Wives and Husbands - the Gay Marriage Thread

[Ben Varkentine]

Others including the unexpected Salt Lake City have come out (so to speak) for gay marriage. Well, as San Francisco goes, so goes the nation. Whole thing in the Washington Post.



www.washingtonpost.com/wp...rrer=email



(You'll have to register.)

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Judge Lets Same-Sex San Francisco Marriages Go On

       

By Spencer Swartz and Elinor Mills Abreu



SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A San Francisco judge on Friday denied a request by a conservative family values group to stop the thousands of same-sex weddings that have taken place in the city since Mayor Gavin Newsom lifted a ban on gay marriages last week.

       

It was the second time in a week that a State Superior Court judge had denied a request to issue a temporary restraining order that would stop the weddings until the issues could be resolved at a further hearing or trial.



San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay denied the request on the grounds that the conservative family values group, the Campaign for California Families, had not presented evidence showing that irreparable harm would be caused by allowing the weddings to continue.



The group argued that since state law does not recognize same sex marriages the weddings were a waste of taxpayer money and were deliberately violating a law passed by California voters in 2000 declaring that marriage could only be between a man and woman.



Judge Quidachay ordered that another case challenging Newsom's decision be consolidated with the case he is hearing and he set March 29 as the date for the next hearing.



While the lawyers argued, the marriages continued inside City Hall, just across the street from the courthouse. Four musicians serenaded newlyweds as they left the building, and about a dozen protesters carrying signs that read "Trust Jesus" and "Prepare to meet that God" milled about outside the elegant copper-domed civic building.



Meanwhile, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said the state would oppose Newsom's actions, which conflict with Proposition 22, the state ballot initiative restricting marriage to members of the opposite sex. More than 3,000 same-sex couples have been married since Newsom decided last week to defy state law and make his city the first in the nation to marry gay and lesbian couples.



"The people of California spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when Proposition 22 was overwhelmingly passed in 2000," Gov. Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "I will abide by the oath I took when I was sworn in to uphold California's laws."



Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said California Attorney General Bill Lockyer assured him that he will "vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law in the case brought against the state by San Francisco."



City lawyers on Thursday asked the Superior Court to strike down state laws that limit marriages to a man and a woman, saying they violate equal rights and equal protection clauses of the state constitution.



San Francisco's same-sex marriages have been criticized by President Bush, who some legal analysts believe is moving closer to endorsing a constitutional ban on gay and lesbian marriage as a result of the city's actions.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Ben Varkentine]

From Talking Points Memo.

Quote:

---

You know it's really a new day when Chicago's Mayor Daley says he'd have "no problem" if Cook County started allowing gay marriages.



Sure, it's not the Mayor Daley. It's his son. And Richard M. Daley's ability to reclaim the Chicago mayoralty for his family has from the start been based on rapprochements with all manner of groups, political factions and ideological tendencies that were, if not beyond the pale, then at least subordinated in the Chicago of his father.



But you can't have much familiarity with the strains and schisms that rent the Democratic party in its urban bastions of the North through the latter decades of the last century, and the particular convulsion in Chicago in 1968, and not find those words coming from that mouth something bracing, unexpected, in some sense hard to fathom, and yet terribly welcome.



Andrew Sullivan has been commenting on this at some length in the last few days. But it's amazing to watch how San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's act of inverted civil disobedience (a Mayor violating the seemingly clear letter of the law in the cause of a higher principle of equality) has unleashed the floodgates around the country. The county in New Mexico, which briefly started issuing marriage licenses, has now apparently reversed itself. But I think Andrew is right that this spate of marriages -- at least in San Francisco and perhaps now in other locales -- has suddenly made this whole issue concrete and human in a way it simply wasn't before.



I'm not sure that makes the movement's eventual success more likely. But it clearly makes it impossible for anyone to ignore. It now has to be confronted across the political spectrum -- by some eagerly, and by others with great reluctance.



I must confess to a deep ambivalence about same-sex marriages. It's not one of belief or values, but one of pragmatism, at least as I understand it -- and yet a pragmatism I'm not entirely comfortable with.



I strongly support civil unions -- the ability of gay and lesbian couples to solemnize their unions and enjoy the whole raft of civil protections, privileges and obligations that heterosexual couples do through marriage -- survivorship rights, the ability to visit and make decisions for a sick spouse in the hospital, etc. Anything less just conflicts with everything I believe is right and just.



My reason for not supporting gay marriage -- and I think there's a difference between opposing and not supporting, in this case -- is that it seems like a step that would trigger a backlash that would a) quite possibly prevent the adoption even of civil unions and b) provide a tool for conservatives to win elections and thus prevent or turn back various other progressive reforms that are no less important than this one. (Of course, this hybrid reasoning has all manner of uncomfortable echoes from the middle decades of the 20th century.)



In other words, when I say that I don't support gay marriage, my reasoning and rationale are inextricably tied up with my sense of the larger political context in which the question arises -- what's possible and what's not, and what the larger political repercussions would be. In fact, I find the two parts of the equation difficult to untangle even in my own head. (If there's an undertone of uncertainty or moral awkwardness you recognize in this post it likely stems from my feeling that the open embrace of gay marriage from so many unexpected quarters shames what seems to me to be my own timidity.)



I don't think these concerns about broader political repercussions can be easily or honestly ignored. And yet if we posit a country in which there is marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for gays and lesbians, then, paradoxically, I think the state-imposed stigma becomes even greater than it is now. Not entirely so, but at least by one measure.



Today we have marriage. It's a state-sanctioned institution for men and women. The state just, by and large, isn't involved in homosexual relationships. Now, I know that there are laws on the books in many states that definitely do involve the state in same-sex relationships adversely. And in practice, the state can have much less than a hands-off approach.



Yet, if we have marriage (for straights) and civil unions (for gays), then you have the state being in the business of solemnizing and recognizing both kinds of relationships, but in a way that clearly gives preference -- even if just symbolically -- to straights. Once you make the leap to civil unions, this sort of public denigration of same-sex relationships seems hard to justify, and full gay marriage seems hard not to embrace.



I know that little in these ideas or formulations is novel. They just give a sense of my thoughts on the issue, and my wrestling with it. But the images of happy newlyweds in San Francisco is jostling my own calculus of pragmatism and right.



-- Josh Marshall

---

BTW, Marshall's is one of the smartest, most well-considered, thoughtful blogs out there. I cannot recommend too highly your visiting it regularly.

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

Edited by: Ben Varkentine at: 2/20/04 7:45 pm

[Diebrock]

I know I'm coming late to this but...



