The Straight Wedding

Image via WikipediaLast night my wife and I went to a wedding. We have known the bride and her family for what seems like forever. We have known the groom for only a few years but have really enjoyed getting to know him. They are a great couple and we felt honored to be invited to their wedding.

But...

There are still those thoughts about what tone the ceremony will have. How much will be about "marriage being the joining of one man and one woman." Also, just the fact that they can get married and we can't is always leaves a bitter taste.

The ceremony began. The bride and groom were clearly happy that their day had finally arrived. While nervous, knowing all eyes were on them, what showed through it all was their love for each other. Then about ten minutes into the ceremony it happened. The officiant dives into the idea that "marriage is between one man and one woman." Now let me make this clear. This was not designed to be a stance, nor was it meant to be the official definition of marriage for the couple. This was just the officiant's standard language.

I really do believe this.

The thing is, it doesn't change the gut reaction when you hear it. My wife leaned forward and lowered her head, shaking it side to side. I just rubbed her back and then held her hand. I knew that depending on where this went it could lead to my wife's exit of the ceremony, with me right behind. Luckily, the moment passed. We made it through the ceremony and to the open bar.

The reception provides a whole new set of circumstances. Mostly, how out as a couple we would be. Do we just fast dance with the group or do we slow dance? Several people in attendance were at our ceremony and know us very well. Another large portion we know in a more professional setting. While most of these people either know we are a couple or have assumed, they really haven't seen us interact as one. Then about half of them we don't know at all.

Here's the thing. The bride and groom know us as a couple. They invited us to the wedding. Therefore, I am going to assume they wouldn't expect us to not be a couple at their wedding.

One of the events at a reception is the dance that starts with all married couple being called to the floor. Then as the song continues the DJ asks for couples that have been married for less that X years to leave the floor. In the end, the couple married the longest are the only ones still dancing. The DJ called for all married couples to go to the floor. An individual we were sitting with looked at us and said, "Uh, that means you." When I looked he continued, "You're married to me...get out there." His father happened to have performed our ceremony and he was in the bridal party this evening. Good enough for us.

That was the first of many dances. We danced, we sang favorite parts of songs to each other, we kissed. At one point the groom came over while we were dancing hugged us and tried to walk away. I grabbed him and we all danced together.

During one of the early dances I remember asking my wife, who had a better view, "Is anyone staring?" Her response, "Not at all."

Wow. Normal. The only lesbian or gay couple in the crowd and how did we feel.

Normal.

Whatever that means.

This was a young couple with a fairly young crowd. I say the future is bright.

Cheers to the happy couple!

The Old Man and the Queers

Image via Wikipedia



You never know when you are going to learn a lesson or where it will come from. You can only make sure you are able to recognize it when it happens.

On Saturday, February 12th, many of the Arizona State House of Representative Democrats held office hours for their constituents. This was done in part to honor Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords one month after her shooting. The lawmakers were wanting to show that Gabby's commitment to meeting with her constituents was equally important to them and something that wouldn't be stopped by the actions taken by a gunman on that day. I live in Arizona's 14th legislative district represented by Debbie McCune Davis and Chad Cambell who were holding their office hours at a local coffee shop in the district.

There were only seven of us that showed up for the chat. We settled in around one large table to be able to discuss what issues were important to us with our Representatives. An older couple was seated next to me and went first. Only the gentleman spoke. He started off about keeping the tax credits for school donations. That was cool with me and I was impressed at how he was discussing some of the education issues. Then he switched topics.

"I want to discuss the marriage amendment. The family is the most important thing in society and must be protected," he began.

I'm thinking, "Well this is interesting. We have already been here, done this, and voted marriage between one man and one woman into our constitution. What more is there to discuss?" Then I think, "Oh maybe he is upset about the amendment and wants to protect all of our families." Yeah....no.

"Marriage has been around for thousands of years and the only way this has been is between one man and one woman and we must protect that," he declared. Now the purpose of this meeting was not a group discussion. He was there to talk with his representative. Rep. Campbell had run back to his house so he was not present at the time which left Rep. McCune Davis to handle the question. I just looked at her and gave her a little smile and waited.

"I understand what you are saying but I think we would disagree on how families need to be protected. This is something that was already voted on and is done and your view won in that vote." McCune Davis said. I thought Rep. McCune Davis was handling it well since there really was no point in having a conversation on something that would not be voted on here again. It was clear she didn't agree with him but why make a big argument at this point.

Then he said, "Well we need to make sure it stays that way. If they want to have a civil union I don't care about that. They can have some rights but I do not what queers to marry."

"Ok, wow, did he just say queers," I thought to myself and looked down at the table biting my lip.

"Well we can have some agreement that they do deserve to have equal rights," said McCune Davis happy that there was a point she could turn into agreement.

Unfortunately, he continued, "Sometimes judges decide to make laws and this is a decision that the people need to make."


