Gay Marriage Updates

[stakebait]

New Paltz mayor barred from performing gay marriages for over a month and other updates from around the country.

Washington Governor opposed gay marriage, backs civil union

Wisconsin assembly approves amendment banning gay marriage

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] </a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/gay_marriage_developments">New Paltz mayor barred from performing gay marriages for over a month</a> and other updates from around the country.

<a href="http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11553&sd=03/05/04">Washington Governor opposed gay marriage, backs civil union</a>

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=9&u=/ap/20040305/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_12">Wisconsin assembly approves amendment banning gay marriage</a>

<a href="http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/legislature/0304/04leggay.html"</a> Georgia democrats introduce new, cleaner version of marriage ban</a>. Republicans denounce as strategem (hope they're right).

<a href="http://www.ljworld.com/section/gaymarriage/story/163424">Kansas ban narrowly passes house, shifts to Senate</a>

<a href="http://www.ljworld.com/section/gaymarriage/story/163424">Kerry opposes gay marriage but also anti-gay marriage amendment, supports giving federal rights to civil unions</a>

<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/04/MNG8H5E0RQ1.DTL">Senate begins hearings on US amendment to ban gay marriage</a>

<a href="http://www.nyjournalnews.com/newsroom/030404/a0104shields.html">Nyack mayor encourages gays to apply for marriage licenses, may be one of them</a>

<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001870939_law04m.html">King County will not issue marriage licenses; Washington ACLU to challenge law</a>

<a href="http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm18726_20040303.htm">Gay couples denied marriage license in Detroit</a>

<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/04/national0857EST0512.DTL">Gay couples denied marriage licenses in New York City</a>. I am deeply shamed.

<a href="http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/8093309.htm">West Hollywood takes steps to recognize gay marriages</a>

<a href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4642610.html">Senator Dayton calls for marital contracts for gays AND straights</a> and leaving the term "marriage" to religious ceremonies.

<a href="http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=65051">Multnomah County, Oregon, starts performing gay marriages</a>.

<a href="http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2004/03/02/local/10046113.txt">Nebraska DOMA challenged in court</a>

<a href="http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0403/02/m05.html">Mississippi House votes to send gay marriage ban to voters</a>

<a href="http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11516&sd=03/03/04">Group threatens lawsuit if New Mexico licenses aren't voided</a>

<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/02/MNGNM5C3B31.DTL">Schwartzenegger fine with gay marriage if voters approve</a>, has "no use" for an amendment banning it.

<a href="http://news10now.com/content/all_news/?ArID=11935&SecID=83">Gay marriages will be recognized, though not performed, in Itheca</a>

<a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040227-1528-ca-gaymarriage-socialsecurity.html">Social Security won't accept San Francisco marriage licenses as proof of name change</a>

<a href="http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/02/022804dcMarriage.htm">DC officials explore allowing gay marriage</a>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/26/bush.civil.unions/index.html">A good article for context and background: explains the difference between civil union and gay marriage, as well as some of the laws and cases that apply to the issue</a>

<a href="http://www.idahostatesman.com/Common/PrintMe.asp?ID=61954">Idaho senator blocks anti=gay marriage vote</a>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/28/samesex.marriages/index.html">California court rejects request to order a stop to SF weddings and declare the ones already done invalid</a>. The court agreed to hear the case on a expedited basis.

<a href="http://www.kcbs.com/pages/kcbs/news/news_story.nsp?story_id=47643011&ID=kcbs&scategory=Computers">Oakland may follow SF lead in performing gay marriages</a>

<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTL">American Anthropologists refute Bush's claim that heterosexual marriages are necessary for stable societies</a>

<lj-cut text="And now a few personal Mer musings on the issue"> I was talking to <user site="livejournal.com" user="dotsomething"> a few nights ago, on why my support for Kerry isn't as enthusiastic as it could be. In the process I said that gay marriage was the most important issue for me, and she countered, not unreasonably, with other important issues. I've been thinking about it since, and I've decided that the better way for me to say it would be that gay marriage and Iraq are the two most *urgent* issues for me. (Iraq because people are dying. Hard to get more urgent than that.) It's not that I don't care about poverty, or healthcare, or education, or the environment, or quality childcare, or homelessness, or any of those other issues. I do care, passionately, even. But those things are hard, long problems to solve. They can't be fixed with the stroke of a law the way a problem that is *caused* by law can be.