BBOvenGuy said:

Quote:

---

Well, this is why I say the issue has as much to do with psychology as it has to do with law. In practice, you're right - marriage is a legal status as you describe. But that's not what the "defenders of marriage" are saying. They claim that marriage must be protected because it's a "sacred institution."

---

I think you're right with regards to psychology. I had a very hard time at first to understand the problems Americans seemed to have with marriage and civil unions and the difference between the two. I couldn't wrap my mind around it; especially the religious connotation that marriage automatically seems to have there. That is, until I learned of the fundamental differences in how my country handles marriage and a lot of other countries do. And I think this makes a big difference in how marriage is perceived by the people.



We haven't been able to get married without a civil ceremony since the 1870s in Germany. The only (for the state) valid marriage is the ceremony at the civil registry office. Everyone who wants to be married has to get married at the civil registry office. That's obligatory. What you do after that in regards to religious ceremonies or traditions is your own business.

But a church wedding always requires an already married couple. Now for the protestant church a church ceremony is not a wedding but a church service (with sermon, prayer, blessing and so on) in which the couple decides to put

"the marriage beneath god's word" (whatever that means). Ergo, the protestant church recognises the complete validity of the civil marriage without any religious input.

The catholic church on the other hand will only recognise the marriage after a religious wedding ceremony. But even they won't perform a wedding if the couple hasn't already been legally married.



I think that after 130 years of this practice we've pretty much disassociated marriage/wedding and church or religion. Marriage/wedding means Civil Registry Office and Civil Registry Office means (most of the time anyway) marriage/wedding.

My guess is that the only ones who really believe marriage is sacred are religious Catholics. And out of that group only very few (and most of them clerics or politicians) go around bothering other people with their personal beliefs. Of course that only means that the Conservatives had to use constitutional reasons to fight the 'homo-marriage'.

---

Kieli wrote:

Quote:

---

My "wife" (in my mind only) is not interested in gay marriage in the slightest and she could care less about civil unions. She's terribly uninterested in the whole deal, while I'm excited about it and that has me worried. I would like for us to be married or at least joined in a civil union at some point. However, I'm filled with trepidation over my lover's reticence and lackadaisical attitude toward it.

---

I'm trying to put myself into your situation as I'm firmly in your partner's corner. I don't intend to get married unless absolutely necessary (eg if my partner would be a foreigner that wouldn't be allowed to stay otherwise etc).



Now I'm poking in the dark here because I don't know your reasons for wanting to get married. So feel free to shoot me down if you want.



The best you can do is put the reasons for both your stances on the table and explain why you want or don't want to get married and in your case what you hope to gain from marriage. Maybe she will understand your reasons and agree to it.

On the other hand, you should probably ask yourself if it will be enough for you if she agrees to marriage only to make you happy. I guess it depends on why you want to get married. If it is to get the rights of a married couple, meaning marriage is just a contract to you, then it isn't really such a big deal that your partner doesn't care if you do or if you don't.

But an unenthusiastic partner just going along with you would make the whole thing rather meaningless if you wished to get a symbolic meaning/validation of commitment out of it.

The best analogy that I can come up with is:

From one atheist to another, would you consent to a religious ceremony/blessing because your partner really wanted it? And if yes, would it mean anything to you that someone you don't believe in has supposedly blessed your union?

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I'm trying to put myself into your situation as I'm firmly in your partner's corner. I don't intend to get married unless absolutely necessary (eg if my partner would be a foreigner that wouldn't be allowed to stay otherwise etc).

---

Interesting stance, but I'm not sure if you clarified for me why you believe this way.



For me, the word "marriage" has no religious meaning and never has. It does, however, signify to me that my partner might actually be willing to commit to me for the rest of her life like she says she does. I don't need a god's blessing to want that part of my life to have some validation. Her reticence worries me mostly because it gives me pause about how strong our relationship is. The second reason I would want a marriage or civil union or what have you is that, if the state recognizes them both equally, I wouldn't have to worry that, if something happens to either one of us, our respective parents won't suddenly turn on either partner and prevent us from carrying out each other's respective wills and personal wishes once we're deceased or if either of us is extremely ill.



I know there are many gay couples that have had that problem, where each partner's family members seem to be ok with their coupledom but as soon as one partner dies, there is a battle royal over funeral arrangements, how the will is to be read, who gets to raise the children, etc. I so don't want Diana to have to go there. I wouldn't be able to rise up from my grave and smite my greedy relatives if they were to treat her shabbily.



She and I have discussed our reasons out and we still both do not agree; mostly, and this is just a hunch, because I think she is still hopelessly intertwined with her Southern Baptist upbringing and feels that "marriage" is only for man and wife. I have never felt that so for me, marriage is just a lifelong commitment to one another that is formally recognized by all (i.e. family, friends, government, what-have-you). It is publicly and freely stating that you are totally this person's and they are totally yours. And I keep wondering, where is the harm in that? Is it the publicly stating that we're together forever part that is tripping her up or the religious part? She's never really answered that question for me. She just grows silent and stops talking and it's confusing me to no end.

Quote:

---

The best analogy that I can come up with is: From one atheist to another, would you consent to a religious ceremony/blessing because your partner really wanted it? And if yes, would it mean anything to you that someone you don't believe in has supposedly blessed your union?

---

I would never ask Diana to do something she didn't also want. However, I cannot help but be deeply disappointed in her reaction. Your last half of the quote I've addressed above so I won't blather on anymore The thing is, IF marriage and civil unions were given equal weight in the country, I doubt there would be any fuss, to be honest. But since gay rights has been such a problem here, I can see why there is a mass drive for it. We've had enough with the lack of validation, the lack of sufficient protection under the law against being harassed and violent or prejudicial acts against us and so forth. We don't have much so why not at least give us the right to be with whom we choose forever? Heaven knows, heterosexuals slip in and out of marriages like cast-off condoms. It might make some straight conservatives deathly afraid to think that we could treat their "institution" a bit better than they have been. But I'm ranting. Must...stop.



Thank you for your thoughts, Die (even though you haven't answered my PMs ). I appreciate your candor.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 2/21/04 1:02 pm

[Puff]

Quote:

---

I'm trying to put myself into your situation as I'm firmly in your partner's corner. I don't intend to get married unless absolutely necessary (eg if my partner would be a foreigner that wouldn't be allowed to stay otherwise etc).