At this Rep. McCune Davis did have to strongly disagree by saying, "Judges don't make laws the legislature does. The courts do check to make sure laws are constitutional. I do believe there will be court challenges on this issue. We are already seeing challenges to the marriage law in California. However, the judges will not be making laws when they decide a case."

"Oh but they are," the man continued. "Who are they to decide? This decision must be made by the majority. It is the majority of the people that say marriage is between one man and one woman and that is the only way it should be decided...by the people's vote."

Again Rep. McCune Davis could not let that pass and had to strongly disagree. "Sir, we as lawmakers have a responsibility to make sure that we protect all Arizonans. That means we do things to protect the minority at times. In this situation it was brought to a vote by the public and your position won. However, we do have a responsibility to protect the minority."

He was not satisfied with this answer but Rep. McCune Davis was able to end the conversation successfully because there were other constituents that needed a turn. During this conversation Rep. Campbell had rejoined the group. He had assessed the situation and made a smart move choosing not to ask, "So what did I miss?"

Then Rep. McCune Davis looked at me and said, "So what brought you here today?"

"Well I hadn't come here to discuss something that had been decided on two years ago but I must strongly disagree with what he just said. While I don't think we need to take up our time here today discussing an issue that will not come before the legislature I will say that I have a partner and we have two kids. I would like to have the same rights and protections everyone else at this table has when it comes to their family. I can't adopt my children because this state doesn't have second parent adoptions and so I have no legal rights to my children. Marriage would solve that and protect my family."

"It appears that most of you around the table are married. As far as Civil Unions go the only way that is equal is if you each have to tear up your marriage licenses and we all get a Civil Union license. All the tax codes and any other legal documents that reference marriage would need to change to Civil Union. The problem isn't that I want to call it marriage, the problem is that our government does. Therefore, all the rights and protections that you say you are ok with me having are tied up in that word with our government. To just make up something for me is not equal. Either I get marriage or you all get Civil Unions. Either way is ok with me."

I then went on to discuss the anti-bullying bill and the adoption bill that I had come to address. Rep Campbell did address these bills and they both stated they supported my position on them.

As I was finishing up the man interrupted, "When you say you have a partner - is it a man or a woman?"

"It's a woman," I said.

Not looking at me the man asked, "And you have kids?"

"Yes," I responded.

Still not bothering to look at me he asks, "Then what do you say when they are going to ask who their father is?"

"They don't have one, they have two mommies," I answered simply.

At this point the man next to me interrupted. He said this discussion could happen at another time and that we were all here to ask questions of our legislators and we should use the time for that. I agreed and we moved on.

Conversation continued and many other issues were discussed. After things wrapped up both Representative McCune Davis and Representative Campbell talked with me about the conversation. I told Rep. McCune Davis that I appreciated her answers and thought she handled it well. I spent more time with Representative Campbell, who is currently the minority leader, about the redistricting process and the importance of LGBT people showing up to that process. Then I left.

Here is the lesson I learned. It's all about showing up.

Had I not shown up the only voice that would have been heard on LGBT issues would have been his. While others that were there privately told me of their support as well they would have not spoken on LGBT issues that day. They were there for their own reasons. This is why LGBT individuals need to participate. All I did was sit down and have a cup of hot chocolate with people, my neighbors, to discuss what we think are important issues facing Arizona.

It was the most important thing I had done all week.

Human Rights Campaign Applauds Washington State Legislature for Passing Domestic Partnership Expansion Bill

Image by PDX Pixels via Flickr

The following is a Press Release from the Human Rights Campaign:

Bill adds hundreds of rights and responsibilities to current law

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, today praised the Washington State House of Representatives for passing the Domestic Partnership Expansion bill on a 62-35 vote. This follows a positive vote of 30-18 in the state Senate several weeks ago. The bill will provide registered domestic partners with access to the rights and responsibilities granted to spouses under state law.

“We applaud the Washington state legislature for providing these important protections under Washington state law to committed lesbian and gay couples and we thank Senators Ed Murray and Joe McDermott and Representatives Jamie Pedersen, Dave Upthegrove, Jim Moeller and Marko Liias, as well as Equal Rights Washington for their leadership on this civil rights issue,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “This is another important step toward full equality, and it will provide tangible, much needed legal protections for families in Washington.”

The bill now heads to the desk of Governor Christine Gregoire for signing. In 2007, Governor Gregoire signed the first Domestic Partner bill into law, creating a domestic partner registry and providing some rights to lesbian and gay couples and their families. In 2008, the Governor signed legislation providing domestic partners with 160 of the more than 400 rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples. This year’s Domestic Partnership Expansion bill grants approximately 250 additional rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners.

The Human Rights Campaign worked directly with Equal Rights Washington to mobilize thousands of supporters to lobby their legislators in Olympia, send over 35,000 emails and make thousands of phone calls to legislators.

