To Form a More Perfect Union: Marriage Equality News

'Bride' and 'groom' being restored to California marriage forms

2008-10-06T19:29:56-07:00

Excerpt:

"Do you, Party A, take this Party B to be your lawfully wedded spouse "... ''

Nah. Never did sound right — so the state of California is now changing the way people can identify themselves on its new gender-neutral marriage licenses.

Now the bride and groom can choose to be called, well, the "bride" and "groom."

Or, for that matter, the bride and bride. Or the groom and groom.

Since June 17, when gay marriage became legal in California as the result of a state Supreme Court ruling, two people getting hitched had only one option when filling out their marriage license form. One had to be identified as Party A. The other had to be known as Party B.

"Following the Supreme Court decision in May, we moved quickly to make that change to be consistent with the ruling,'' said Suanne Buggy, spokeswoman for the California Department of Health, which oversees marriage licenses.

Perhaps too quickly.

Many Californians, even those who support the right of gays to marry, thought "Party A, Party B'' sounded too cold, too bureaucratic.

[…]

The new marriage form should make it easier for researchers to get a more precise count of gay marriages, Gates said.

"But that will depend on the degree that people choose the bride-groom option,'' he said. "That's the unknown.''

In any case, Gates said, California seems to be negotiating the brave new world of same-sex marriage with more sensitivity and bureaucratic efficiency than the city of Toronto.

When gay marriage became legal in the Canadian province of Ontario five years ago, "Toronto didn't have time to change the form, so same-sex couples had to choose which one would be the bride, which one would be the groom.''

[jw]

Ark. Gov. reconsidering support for gay foster parent ban

2008-10-06T19:02:39-07:00

Link: 365 Gay News

Excerpt:

Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe (D) says he is now reconsidering his support for a blanket ban on unmarried couples serving as foster parents.

In addition, 13 retired judges, including three who had served on the state Supreme Court, said Monday that they were opposed to the ban.

“I’m not backing away from the ultimate test, which is still what’s in the best interest of the child,” Beebe told The Associated Press. “Now the question then becomes: Is the best interest of the child in foster care best handled by a blanket policy prohibiting it or by a case-by-case situation? Particularly in the light of the fact that we’ve got a problem with the number of foster families.”

[…]

Arkansas Families First, the group fighting the measure, said Arkansas is unnecessarily limiting the number of good foster homes by prohibiting unmarried couples living together from taking in children.

In saying he is revisiting his support for the ban, Bebee carefully avoided the issue of gays fostering, instead focusing on what he called the “broad” implications of the measure and the high number of children in state care.

But the 13 former judges who oppose the ban noted in their statement Monday that the ban was aimed at banning gay and lesbian couples from becoming adoptive or foster parents.

In a joint statement, the judges said the proposal would limit their ability to choose the best home environment for children and said that child placement should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

[jw]

Persecuted in Africa, Finding Refuge in New York

2008-10-06T18:57:15-07:00

Link: New York Times

Excerpt:

Pape Mbaye gets a lot of attention. Even in jaded New York, people watch the way he walks (his style defines the word sashay) and scrutinize his outfits, which on a recent afternoon featured white, low-slung capris, a black purse, eyeliner and diamond-studded jewelry.

And he likes it.

“I’m fabulous,” he said. “I feel good.”

Mr. Mbaye, 24, is an entertainer from Dakar, Senegal, known there for his dancing, singing and storytelling. But while his flamboyance may be celebrated in New York, he attracted the wrong kind of attention in West Africa this year, and it nearly cost him his life.

In February, a Senegalese magazine published photographs of what was reported to be an underground gay marriage and said that Mr. Mbaye, who appeared in the photos and is gay himself, had organized the event. In the ensuing six months, Mr. Mbaye said, he was harassed by the police, attacked by armed mobs, driven from his home, maligned in the national media and forced to live on the run across West Africa.

In July, the United States government gave him refugee status, one of the rare instances when such protection has been granted to a foreigner facing persecution based on sexual orientation.

[…]

[jw]

Cold Stone Creamery Founders Donate Against Marriage Equality in Arizona

2008-10-06T18:49:30-07:00

Link: Joe. My. God.

Excerpt:

[…] Cold Stone Creamery founders Donald and Susan Sutherland (no relation to the famous acting family) have donated $10,000 to Arizona's anti-gay marriage Proposition 102. You can find the Sutherland's donation on Page 16 of this Prop 102 donors PDF. The Tempe-based upscale ice cream chain has over 1000 locations nationwide and in 2007 merged with the Kahala Corporation, which has over a dozen fast food chains under its umbrella.

It's unclear whether the Sutherlands still profit from Cold Stone. […]

[jw]

Fresno, California Priest Comes Out As Gay, Speaks Out Against Prop 8

2008-10-06T18:38:47-07:00

Link: Towleroad

Excerpt:

[…]

Father Geoffrey Farrow of the Saint Paul Newman Center in northeast Fresno received a standing ovation from half his congregation after offering up a sermon about loving thy neighbor and then urging his congregation to vote against Proposition 8, the California measure that would ban same-sex marriage. He also came out to the local ABC news reporter in an interview following his mass.

Said Farrow to his congregation: "In directing the faithful to vote 'yes' on Proposition 8 the California bishops are not merely entering the political arena, they are ignoring the advances and insights of neurology, psychology, and the very statements made by the church itself that homosexuality is innate."

He added: "I know that these words of truth will cost me dearly. But to withhold them would be far more costly and I would become accomplice to a moral evil that strips gay and lesbian people of their civil rights but of their human dignity as well."