---

Actually then gay marriage is not an option for trying to stay in the US at the moment. I've been advised against doing it because it can put my visa out of status and then you can be deported anyway. Until marriage is recognized at a federal level here then foreign mixed couples can't do it...that goes for civil unions, domestic partnerships and marriage in Canada.

---

So, the day started and I knew my name and had my pants on. So far, so good. Yay.
Amber Benson

[Diebrock]

Kieli wrote:

Quote:

---

Thank you for your thoughts, Die (even though you haven't answered my PMs ).

---

Mea Culpa, mea culpa. I didn't know. Honest!

I thought that stupid ezInbox thingy would show if I had unread messages. It always did when ezboard wanted me to know about their improvements. I never had reason to check it until now, or so I thought.

Rest asured that I was not willfully ignoring you.

The rest of my response will have to wait, as it's almost 4am here and I really have to get some sleep now.



Puff wrote:

Quote:

---

Actually then gay marriage is not an option for trying to stay in the US at the moment.

---

I'm not sure if that was really in response to my post, just to clarify, I was talking about my situation in Germany where that is part of the same-sex partnership laws.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Kieli]

Must be nice to live in an enlightened country Half of the time, I get this feeling that many US conservatives are clicking their heels three times and saying repeatedly "There's no place like a home without queers, there's no place like a home without queers!" many apologies to the late Judy Garland for appropriating her famous line...poor woman would be spinning in her grave if I was serious, the queer icon that she is



No worries, Die, it's all good. I will just await your response with baited breath

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I don't believe that. There will be just as much divorce with homo- as there is with heterosexual couples. When it's a bit more common, it will be taken just as lighly by a lot of gay couples as well.

---

I'm trying to think a bit more positively than that since we've not the luxury of partnership laws already in place like Germany has. Your country mostly likely has a few steps up on us in that you've had more time for your countrymen to get used to the idea and possibly a lot of the hoopla surrounding the partnership law has died down. I doubt that might happen here in the US. I would like to think that if gays were given the opportunity to marry, they would treat the institution better because it was a right that was "hard fought for, hard won". I have no proof of this, to be sure. It's just a personal feeling and I could very well be wrong in the coming years.

Quote:

---

I don't believe that marriage is needed to validate a committed relationship...For me marriage is nothing more than a contract which gives the parties certain rights and duties.

---

And that is your view, I respect that. However, I can't think of "marriage" in that sense. I'd like to think that "marriage" or any sort of formalized union, helps to cement a relationship. However, I do realise that is an idealistic POV. If I were to reduce my "marriage" to a contract like I would enter into with any other business, I would, personally not give it much credence. I think that's because mostly I don't trust businesses at all. I dislike the mentality and the lackadaisical way they treat their customers. While not all businesses are like this, I have to say they've made me jaded. So for me to view my marriage as a business contract would not do. I do't need marriage to validate my relationship....I want it to. Two very separate reasons.

Quote:

---

So I don't believe in any "moral high ground" for marriage. But the way I see my commitment to my relationship and its worth does not/will not be dependent on the formal recognition of other people. Because in the end the success of this partnership lies in my partner's and my hands, not anyone else's.

---

I don't think I'm presupposing any "moral high ground" for being married. I'm kind of offended you would think that. I'm not naive in thinking that marriage can solve all problems or make a previously unfaithful partner more faithful. God knows, Diana and I have been through LOTS of rocky parts in our relationship. I know, probably more than most, what it takes to make a good relationship work. However, I do still believe in the romance of "marriage". I suppose that makes me a sentimental fool. Oh well, you can't have everything.



Overall though, I have been content with only having my life partnership be solely for my partner and myself. What really hit home the concept of same-sex marriage for me was when we were still living in Amarillo and Diana had to be hospitalized. Her mother was not able to get to her for health reasons and I was told that I could not, under no circumstances, see her unless I was her blood relative. Here I was, the only person on site that knew her medical history inside and out and I was being forbidden from being able to see her or speak with her doctor to give him prevalent information. Oh there were other things (i.e. like our inability to declare each other as medical dependents on health insurance, even when I was jobless and having health problems that required medical attention I could not pay for) but that one stuck with me. So it's more than mere "validation" or "formal recognition by other people". It's for basic rights. Something we really should not have to fight for in the first place.



ETA:If blacks had settled for being second class citizens like gays in this country have had to "settle" for, we'd (speaking as a black woman) not be where we are today. No one should have to settle for being a second class anything. If one is content to do that, then more power to them. They obviously have far more intestinal fortitude and patience than I.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 2/22/04 11:24 am

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

For me, the word "marriage" has no religious meaning and never has. It does, however, signify to me that my partner might actually be willing to commit to me for the rest of her life like she says she does. I don't need a god's blessing to want that part of my life to have some validation. Her reticence worries me mostly because it gives me pause about how strong our relationship is. The second reason I would want a marriage or civil union or what have you is that, if the state recognizes them both equally, I wouldn't have to worry that, if something happens to either one of us, our respective parents won't suddenly turn on either partner and prevent us from carrying out each other's respective wills and personal wishes once we're deceased or if either of us is extremely ill.

---

Your second reason is the one where I could most likely be persuaded, as I tried to show with the stay permit issue. Though a lot of these rights can be obtained through other legal contracts, it's not possible for all. For me marriage is nothing more than a contract which gives the parties certain rights and duties.

It's your first reason where my point of view is different from yours.

Quote:

---

I have never felt that so for me, marriage is just a lifelong commitment to one another that is formally recognized by all (i.e. family, friends, government, what-have-you). It is publicly and freely stating that you are totally this person's and they are totally yours.

---

I don't believe that marriage is needed to validate a committed relationship. Unmarried couples who chose not to marry can be just as successful and happy and fulfilled and secure in their relationship as married ones. That's not to say that the people who want and need to marry shouldn't be allowed to.

Just like you, that talk about sacred bonds and vows and holy matrimony has absolutely no meaning at all for me. That leaves the legal contract between two people. And I don't see how that should make a difference in the value you place on a partnership. You have a few more rights and you have a few more duties.

But if you want to cheat you will, if you don't want to put any work into your marriage no one can force you, if you want to live with someone else you can; only marrying someone else takes a little more time since you have to wait until the divorce is final and maybe you will have to pay your ex alimony.

So I don't believe in any "moral high ground" for marriage. Or that it will, if not guaranty then make it more likely, for the relationship to last. Everything you have to invest if you want to make a relationship without marriage certificate work, you have to invest if you want to make a marriage work. And then it either works in the end or it doesn't, marriage or no.