I told <user site="livejournal.com" user="dotsomething"> that he couldn't have my enthusiastic endorsement until I had his. And that's true. But it's also true that I might not have felt that way six months ago. Because six months ago I was seeing this as a long hard slog, the kind of thing that takes generations. It was still important to me, but it wasn't time-sensitive. I would be satisfied with a position that was a step forward from where we are now, even if it was a step or three behind mine, because it was still progress. And if we made a little faster progress on the economy or the environment or education or combatting discrimination on the basis of sex and race than we did on sexual orientation, well, as long as the general trend was still progress, that was basically okay with me.

But now, this is the cusp. Momentum is gathering. More and more changes are happening every single day. And I want a candidate who will sieze that historical moment, not one who's hanging back and trying to have my cake and eat it too, and would rather allow a group to be treated as second class citizens than offend people who want to keep the rights for themselves alone. Those are not equivilent claims, no matter if it's one person who's lost their rights and a million who are offended, and I'm not impressed by anyone who weighs them equally.

I no longer see his view as progress, even though its more than we have now, because it's less than what we're trembling on the verge of -- I see it as equivocating, trying to slow down progress that's already happening until no one will be offended by it. Which is impossible. Change will always be too fast for people who don't want change, and our history shows that the way it happens is to make it happen and let people get used to it after. The feminsts waited more than 70 *years* after people told them now was not the time to get the vote, and in the end they pushed it through in the face of virulent opposition anyway. There is no right time except the one we make. And when we have so clearly made one now, I for one can't get too excited about a candidate who either can't recognize it or lacks the guts to say so.

Don't get me wrong: I think Kerry's a smart, competant, basically principled man who will be a better president than many we've had. I'll vote for him. But I'm voting for him because he's better than Bush. If he wants me to go all the way for him, then he needs to go all the way for me.

I was also a little thrown that <user site="livejournal.com" user="dotsomething"> thinks I'm too liberal to be a Democrat. If that's true, I'd be very sad. I've always been a Democrat. I was raised a Democrat by a Democratic politician. And to my mind, this is what a Democrat is. An unapologetic liberal, who believes it's society's job to help those who can't help themselves and butt out of those who can, and not the other way around.</lj-cut>

Mer

Comments

[eac.livejournal.com]

I am also impatient about gay marriage -- and for much the same reasons. If you had told me that *marriage* would be on the table for discussion this year, I wouldn't have believed you. Now that I think that there's a chance, I really, desperately want equality for my friends who haven't been so clever as to fall in love with someone the state will approve of.

Every time someone tells me that gay marriage is going to lose us the election I get really angry. When are we going to stand up for what we think is right, instead of standing around and sniveling about how we have to kow-tow to the south and the right wing? (With apologies to the south, but it's barely possible for a democratic candidate to win there.)

That said, it's not my number one issue -- I'm very worried about Iraq, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act and whether those prisoners in Guantanemo Bay will ever receive fair trials.

I don't think you are too liberal to be a democrat. Or, if you are, so am I, and apparently formerly mainstream Kennedy era liberals like my mom are too. (My mom volunteers for the democratic party. Her peers refused to sign a letter she wrote condemning Congress's approval of the war last year. They felt the sentiment of her letter was
"dangerous." They kindly let her send it out on plain white paper - instead of the local Dem party letterhead - with the signatures of the 40 people who agreed with her.)

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

*nodsnodsnods* If I'm less worried about the Patriot Act and Guantanomo Bay, it's only because I'm pinning my hopes on the Supreme Court to take care of it, and no one is -- I hope -- going to be stupid enough to propose a Constitutional Amendment to allow those if the Court strikes them down. That doesn't mean they're not appalling and terrifying.

Mer

[eac.livejournal.com]

I hope the court will take care of it. They've done better than I expected them to lately, but I'm still worried.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Heh. It was me who went, so yeah, I've got more faith in the Court than ever.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

No! Come back! *soothing pets* No worries, I do that all the time.

Mer

[wackinessensues.livejournal.com]

My home town, Multnomah County, Oregon. Yay for us. I'm so proud of us. Of course, as my mother pointed out when I called her, it's sad that I got this news from you and not from the actual news. I'm so bad, I only turn the television on when Angel's on, which may make me sad, and may make me enlightened. I haven't decided which.

Thanks for keeping me in the loop!

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Any time! And I can't stand to watch the news either and I only turn the TV on for Angel too. I get mine online, sometimes from the paper, sometimes from various group newsletters, and often from the Friends List. :)

Mer

[miggy.livejournal.com]

I really want to send Sheila Sorenson (the Idaho senator) a flower arrangement or something. (Well, not a fruit basket; that might seem a bit too tongue-in-cheek.) I keep writing politicians, even though I've resigned myself to some bill passing before it's overturned in the years to come, but I'm still glad that I'll be able to look back and say my state was one of the very last to implement a discriminatory law.