In addition to Washington, eleven states plus Washington, D.C. have laws providing at least some form of state-level relationship recognition for gay and lesbian couples. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa (as of April 27, 2009), and Vermont (as of September 1, 2009) recognize marriage for gay and lesbian couples under state law. Four states—California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon—plus Washington, D.C. provide gay and lesbian couples with access to the state level benefits and responsibilities of marriage, through either civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Maine and Hawaii provide gay and lesbian couples with limited rights and benefits. New York recognizes marriages by gay and lesbian couples validly entered into outside of New York.

Lesbian and gay couples do not receive federal rights and benefits in any state. To learn more about state by state legislation visit: www.hrc.org/state_laws.


The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

HRC Lauds Passage of Marriage Equality Bill by New Hampshire State House of Representatives

Image via Wikipedia

House votes 186-179 to recognize marriage for lesbian and gay couples in the state; bill now moves to state Senate

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, praised the New Hampshire State House of Representatives’ passage of legislation that would permit lesbian and gay couples to marry. The House of Representatives voted 186-179 in favor of House Bill 436, which would allow lesbian and gay couples to marry under state law.

“This is a very proud day for New Hampshire and a very proud day for every American who believes in the promise of equal rights for all,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “We congratulate Representatives Ed Butler, Paul McEachern, Barbara Richardson, and Jim Splaine for their leadership in sponsoring this bill, as well as GLAD, PFLAG New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, and the many activists, including HRC members, who have been working to build support for this legislation.”

Solmonese continued: “The New Hampshire State House of Representatives recognized that lesbian and gay couples who form committed relationships and loving families deserve the same level of respect afforded to straight couples. We hope that this bill will pass the state Senate and be enacted as law.”

This year, HRC has mobilized members to support House Bill 436. In 2006, HRC worked closely with legislators, community groups and local leaders to help elect fair-minded majorities to both the New Hampshire House of Representatives and Senate, which subsequently voted to pass civil unions legislation in 2007.

Two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, currently permit gay and lesbian couples to marry under state law. New York recognizes marriages by gay and lesbian couples legally married outside of the state. Earlier this week, Vermont’s state Senate voted 26-4 to pass legislation that would allow lesbian and gay couples to marry in Vermont. New Hampshire or Vermont could be the first state to adopt marriage equality legislatively. (California’s legislature has twice passed bills that would have permitted gay and lesbian couples to marry, but each bill was vetoed).

In addition to New Hampshire, seven states plus Washington, D.C. have laws providing at least some form of state-level relationship recognition, short of marriage, for gay and lesbian couples. Four other states—California, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont—plus Washington, D.C. provide gay and lesbian couples with access to the state level benefits and responsibilities of marriage, through either civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Maine, Washington and Hawaii provide gay and lesbian couples with limited rights and benefits, not all the rights provided to married couples.

Gay and lesbian couples do not receive federal rights and benefits in any state. To learn more about state by state legislation visit: www.hrc.org/state_laws.

Related articles by Zemanta

• NH House Approves Gay Marriage Bill (queerty.com)
• Marriage Equality Passes In New Hampshire (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

Human Rights Campaign Applauds Vermont State Senate for Passing Marriage Bill

 

26-4 Vote Sends Measure to House; Bill Would Allow Gay and Lesbian Couples to Marry Under Vermont Law

 

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, applauded the Vermont State Senate for its bipartisan 26-4 vote in support of S. 115, a bill that would recognize marriage for gay and lesbian couples under state law.  The bill now moves to the state House of Representatives.

 

“We encourage the House to expeditiously pass this bill and the Governor to sign it into law, giving all committed couples in Vermont the basic respect and dignity they deserve,”  said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.  “We congratulate Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, Senator John Campbell, Senator Claire Ayer, the 23 other Senators who voted yes, and the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, on this strong statement of support for equality.”

 

Two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, currently permit gay and lesbian couples to marry under state law.  New York recognizes marriages by gay and lesbian couples legally married outside of the state. Vermont was the first state to recognize civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, in 2000.   If S. 115 is enacted into law, Vermont would become the first state to adopt marriage equality legislatively.  (California’s legislature has twice passed bills that would have permitted gay and lesbian couples to marry, but each bill was vetoed).

 

In addition to Vermont,  seven states plus Washington, D.C. have laws providing at least some form of state-level relationship recognition, short of marriage, for gay and lesbian couples.  Four other states—California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Oregon—plus Washington, D.C. provide gay and lesbian couples with access to the state level benefits and responsibilities of marriage, through either civil unions or domestic partnerships. 

 

Maine, Washington and Hawaii provide gay and lesbian couples with limited rights and benefits, not all the rights provided to married couples. 

 

Gay and lesbian couples do not receive federal rights and benefits in any state.  To learn more about state by state legislation visit: www.hrc.org/state_laws.