Maybe I'm just a contrary kind of girl. But the way I see my commitment to my relationship and its worth does not/will not be dependent on the formal recognition of other people. Because in the end the success of this partnership lies in my partner's and my hands, not anyone else's.

Quote:

---

Heaven knows, heterosexuals slip in and out of marriages like cast-off condoms. It might make some straight conservatives deathly afraid to think that we could treat their "institution" a bit better than they have been.

---

I don't believe that. There will be just as much divorce with homo- as there is with heterosexual couples. When it's a bit more common, it will be taken just as lighly by a lot of gay couples as well.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

I would like to think that if gays were given the opportunity to marry, they would treat the institution better because it was a right that was "hard fought for, hard won". I have no proof of this, to be sure. It's just a personal feeling and I could very well be wrong in the coming years.

---

Do more women than men vote? It would be interesting to see if your optimism of hard won rights shows itself in this case. Unfortunately I don't have any numbers.

Quote:

---

I don't think I'm presupposing any "moral high ground" for being married. I'm kind of offended you would think that.

---

I knew that wasn't phrased very well, hence the "". And I didn't mean you but society in general that still places a partnership at a higher level just because marriage is involved. Kinda like: Ruth and Naomi have been living together for seventeen years now without getting married (we're presuming here they could have and that no homophobia exists-I just wanted to use those names ). Obviously they are not really commited to each other and don't believe they will last. On the other hand, Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Smith take their commitment to each other very seriously and so they entered into her fifth and his third marriage a few month ago. Society will place the Taylor/Smith relationship unseen above the Ruth/Naomi relationship. Though I do admit this is slowly changing. But for example a good friend of mine and her boyfriend of more than 7 years have had to justify more than once why they don't intend to marry. I just don't see why people would have to justify something like this.

Quote:

---

However, I do still believe in the romance of "marriage"

---

I never really did. I don't know why as I never experienced a divorce: my parents are still together, my grandparents and great-grandparents were, my aunts and uncles are still and my friends aren't married so they couldn't get divorced.

Quote:

---

So it's more than mere "validation" or "formal recognition by other people". It's for basic rights.

---

I believe I said already that these issues are the only reasons that might make me reconsider.

Though I don't see them as basic rights. Basic rights are the rights that every human being should have, regardless. That includes the right to marry whereby you will gain these "special rights".





Did your ETA have anything to do with my post? Because I'm pretty sure I didn't tell anyone to settle for anything. I just explained why I don't intend to get married. And those reasons are regardless of the gender of my partner. In fact, they were first thought out at a time when I had no idea that my romantic interests would turn out to be in the opposite direction.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

Did your ETA have anything to do with my post? Because I'm pretty sure I didn't tell anyone to settle for anything. I just explained why I don't intend to get married. And those reasons are regardless of the gender of my partner. In fact, they were first thought out at a time when I had no idea that my romantic interests would turn out to be in the opposite direction.

---

Ermm...no I just neglected to put in a disclaimer *bad Toni* I was having a conversation with someone else it it kind of irked me to some extent and I felt the need to say something. It does sound a bit snippy and for that I apologise.

Quote:

---

Do more women than men vote?

---

Good question. To be honest, I don't have any real answer. According to the

National Election Studies Guide to Public Opinion, when they did a poll in 2000 about which groups voted and how, they noted that overall out of the Democrats who responded to the poll 56% of women voted while only 47% of the males and 92% of the black respondents voted while only 46% of the white respondents voted (this was a poll about the Presidential Vote Among the 2 Parties). Conversely, among the Republicans, only 44% of the women voted while 53% of the men did. Among the black Republican respondents only 8% of them voted for a presidential candidate while 54% of while Republicans voted. Do keep in mind that these numbers won't mean much to you unless you read their variable table to get info on sample size, standard deviation and what not. You can go HERE for more information. So what I am apparently saying is that it all depends on the party affiliation. However if you look at the NES Gender of Respondent's Table from 1948-2002, women have consistently been the ones to vote moreso than men. But this is only according to NES data.

Quote:

---

Kinda like: Ruth and Naomi have been living together for seventeen years now without getting married (we're presuming here they could have and that no homophobia exists-I just wanted to use those names ). Obviously they are not really commited to each other and don't believe they will last. On the other hand, Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Smith take their commitment to each other very seriously and so they entered into her fifth and his third marriage a few month ago. Society will place the Taylor/Smith relationship unseen above the Ruth/Naomi relationship.

---

I see what you're saying...glad you cleared that up for me

Quote:

---

Though I don't see them as basic rights. Basic rights are the rights that every human being should have, regardless. That includes the right to marry whereby you will gain these "special rights".

---

I'm confused on the phrasing. Do you mean that society feels that the right to marry is a "special right"? Or are you saying that the right to marry is not a "basic right" (for lack of a better term)?

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Diebrock]

It's possible I was confused first.

Okay. Basic rights for me are the rights as presented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the rights every human being is entitled to (it doesn't really matter what society thinks of that).



Ergo, the right to marry is a basic right.



Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.



(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.



(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.





The rights that come with being married (the ones we were talking about in regards to the advantages of being married) are "special" rights (you could maybe say privileges but I don't like that word), meaning only human beings who are married are entitled to them and only in connection with their partner.



What I was "objecting" to was your answer (or maybe I just thought is was your answer) to: why get married? which was: "It's for basic rights." All I meant was that things like power of attorney, inheritance, the right not to testify against your partner in court and so on are NOT basic rights with which we are born (unless it pertains to our nearest relatives) but have to be obtained through marriage, which legally makes the partner a relative.



I hope that was clearer but somehow I doubt it. I'm shutting up now before before I confuse myself too much.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Kieli]

I have to say that I'm even confusing myself But, to clarify a bit: what I meant by basic rights was the right to be permitted to be married to my partner under those conditions you specified in Article 16. Granted, the fringe benefits are nice but that's not the only reason. Other than "basic rights" I probably should've put a caveat emptor: all of the same rights that heterosexual married couples currently enjoy, which means all of the basic rights you stipulated plus the fringe benefits. Hell, I'd still want to marry Diana even if we got nothing but simple respect. And that's all I really want, deep down.



I understand your use of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but since Dubya thinks the US is above and beyond the UN and doesn't need to obey them, we'd be screwed if we just hoped that he'd be a good guy and pay attention to that lovely document. After reading just a few minutes ago that the US has allowed TEN known dictators and vociferous violators of human rights to still breathe good air and kill hundreds of thousands, I am not holding out any hope that our cowboy will do a good deed for us out of the goodness of his lil ole black heart. Don't I wish.