If it doesn't ever pass? All the better.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I understand what you're saying.

But I still can't feel anything short of joy that the CONSERVATIVES are pushing for civil unions.

[angeyja.livejournal.com]

Thanks for these. I remember reading a while ago that NY and CA are bellweather states, and I've been watching... don't know that this is the single most imp issue for me currently; but, long term and locally (we're in Albany) it's right up there.

[dotsomething.livejournal.com]

Let's not forget also, that marriages such as Brittany Spears', is perfectly acceptable in this country, nevermind that she made a public mockery of the institution.

What about an amendment against entering marriage lightly? Or against adultery? Or against divorce? (she commented unoriginally)

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

*hugs* It's a state law thing, I think. Not Seattle's fault. Which doesn't mean I don't feel the same way about NYC.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

zI think you're misreading the political situation. If Kerry were bold on this isue, it really would cost him the elcetion; it might anyway. Time is on our side, and the front has already moved, but we're a long way from winning.

At this point, there are several states where, if gay marriage were the true status quo (a novel, court-mandated situation doesn't count), there would be enough political support for it to remain so. There is probably not yet a single state where, absent the courts, it could be enacted. That's not the mark of an issue a serious Presidential candidate can afford to run on.

The true battle will unfold thus, I think: The Hate Ammendment will languish in Congress, being introduced in several sessions but not coming up for a vote. In the mean time, some states will have thier courts mandate equality. Only in a few of those will there not be a state ammendment changing the law and nullifying marriages that already took place. But there will be a few.

At this point, if Bush is in office, the feds will say "that's not what we mean by marriage, so it doesn't apply. Even if the feds don't go that route (and there's some chance they will even with Kerry), some states certainly will. That will bring on a court case, in which DOMA is found to contradict the full faith and credit clause. Then begins the real fight over what, if any, federal ammendment will pass. I think it's a fight we will win. I even think that it won't cost the Democratic Party nearly as much as the victory over citizenship rights for Blacks cost a generation ago. But it will be a close thing, and I welcome the fact that it won't happen for a few years, giving society more time to come to terms with the reality of acutal people (not caricature monsters) who are gay.

[dotsomething.livejournal.com]

I think you're right, in that the right is using this to draw attention to all the ways Bush has f**ked everything up. He unleashed the amendment to get the 3 million votes of the fundamentalist Christians who don't normally vote (goodness, was that from another conversation with stakebait?) even if he loses 1 million other votes.

But I've changed my mind about it being smart for Kerry to lay low about this. He shouldn't keep dragging it out into the limelight, but if asked point-blank, he'd do a lot of good to say it's discmination to deny people certain rights just on the basis of their sexual orientation. He voted against that kind of disrimination in congress.

But this is politics and the game has to be played with all the care of a chess board rigged with explosives.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

If Kerry were bold on this isue, it really would cost him the elcetion; it might anyway.

It might, certainly. Almost anything might. Lack of enthusiasm among your own captive audience supporters can do it as well as alienating swing voters. He's chosen his strategy, and it may well be the most prudent. But I don't find it courageous, admirable, or inspiring. And that's what it takes for me to get past resigned choosing the lesser of two evils to real support. The kind of president I want is sometimes bold for what they believe in even when the poll numbers aren't there. Either Kerry's not bold enough, or he doesn't believe enough, to suit me.

That's not the mark of an issue a serious Presidential candidate can afford to run on.

Or it's precisely the kind of issue that a serious President candidate ought to show leadership on.

But it will be a close thing, and I welcome the fact that it won't happen for a few years, giving society more time to come to terms with the reality of acutal people (not caricature monsters) who are gay.

Okay. But I don't. I'm in the "justice delayed is justice denied" kind of place. I want my rights now, and then society can take as long as it damned well pleases to come to terms with how they feel about it.

Mer

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Or it's precisely the kind of issue that a serious President candidate ought to show leadership on.

In most cases, a candidate should go out on just enough limbs to still win, and to win paritally by convincing people of things they didn't believe before. That's leadership. Going beyond that is good wometimes, too. As when you're going to lose, anyway, and you decide to use the almost bully pulpit of a candidacy for all it's worth. But I don't think that's what you mean to advocate.

Okay. But I don't. I'm in the "justice delayed is justice denied" kind of place. I want my rights now, and then society can take as long as it damned well pleases to come to terms with how they feel about it.

I hope I'm wrong and it's possible for those rights to acutally be realized now. For justice delayed certainly is justice denied for many who need it now. But no matter how evil the status quo, sometimes advocating immendiate change will not effect that change.

