts to oppose same-sex marriage in the District, saying he and his supporters would seek to overturn the law in the coming months through a voter initiative.

**********************

Foe-bama? Gays are Wondering

stonewallIn view of the Justice Department’s brief on the Defense of Marriage Act – a law President Obama said he regarded as “abhorrent” when he was campaigning and sweeping up gay dollars – this cartoon in the Washington Blade seems just right.

An editorial in today’s New York Times names the brief “A bad call on gay rights” and suggest the White House take a new direction:

The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.

A gay couple married under California law is challenging the act in federal court. In its brief, the Justice Department argues that the couple lack legal standing to do so. It goes on to contend that even if they have standing, the case should be dismissed on the merits.

The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.

These are comparisons that understandably rankle many gay people. In a letter to President Obama on Monday, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, said, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”

The brief also maintains that the Defense of Marriage Act represents a “cautious policy of federal neutrality” — an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits — such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns — that heterosexual married couples receive.

In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. There is a strong presumption that the Justice Department will defend federal laws, but it is not an inviolable rule.

If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.

The best approach of all would have been to make clear, even as it defends the law in court, that it is fighting for gay rights. It should work to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans gay men and lesbians in the military from being open about their sexuality. It should push hard for a federal law banning employment discrimination. It should also work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress.

The administration has had its hands full with the financial crisis, health care, Guantánamo Bay and other pressing matters. In times like these, issues like repealing the marriage act can seem like a distraction — or a political liability. But busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.

**********************

If You Haven’t Seen “The Defenders”…

… you should. It’ll make you laugh, but in a hollow way. Check it out:

**********************

Court Upholds Prop 8, Advocacy Groups Vow to Restore Marriage Equality

This is the official press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR):

(San Francisco, CA, May 26, 2009)—Today, in a 6 to 1 decision, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the ballot measure that eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry. In the ruling authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, the Court stated “We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure.” At the same time, the court unanimously ruled that the more than 18,000 marriages that took place between June 16 and November 4, 2008 continue to be fully valid and recognized by the state of California. The decision reaffirmed the Court’s prior holding that sexual orientation is subject to the highest level of protection under the California Constitution.

In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Carlos Moreno stated,

“The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.”

“Today’s decision is a terrible blow to same-sex couples who share the same hopes and dreams for their families as other Californians,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued the case before the California Supreme Court in March. “But our path ahead is now clear. We will go back to the ballot box and we will win.”

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU represent Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples. David C. Codell and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP are also counsel on the case.

At a press conference this morning, all of the groups vowed to return to the polls to restore the right to marry for same-sex couples.

Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, said,

“Same-sex couples yearn for the same dignity and respect that others enjoy. The current situation in California is fundamentally unfair, and it is deeply disappointing that the Court let this injustice stand. But we are committed to restoring equality at the ballot box.”

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed the legal challenge on November 5, after Proposition 8 was approved by just 52 percent of the voters on Election Day.

An unprecedented 43 friend-of-the-court briefs, representing hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions, and numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, and leading legal scholars, were filed in the case, urging the Court to strike down the initiative.

“Public opinion is moving in the direction of fairness and equality, and it is only a matter of time until the freedom to marry will again be secure for all Californians.” – Jennifer C. Pizer

Pizer is the Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal. “Achieving equality always requires struggle, but over time people come to accept that equal treatment and equal protection of the laws is the best way to protect the rights of all,” she said.

“By upholding Prop. 8, the Court has moved our state backward and has put all Californians at risk of losing fundamental rights at each and every election. Our Constitution must ensure that all Californians are treated equally by our government,” said Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. “Despite this injustice, we are prepared to return to the ballot box together with our allies to restore the freedom to marry. As more and more states across the nation allow same-sex couples to marry, and as we continue our efforts to win the hearts and minds of Californians through real conversations in homes, in neighborhoods, online and on the air, we are confident that same-sex couples will soon enjoy the honor, dignity and protections that only marriage provides.”

There is more information, including pdfs of the decision and other documents, on the NCLR website.

**********************

Another Prop. H8 Protest Graphic

Swipe it and use it!

Minorities&H8

**********************

Help Repeal Prop. 8

**********************

Civil Rights Fail

failwhaleH8