Thanks for the link to that document and for the clarification See?! No more confuzzles!

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Gatito Grande]

Kieli and Diebrock, I've been following your dialogue w/ great fascination and respect. It's prompted me to do some reflection:



Marriage, it seems to me involves a number of different aspects, not all of which necessarily should apply to every marriage:



1) A state-licensed contract between the couple, w/ accompanying rights and responsibilities



2) A public affirmation of a couple's commitment to each other (for life, unless stated otherwise)



3) A public celebration by "the community" (variously defined) of a couple's commitment, usually accompanied by



4) Some kind of public support of the couple by the community (starting w/ wedding presents, and extending on . . . )



5) The establishment of a relationship (of varying significance) of each partner to the other's family of origin, and of the two families of origin to each other (Note: "family of origin" may not be the same a birth-family. It can simply be a circle of friends that a partner brings w/ them from whence they come to the committed relationship. Or it can be some combination of birth-family and "family of choice")



6) The commitment by the couple to Something Beyond: this can be a larger community of residence, some community of affiliation (typically religious, but could be some other kind of affiliation also. For example, military weddings I believe have this kind of "partner marries into the military family and mission" connotation. Back in the day, I've attended several hippie weddings, where this kind of commitment---by the couple to something larger---was a feature. And Marxist couples tend to also marry The Revolution! ). "Something Beyond" can also include a commitment to children (already present, or theoretical in the future) that the couple may raise.



That's all I can think of right now.



I think what is important about marriage, beyond the mere commitment of the couple, and state-endorsed goodies (and absent any religion), is the public aspect of it. It may not be the height of romance, but experience has tended to show that a couple needs help: they need both immediate affirmation (to get things off on the right track), and support for the long-haul (which, in my own defunct-marriage, I didn't get *cough*Mother-in-Law Stabbed Me in the Back*cough*).



The idea that a couple should give something back to the larger community may be more controversial (What do you owe ____?). It has often gone hand-in-hand w/ a disparagement of single people (and of course previously, non-hets). But I think that in point of fact, a healthy couple does strengthen a community (and is probably essential where children are involved: part of the "It takes a village" bargain).



Anyway, I just throw that out there to chew on. As you can probably tell, I believe that for a couple, "marriage" is a very good thing.



GG Kieli, have you and Diana talked about any or all of these kind of factors? I suspect that she is not only shaped by Southern Baptist views of marriage, but has witnessed a good share of Bad Southern Baptist Marriages! Out

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

Kieli, have you and Diana talked about any or all of these kind of factors? I suspect that she is not only shaped by Southern Baptist views of marriage, but has witnessed a good share of Bad Southern Baptist Marriages!

---

We've both seen our share of bad marriages period. My parents have the worst marriage in history that I know of....there was a time that I begged my parents to get a freakin' divorce. My partner's parents divorced when she was in high school and it devastated her. So we each have very different views on relationships as well as varying experiences. Until her, I hadn't had a relationship where the person I was dating (or sleeping with) hadn't lied to me, cheated on me or abused me in some way. Committed relationships have a really high degree of importance to the both of us but we each have different views on said relationships.



Lately, though, this discussion of same-sex marriage has left a silence between us. She gets really quiet when I try to discuss it or acts uninterested. Hence me positing the question to everyone at large and the very interesting dialogue that has ensued. Your subsequent breakdown of the aspects of marriage is interesting even though I only subscribe to the first two aspects. I'd never considered some of the others and they make sense, I just don't feel that they pertain to my personal view of marriage. And this:

Quote:

---

I think what is important about marriage, beyond the mere commitment of the couple, and state-endorsed goodies (and absent any religion), is the public aspect of it. It may not be the height of romance, but experience has tended to show that a couple needs help: they need both immediate affirmation (to get things off on the right track), and support for the long-haul (which, in my own defunct-marriage, I didn't get *cough*Mother-in-Law Stabbed Me in the Back*cough*).

---

I definitely agree with.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Diebrock]

Kieli said

Quote:

---

Hell, I'd still want to marry Diana even if we got nothing but simple respect. And that's all I really want, deep down.

---

I can totally understand that. At the same time (you knew this was coming, didn't you?) I think this reason, ironically, plays a part in my desire not to get married. I want people to respect my partnership because I tell them I'm deeply committed to my partner. I want them to respect my integrity and determination without depending on the legal document to "back me up". Because if they can't trust in my sincerity when I say it then how can they trust that I would honour my relationship in a marriage? I know that society does, but it makes no sense to me.



I see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights more as something for us ordinary, enlightened folks to strive for. That's why I said that it doesn't matter what society thinks of them. They are just as true when you are denied them by your government or the majority of your fellow citizens. And it's a pretty good yardstick to show where our own governments are lacking. Let them try to explain why Iran is bad (baaaaaaaaad and eeeeevil) for violating Human Rights while it's okay for the western governments to deny part of their people the Human Right to marry (and other rights but as this is the marriage thread...). And then listen to them explain how some Human Rights are the important ones and others can be twisted to fit their agenda. Bah!!!

---

GG,

I don't understand this whole community thing (it doesn't help that 'Volksgemeinschaft' and 'old biddies talking about their cute pastor being a 175er' is popping into my head when I hear it-but that's just me). Is there a community when you are not religious and not part of any special group (your examples were military, ideological)?

Maybe that is the reason for my point of view. I have no defined group that I collectively want affirmation or celebration of my commitment to my relationship from. The only people (and I see them as individuals and not a group) who are important to me and whose opinion, support and affirmation is important to me are my family and friends. And they have always given it to me when I needed it. Everyone else is irrelevant.

I'm not sure if I understood you correctly but if I had to wait until I'm married (assuming that I wanted to) to get support and affirmation for my relationship, I would never get far enough along in said relationship to even think about marriage.



About the public aspect of commitment/marriage:

I think that is a matter of personal preferences and personality/spirit and environment. I dislike crowds, I dislike most celebrations, I dislike (anyone with a heart condition stop reading now) presents for special occasions and I dislike my personal life being the center of attention.

Incidentally (yeah right!), my family on both my mother's and father's side are exactly the same. Yes, I never stood a chance.

My closest example of this are my parents and I can't really say if my attitude is learned or genetic. They got married with just the two of them and their respective fathers as witnesses. That is as public as they got. They didn't want fuss, they didn't want tears and they wanted their wedding to be for them and not for a host of other people. Which is why immediately after the wedding they were on the way to France for their honeymoon. They never celebrated their wedding anniversary (unless they did it in private and we kids just never saw it). On their 20th they got ambushed by family and friends and were "forced" to throw an impromptu party. But they learned and made damn sure that on their 25th anniversary they were far away from home and any possible celebration by anyone other than the two of them.