Perhaps we disagree removing Shrub one the one hand and eduacting the public (in general, not just on this one issue) on the other. Or perhaps we disagree on the likelihood of immediate, lasting recognition of same-sex marriage and a President's ability to affect that. If your position is one you actually think (not only feel) best, it seems to me we must disagree about one or the other.

It's not that I think Presidents shouldn't take stands, even when they know they'll most probably lose. For instance, Clinton's unwillingness to outright lose any big fight in his first two years led him to constant compromises without any unyielding statements of principle to balance those compromises. So he came to be percievied (wrongly, IMO) as not standing for anything -- as being all about being elected. That is what let Gingrich and Limbaugh take over the national stage in 1994 and elect a Republican Congress. Gays In The Military was the most obvious stand for Clinton to take, since the compromise he was settling for was of such dubious value, but there were actually any of several issues on which he could have stood his ground and had a glorious, empowering defeat.

And even if such a defeat wouldn't have ehlped him politically, once elected he could take such a stand and have it, by losing, only marginally effect other issues. Until one is elected, anything which makes one much less electable per force greatly reduces your efficacy on all issues.

Obviously, I can't tell you to get excited about Kerry. But I can tell you that if my reading of the American polity is accurate, then by acting as you would have him act, he would be representing your interests less, not more.

[That last sentence is not correct English. That the language lacks comparative adverbs can be most annoying.]

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

I think we disagree on at least two things.

1) I don't think coming out for gay marriage would necessarily lose Kerry the election. I think that there's widespread irritation in America with candidates that equivocate, apologize, seem to be governing their convictions too much by what they're told is popular, and generally strike people as a) insincere and b) followers, rather than leaders. I agree about the perception of Clinton, but I'm not so sure I disagree with its accuracy. I think he was unwilling to be disliked by anyone, and I think a good statesman needs to pick a few issues to take a stand on, not only after the election, but before the election so we know he can and will. And I think people are willing to vote for that. Hell, I think people are eager to vote for that. I think a candidate who didn't waffle and didn't temporize and came out for something in plain English would be sufficiently refreshing that it would likely pick up as many votes as it lost, especially since his current position (give all the rights but not the name) is enough to lose most of the anti votes anyway.

2) I think the likelihood of achieving real, lasting gay marriage is greatest by riding the cresting wave, and the wave is cresting now -- the links I made above are just what happened this *week*. I don't know how long it's going to take, but I perceiving losing momentum at this point as a *huge* risk -- greater than backlash, since the backlash is already happening. And I think that too much settling and waiting is what is likely to cause loss of momentum.

3) Given that we already have DOMA and a Constitutional amendment does not require the president's signature, I think the main practical role of the president is going to be in a) appointing Supreme Court Justices b) appointing an attorney general.

However, I think the bully pulpit role of the president, and even the candidates, can play a key part in shaping the public mindset before it sets. And I think to do that you have to speak out when most people are giving the issue serious consideration for the first time. People are making up their minds what they think right now, when they're seeing it in the paper.

4) I think the most likely thing that will happen is that what Patrick Neilsen Hayden called "a revolution of mayors" will continue, until we will have gay marriage *somewhere* in more than half the states within a year. The legality of these will still be debated, of course, but the visibility and the sense that a) this is inevitable and b) it is not in fact ending the world will be huge. They will lead to court challenges in virtually every state, and at least some of the state bans will be overturned, if not all of them. Those states will scramble to amend their state constitutions, and some will succeed but I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that at least one will fail. And states that don't even have bans in the first place are unlikely to amend.

Meanwhile, the first marriage in Massachusetts in May will lead to a challenge for DOMA on the federal level. I wouldn't be surprised if the Court heard it on an expedited basis as early as next session. At that point I hope it will be struck down, and then we will in fact have immediate, real, lasting gay marriage. (I don't think the amendment will be ratified, though it may pass Congress -- I think the president's stated position will play a role there). I really and truly believe we can have that by the end of 2005. Which isn't to say the backlash won't continue, any more than the Loving case ended people who hate mixed race marriage.

Mer

[dotsomething.livejournal.com]

And I fully understand your views on Kerry. As someone who's strongly supporting him, I'm frustrated by his view on gay marriage (I'm working on a long post on why I'm supporting him, along with a good hard stare at his stance on gay marriage). His voting record is terrific with regards to civil liberties, which is why I just can't understand his prevarication. He keeps saying he's for "equal rights" for gays, just not marriages, but as you said, that's still gays being treated as second class citizens. And after our conversation, I gave it some thought and I've decided to write to him, and urge others to write to him, reminding him of his strong defense of civil liberty for all and why won't he go all the way with this.