After going through your aspects and refuting most of them for myself only the first one (which is not really a surprise, is it) has any merit for me as far as marriage goes. Though I have to say that your fifth aspect is not something I would limit to marriage only. I believe it's very important for everyone who wants their relationship to last, to get to know their partner's 'family of origin'. When both sides cooperate and understand what an important part the other party is in their loved one's life, then the establishment of relationships happens naturally. It doesn't matter if you are married or not.

If, of course, you have the stereotypical mother-in-law dragon to content with, you are much better off if you are not married. Because if you are, you are automatically family (even though she hates you) and as such you have to endure her abuse. But if you are not, then your partner will take the brunt of her mother nagging alternately about why you aren't married yet (so that you too may enjoy mommy dearest to the fullest) and what she is doing with someone like you in the first place.

Okay so this last one was just a theory. Thankfully, I never had the chance to test it. Yet.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Darcy]

Got this article from a listserv I subscribe to, describing a grass-roots movement to send flowers to random couples standing in line at City Hall.



I thought this was a lovely idea, and I've already placed an order with one of the florists mentioned in the article, Church Street Flowers, which has a toll-free number (800-253-7762) and a Web site churchstreetflowers.com

Bouquets range from $35 to $100.



Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 21, 2004

425 Portland Avenue, Minneapolis, MN, 55408

(Fax: 612-673-4359 ) (E-Mail: opinion@startribune.com )

( http://www.startribune.com/ ) (http://www.startribune.com/stories/563/4620844.html)
Nothing says support like flowers from Minneapolis

Kim Ode, Star Tribune



With a single bouquet of flowers, Greg Scanlan has made the world seem more welcoming to same-sex couples.



Scanlan, 36, is a little overwhelmed by what's happened since Tuesday, when he went online to check on the unprecedented scene of marriage-as-civil-disobedience unfolding in San Francisco. Gay and lesbian couples began lining up after Mayor Gavin Newsom directed city officials to defy state law and allow same-sex couples to marry. More than 4,000 have been joined in wedlock as of Friday.



On the Web, Scanlan saw photos of couples lined up around the block, of people hugging, crying. "It looked so beautiful," he said. "Part of me wanted to be there, but I don't know anyone and thought, 'Well, what if I just sent flowers?'"



It took the florist a second to grasp the idea: Scanlan wanted him to deliver a bouquet to a random couple standing in line, as an anonymous sign of support for what they were doing. "I didn't put my name on the card, just 'Love from Minneapolis, Minnesota,'" said Scanlan, who is gay.



Scanlan, who works at the National Multiple Sclerosis Society in Minneapolis, told his supervisor what he had done. His boss, Timothy Holtz, thought it was a great idea. Holtz sent a bouquet from himself and his partner, Edward Gillespie. Then the two of them wrote an e-mail encouraging others to do the same and "start a movement."



"Call it The Big Gay Bouquet," they wrote. "Call it Flowers from the Heartland. Call it whatever you want, but help us figure out how to start this. Because straight or gay, we believe, and we know many people who believe, support and celebrate the right to marriage. And we'd like to show it. We'd like to see all of the people standing in line with flowers of support from all over the world."



Done.



Thim Phan owns Flowers by the Bay in San Francisco. On Friday, he had 100 orders to deliver bouquets from Minnesota, other states and overseas. "It all began with Greg and his random act of kindness," said Phan, who's gotten so many orders that he has had to refer business to fellow florists. "People are so taken by surprise, to get this from an anonymous donor."



Especially because bouquets run more than $50. To enable those of more modest means to take part, a Canadian man, Darren Barefoot, set up a PayPal account. (http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/flowers/) Within 24 hours, he raised almost $3,000 and made arrangements with volunteers in San Francisco to deliver bouquets.



"We're talking about $70 Canadian, which is a little steep," Barefoot said. But he's also swayed by the sheer power of this Internet movement, or meme. "A meme is a..." he paused, searching for layman's terms, "a quick-moving online phenomenon. I love the whole digital democracy thing. And it's a terrific idea."



For Scanlan, the bouquets are a simple and positive act, "not even a political act, really," he said. "I just wanted to take away the fear and the silliness. Hey, somebody's getting married - send them flowers."



Karen Monson of Plymouth was one of those who received the e-mail. She had no idea who sent it, but she was moved by the idea.



"It's not very often a person gets a chance to make contact with another person to make their lives better in these big causes," she said. "And what I really liked is that this isn't a reaction to an event or a speech, but just the expression of a generous spirit."



Phil and Randi Reitan of Eden Prairie also sent flowers, and forwarded the e-mail to a hundred other friends. Their son Jake is gay, and they hope someday to be able to celebrate his marriage in a Minnesota church. "We are thrilled that Gavin Newsom had the courage to take a stand for justice, and we rejoice with every couple standing in line!" they wrote in their e-mail. "We just wish we could have delivered our flowers in person."



That's what Michael Ritz gets to do. He's co-owner of Church Street Flowers in San Francisco, and he looks forward to heading out and searching for empty-handed couples.



"It's been so nice, actually very lifting, to do," he said. "You all are putting smiles on a lot of faces, and bringing some people to tears," especially if they've been standing in line for hours with protesters haranguing them.



"And so many people aren't used to holding bouquets," he said. "Sometimes I have to walk back and say, 'You know, you can unwrap this,' and I show them how the stems are individually wrapped and the little pearl accents we added, and they burst into tears all over again."



. Kim Ode's column runs Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Write to her at kimode@startribune.com or 425 Portland Av. S. Minneapolis MN 55488. For past columns, go to http://www.startribune.com/ode.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[cattwoman98111]

found this website, kind of neat....www.authenti-city.com/

[Ben Varkentine]

Just wanted to say that The Daily Show had some great stuff on San Francisco and gay marriage tonight...the ep will be repeated tomorrow at one AM, 10 AM, and seven PM.

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[WebWarlock]

Here's another one.



www.chicagotribune.com/ne...3988.story

Quote:

---

Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment



By DEB RIECHMANN

Associated Press Writer

Published February 24, 2004, 10:57 AM CST



WASHINGTON -- Jumping into a volatile election-year debate on same-sex weddings, President Bush on Tuesday backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- a move he said was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."



"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said in urging Congress to approve such an amendment. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."



Marriage cannot be severed from its "cultural, religious and natural" roots, Bush said in the White House's Roosevelt Room. It was a statement that was sure to please his conservative backers.



Bush, who has cast himself as a "compassionate conservative," left the door open for civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriages.



He noted actions in Massachusetts where four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses, to people of the same sex. This, Bush said, is contrary to state law. A county in New Mexico also has issued same-sex marriage licenses, Bush said.



"Unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials -- all of which adds to uncertainty," Bush said.



The conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was "troubled" by the Massachusetts court decision and the gay marriages in San Francisco, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.



The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and more than 20 states have flocked to San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples a few days ago. At the current pace, more than 3,000 people will have taken vows by Friday promising to be "spouses for life."



At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage; last week, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.



White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women. But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation in his announcement. White House officials have said that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.



The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.



Bush's comment that the states should be left free to define "legal arrangements other than marriage" indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws.



The proposed amendment backed by Musgrave and others in Congress is consistent with that, but some conservatives favor going further.



Recent polling suggests Bush is on solid political ground.



A nationwide CNN poll completed last week found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.



On a separate question, 48 percent of those surveyed said it should be up to the federal government to pass laws regarding gay marriages, while another 46 percent said the states should take that role.



Sen. John Kerry, Bush's likely Democratic opponent in this year's election, says he opposes gay marriages. But he also opposes a federal constitutional amendment to ban them, because he says it is an issue for the states to decide, spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Tuesday.



Kerry says he prefers civil unions and rejects any federal or state legislation that could be used to eliminate equal protections for homosexuals or other forms of recognition like civil unions.



Wide-ranging reaction reflected the controversial nature of the issue.



A major gay Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans, accused Bush of "pandering to the radical right" and "writing discrimination into the Constitution." Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the group, said, "The president has certainly jeopardized over 1 million gay and lesbian Americans self identified in exit polls who voted for him in the year 2000."



The Democratic National Committee said the decision was purely political. "It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and it is shameful to use attacks against gay and lesbian families as an election strategy," DNC Chairman Terence McAuliffe said.



The American Center for Law and Justice, which focuses on family and religious issues, applauded Bush's announcement, saying it "serves as a critical catalyst to energize and organize those who will work diligently to ensure that marriage remains an institution between on man and one woman."

Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

---

I have spoken to some family friends, a couple that are US Senators, and they have told me that there is very little chance of a Constitutional admendment. One, even though he does not support gay marriages, will vote no on an admendment because he does not believe that this is an issue that the federal government should be dealing with, it is a state issue and he does not want such an admendement in the Constitution.



I'd like to see Cook County do something myself. While Illinois is currently one of the 40 state that bans same-sex marriage we have a power structure here in Chicago that tends not care what the rest of the state does or even thinks. (Welcome to the Chicago Machine, vote early, vote often.)



But it is not likely, while we have great cities like Chicago here, we still have tons of little towns like "Redbud" and "New Berlin" which is pronounced "New Bur-lyn" by the way...



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

"Razzle, dazzle, drazzle, drone, time for this one to come home." - The Replacements, "Hold My Life"

[kpmuse]

Thanks Tim for the comforting thoughts

Let me be the first to say SHAME ON PRESIDENT BUSH!

[Diebrock]

This was posted on 02.18.04 and I'm not sure if it's already on the board somewhere but I thought we could use a little political humor about the Gay Agenda.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Ben Varkentine]

Quote:

---

The support among conservatives has taken some real hits. The White House has decided that the long-predicted rising economy won't float them through this election. The situation in Iraq looks wobbly and likely to get worse before it gets better. So deprived of the ability to run on his record he's decided to save his political hide by trying to tear the country apart over a charged and divisive social issue which is being hashed out through the political process in the states.



It's his dad and the flag burning amendment all over again.

---

www.talkingpointsmemo.com...tml#002600

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[crazyredlizard]

From Salon.com-A story I thought would lift spirits in light of Bush's constitutional amendment announcement.



Here come the brides

After 25 years together -- including children, mortgages, intimacy and boredom -- Kay and I stood for six hours in the San Francisco rain to become mundane and unspecial. To be married.



By Carol Adair

Our dear friends Greg and Ben had tried the City Hall line on Saturday and on Sunday, two days in a row. They had gathered family as witnesses. They had gone without sleep. And both days, they had been turned away. By Sunday night, they were exhausted and disappointed, but we convinced them to try once more. We sent them home to sleep promising to call and wake them in time.



The line behind grew by twos every few minutes. By dawn, the queue had lengthened around the corner of McAllister Street and was starting back toward Polk. A McDonald's opened two blocks up Van Ness. I got coffee, hash potato sticks and a chance to dry my knees under the hand dryer in the bathroom. Kay left her coffee with me to use the McDonald's bathroom too. And in the light we could finally see the people with whom we had been trading life stories. Asa, who on Friday had married his partner of 28 years, had returned to witness the marriage of his nephew, who had driven down from the Sierras. Sherry and Sharon, together for 11 years, had made the trip from Oregon. At dawn, the stories gained faces.



And the dawn brought something else: the support of people all around us. Suddenly we had more than the fellowship of those soggy people in line, but from commuters and passersby too. Cars and buses honked and the people inside them waved at us happily. A teenage girl on a bicycle rode by saying, "This is so great! This is so great!" People started coming by with Styrofoam cups and big cartons of Peet's coffee. Not just gay people, but straight people with children came by with bagels and doughnuts and biscotti. A beautiful little boy walked along the sidewalk with his mother giving out yellow roses. An SUV was parked at one corner dispensing juice and hot drinks. Breakfast and smiles and cheers. These people, who left their warm beds to support us, were genuinely happy. "Congratulations! A wedding breakfast! Good for you!" They beamed like proud family. It was still raining, but it wasn't cold.



I am a proud and reserved person. I constantly protect myself from the danger of condescending sentimentality. I carefully filter out the world's opinions and judgments. But these kindnesses broke my heart. I was frequently in tears.



At 8 o'clock, I was on one of my walks when I heard a City Hall worker announce to the people on McAllister that the first 200 people were going to be allowed in. She said that volunteers were arriving and would work as hard as possible to take in people as quickly as they could. We hadn't expected the doors to open until 10! I dashed back to my place in line, and it was already moving. I tried frantically to use my phone. My fingers were frozen as I punched in Greg's number. I missed a half-dozen times, trying to keep the phone under my hood, carry the umbrella, move the packs, keep in line. I hung up on someone named Jennifer. I got the screech of no such number three times. Finally, I heard Ben's voice. "The line's moving. Get here fast," I yelled. "We're in the car. We're on our way," he said.