I still like the guy, I think he will be a good president and gay marriage is safer with him than with that other guy, or maybe even with some other democrats. But in this respect his apology is showing and I think he's more than just another apologist.

When I said I thought you were too liberal to be a democrat, I only meant it as a suggestion. I think I also forgot how PO'd I am at the democratic party for turning into paper Republicans. Maybe the democratic party needs more unapologetic liberals. The definition of Democrat has shifted, perhaps for the worse. We both want the other definition back, when "liberal" wasn't a dirty word.

I saw something on CNN, or somewhere, was it a debate? Can't remember, where someone grilled Kerry on the accusation that he's a "liberal" (they used the word "accused" IIRC). So he had to deny being what his entire record supports him as being, and the very thing that makes democrats and even some Republicans like him. Depends on your definition of "liberal" I guess. I hate the news media. And I do wish he'd just said something like, "Yes, I'm a liberal. Your point...?" C'mon, Kerry, I know it's in you...get it together.

Interesting point about the urgency...I hadn't thought of that way. And you're absolutely right that there is no "right time" and it has to happen. With all the news and so many, both straight and gay, coming out in support of it, I wonder if it wouldn't benefit Kerry more, votes-wise, to speak out in favor of it.

Hey, we've gotten beyond the right reducing us to flabbergasted "buhbubhlgbuaubuh...!!"

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Heh. Yeah, it's nice to have our words back. And thanks for writing to him. I think you're totally right about "yes. Your point?" But then I want that more from politicians in general.

[ivylore.livejournal.com]

Hi! I traced you here off a friends friend's page, and read my way through your links. Thanks for putting those up.

But now, this is the cusp. Momentum is gathering. More and more changes are happening every single day. And I want a candidate who will sieze that historical moment.

I've poured over the responses here and I agree with several viewpoints. First - like you I wish Kerry would stand up and put himself out there, but like many others, I think it's a dangerous time for him to do so. The War and the Bush administration's foreign policy have me very concerned. I want Bush beat and OUT.

I'm originally from Massachusetts and I live in Canada now (it's socially progressive here these days, in case you've miraculously missed all the media). Jean Chrétien, our former P.M., pushed the same-sex legislation through Parliament in his last months, as a sort of swan song (It's being reviewed by our courts now).

I would love to see the same thing happen in the States eventually. The U.S. was founded on pushing boundaries and limits - never settling for less. If the nation wants to celebrate and advocate marriage as the ultimate union, then it darn well ought to mean that for everyone - lest future generations of gays and lesbians be raised with utmost reverence for marriage - and then be completely denied it.

GRRRR...

Someone here mentioned that they've been happily married for a number of years and can't imagine withholding that right to same-sex couples. The same goes for me.

[lucifrix.livejournal.com]

I think you are too liberal for the current Democratic party. I love the ideals that I was always told were "Democratic," but I don't see the party embracing them.

[dotsomething.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's true, then. The meaning of "Democrat" is shifting? This upsets me. Again this morning on the Sunday morning punditry they used the word "liberal" like it was a dirty word.

But I take back what I told stakebait and I don't think we should abandon the party. It's just that lately "liberal" is taking a pounding in the media and I'm tired of it.

I agree with you that the party hasn't been embracing those ideals--which is why liberals should stay in the party before it all goes away and Democrat just becomes a different shade of Republican.

[volund.livejournal.com]

It's just that lately "liberal" is taking a pounding in the media and I'm tired of it.

My own recollection is that "liberal" has been taking that pounding for at least 20 years. Not necessarily for that long in the media, since a lot of that particular bashing originates in the "fair and balanced" "journalism" of the likes of Fox News and conservative talk-radio pundits, which haven't been prominent for as long.

But I remember "liberal" being made into a dirty word as far back as the Reagan era, and remember being heartily sick of that situation at that time as well.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Yes. I remember it affecting conversations I had with someone known to stakebait. He was sticking with the word "liberal", but we were both unsure when to use the word "progressive", instead.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I have anything to add. I just wanted to use this icon for this entry. I refuse to let DINOs push me out of the party with whom I feel the greatest affiliation. I am not a Green voter, or an Independent, I am a registered (well, once I get this damned mess straightened out) Democrat.

[casapazzo.livejournal.com]

You're such a fabulous resource. Thanks for putting all these links up.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Thank you! But mostly it's queer_marriage that's a fabulous resource, plus arder and trinker and too many others from my friends list to name. I don't go out and find this stuff, I just collect it. :)

Mer