I needn't have panicked. We rounded the corner onto Grove Street, but then the line stopped. And there we stayed again. Long after our friends found us. Long after we dressed ourselves in complete gowns of black plastic for warmth, long after we learned the names and lives of dozens of fellow travelers. Our line turtled its way, pair by pair. It took us until 11 o'clock to reach the warmth of City Hall.



Standing for six hours in the rain does something to one's resolve. It either deepens it or dissolves it. By the time we got inside and passed security, we were a cold, soaked, directed knot of determination. We would be married, and we would witness for each other. We lost an umbrella somewhere in line, but we never lost sight of each other.



It wasn't until I had peed, washed, changed and repacked that I was able to reestablish the context and reason for what we were doing. I drank a cup of water and remembered that somewhere in South Dakota there was a 13-year-old kid watching this on TV. No matter how the TV cameras searched for the bizarre and weird, they would have to include the ordinary among us, the mothers with their children, the overweight, the buff, those beautifully dressed in Filipino wedding shirts, and those who were left in their rain gear. That kid in South Dakota would see that ordinary people like the people in his neighborhood are gay, love each other and want to be married. That kid will see that there are options.



I was there for that kid. But I was also there because back in the 1950s I had been arrested helping to integrate restaurants in Sausalito and car dealerships in San Francisco. I was there because I have spent my career making my classrooms a place of safety, a place where bigotry is banned. I was there because I deeply believe that religion and civil rights must be separate. I was there because I honor my partnership. I was there because I want my grandchildren to be brave. And I was there because I'm so privileged to live now and here, where a whole city, the mayor, the workers, the people would allow -- no -- would support this grand act of theater and civil disobedience. I was there because it is right that I should marry. I was there because, no matter how this goes, something is changing. Once a child is born, you can't put him back. Once a person holds a piece of freedom, he's not giving it up. Not easily.



Ben said, "You know. Before I started this, I thought, Who needs such a thing as marriage. Now I know. I do. I need it." I want to tell you. The people who got married during this long weekend include lawyers and writers and doctors and teachers, many of them newly politicized. These people are not going to give up their marriages lightly. They are going to hold on. This is going to make a difference.



So the four of us dried ourselves with paper towels and joined a new line. Kay's tux jacket had gotten wet in the pack and smelled musty, like cleaning fluid. My soft blue sweater topped soaking pants. Greg's tan cashmere was moist. But we were slicked and ready and strangely emotional. Four lifetimes of witty repartee dropped to the tiled floor. Four once-ironic people were quiet. We were as wide-eyed and sincere as babies.



The volunteers took over. There must have been hundreds of them. They checked our papers for us. They helped us fill out forms. They walked our group of four from station to station. Each clerk congratulated us with a giant grin. Each asked, "How long have you been together?" "Where are you from?" We could hear the answers from other groups. Fourteen years. Twenty-six years. Nine years. Nevada, San Anselmo, Sacramento, Seattle. I was grateful to each volunteer. "Thank you. This is so good of you," I said. Over and over, the person replied, "I couldn't do anything more important. This is the best day of my life. I'm so happy to be here." These people -- clerks, janitors, ministers, students -- gave their whole weekend, canceled trips and vacation, to be part of our grand event.



Each step was performed in a marvel of efficiency. Hundreds of people, a constant crush, a huge swirling mass of humans, were moved from station to station by these wonderful volunteers, from form to license to the giant rotunda where each couple was met by a minister or deputy and taken to a spot for the ceremony. A flute and harp played. We were pulled from the line by our minister, a man who works at Stanford University with Ben. Our minister is the husband -- he calls himself the "lifetime partner" -- of Mabel Teng, the city's assessor and recorder, responsible for issuing the wedding permits and one of the great heroes of this day and of this event. He had been watching for us. He told Ben, "I was hoping to find you all weekend."



We were married at the top of the big marble steps. First Kay and I exchanged rings. I looked at my dearest one and promised trust and honor and loyalty, gifts long ago given freely, gifts openly given for decades. A gift here, finally, consecrated and witnessed. "I thee wed, partners for life." First Kay and I were married. Then Greg and Ben were married.



Partners for life.

We took pictures of each other with my wet camera, pictures that are all smeared by mist and movement. We filed our licenses and walked out of City Hall, through a gauntlet of tap dancers and loud applause. Outside, the steps and sidewalks and streets were filled with people, cheering each couple as they left. Through my tears, I saw a taxi going up McAllister. There was a sign on its side: "Free rides for newlyweds!"



Peace and Love from Woodstock,



Lizard

[Gatito Grande]

GG Thanks, Lizard. Out

[sheila wt]

Article



Cambodia's King Norodom Sihanouk has shown that advancing years are no barrier to an open mind and liberal attitude.



After watching television images of gay marriages in San Francisco, the 81-year-old monarch has decided that single sex weddings should be allowed in Cambodia too.



He expressed his views in a hand written message on his website which has proved extremely popular in Cambodia.



The king said that as a "liberal democracy", Cambodia should allow "marriage between man and man... or between woman and woman."



He said he had respect for homosexual and lesbians and said they were as they were because God loved a "wide range of tastes."



Sihanouk, who is currently in Beijing for medical treatment, also said that transvestites should be "accepted and well-treated in our national community."



Such views are not widespread in Cambodia, but the king is hugely revered, although he is a constitutional monarch and has no executive powers.



San Francisco has issued more than 2,800 marriage licences to gay couples in the past week amid a growing debate in the US over whether such unions should be allowed.

--------------------------
"She had tasted Willow on her tongue, and she had worn Willow on her skin. There wasn't a shower in the world that could have washed that away." (Terra Firma, by Tulipp)

[maudmac]

Wow. How cool is that? Not just that he was inspired by the SF weddings, but it really drives home that this is a global effort and any one event can ripple all the way around the world.



Even if he has no real power to make it so, he's obviously influential. Must be nice to have leaders like that, leaders who give a damn about fairness and what's just.

---

I have no professional training. I already gave my best. I have no regrets at all.

[emma peel]

Thanks for the articles, crazyredlizard and sheila wt.

[xita]

It's really interesting but I've had several people at work speak to me about Del and Phylis' marriage and how touching it was. I think it's about love , it's why I love willow/tara because they truly illustrated how it was when 2 people of the same gender fall in love. And it's wonderful seeing how these marriages in San Francisco have changed many people's minds. Yay to the king!

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"