[…]

[jw]

CA: Proposition 8 worries San Mateo County residents

2008-10-05T19:59:17-07:00

Link: San Mateo County Times

Excerpt:

As Election Day approaches, many San Mateo County residents are expressing anxiety over the possibility that same-sex marriages recognized by the state of California will soon become a thing of the past because of Proposition 8.

"It would be heartbreaking," said Craig Wisner, who married his long-term partner just days after the state Supreme Court's decision went into effect. "Just a terrible tragedy."

Prop. 8 is simple and to the point. If passed, it would amend the state Constitution to include the language "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Legal experts disagree as to the effect this would have on existing same-sex marriages but its potential passage is clearly affecting the wedding plans of several residents.

After an initial burst of marriage licenses on June 17, the first day same-sex couples were legally able to apply, requests from same-sex couples have since leveled off. On the first day licenses were being issued, 29 same-sex couples applied. Three months later that number was down to five, according to county records.

"The increase we saw at the very beginning has not been maintained," said San Mateo County deputy clerk Theresa Rabe.

Some say the reason for this is could be the result of what happened in 2004 in San Francisco when thousands of marriage licenses were issued and later voided by the state Supreme Court.

"I know couples waiting until after the election," said the Rev. Terri Echelbarger. "They don't want to suffer what they had to suffer in San Francisco when their marriages were annulled."

[…]

"Most of our friends are doing it prior to the election," Gail Cortefia said. Cortefia, who was married on Sept. 19, said her own decision wasn't influenced by the pending vote. It just happened to be the 35th anniversary of her and her partner.

But she said the upcoming vote is affecting others.

"A lot of people are trying to get married before the vote," Cortefia said. "But I see that as a positive sign. I have faith in the good people of California."

[…]

[jw]

My New Father-in-Law

2008-10-05T19:47:54-07:00

Link: Slog | The Stranger | Seattle's Only Newspaper
by David Schmader

Excerpt:

I’ve written about him before, and now he’s written something about Jake and me. From today’s Salt Lake Tribune:

Last Friday was one of the best days of my life. My second son, Jake, was married, and I was there. Five of my six children are now married. Each wedding day has been wonderful for me—one in the Salt Lake Temple in 1993, one in the Bountiful Temple in 2001, one in the First Presbyterian Church in 2006, and another in the Salt Lake Temple in 2007. But Jake’s wedding last week, at an Italian restaurant in Beverly Hills, stands out. For a long time, I wasn’t sure Jake would ever marry. You see, Jake is gay, and though he and Dave have been together for seven years, here in the land of the free, gay people have only recently been afforded the right to formalize their love and commitment in marriage.
On Friday night, Jake said, “I didn’t think I’d ever be happy, and now I am.” Can a father ask for more? Maybe so, but not this week.

Michael G. Nelson
Murray, Utah

[…]

[jw]

Evangelical Leader: Fundies Grumbling About Palin's Gay Remarks; Possible Split Developing on LGBT Rights

2008-10-05T19:44:59-07:00

Link: The Gist
by Michelangelo Signorile

Excerpt:

Evangelical leader and gay rights foe Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. came on the show on Friday (two video clips below) to respond to the now widely known fact that Mark Buse, John McCain's chief of staff, is gay, something Jackson believes compels McCain to speak more forcefully on the marriage amendments on the ballot in three states.
Jackson, pastor of the Hope Christian Church in Maryland and founder of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, is on the board of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard's old stomping ground. Jackson isn't among the most high-profile Christian right leaders on the national level, but he does travel in their circles, was a participant in infamous Justice Sunday, and talks to them all, including Focus on the Family's James Dobson, Family Research Council's Tony Perkins and the rest. So, while the big honchos are being curiously quiet, when Jackson says evangelicals weren't happy with Palin's performance at the vice presidential debate when it came to gay issues -- and that there is a "split" among them about how Sarah Palin should have addressed the topic, as well as about John McCain's chief of staff -- it certainly is interesting:

"A lot of folks were upset that she didn't say there is a marriage amendment on the ballot in Florida, California and Arizona...She missed an opportunity to say I'm for marriage...She could have defined that thing clearly and she would have a lot more people enthusiastic about her campaign. There have been people [grumbling]...I do think she seemed a little wishy-washy and unclear on the marriage issue. She left making it sound like she and Mccain and Biden and Obama were exactly the same and they're not."

What's even more interesting is that Jackson, possibly reflecting other leaders and possibly showing the beginning of a split on gay rights among evangelicals, now says he's in favor of a national civil unions or domestic partnership scheme -- because he's being "realistic" -- even as he still is opposed to gay marriage:
"My concern about John McCain stepping up and being articulate about the marriage amendments is more about protecting the definition of marriage as one man and one woman as cultural guardrails...The reason I say I will work with civil unions, etc. -- that may not have been my original position, but I think it's a reality. We have had laws in New Jersey, all over the country. The reality is gay civil unions are going to be the law of the land all over the country...You may call it movement [on my part.] I call myself a realist...I think this would be a split issue [on the Christian right], a lot of people would disagree with me. But I think we're embroiled in a battle that's unfolding."

That is certainly fascinating. Perhaps some evangelical leaders are realizing they're losing ground big time and are trying to cut their losses. Below is the full interview, in two separate video clips.

Click here to access videos on The Gist.

[jw]

CA: Opinion--Stand up for love by voting no on Prop. 8

2008-10-05T19:38:37-07:00

Link: Ventura County Star
by Karin Quimby

Excerpt:

Last month, I had a chance to attend my first same-sex wedding. I, along with Ventura County dignitaries, straight couples and friends and family, attended the wedding of two local women, Connie and Rita, who have been together more than 27 years. Connie's lovely daughters accompanied them to the altar. It was truly moving to witness two older women who have been together for decades, have provided for their family, worked hard and paid their taxes, contributed to their community in countless ways suddenly move from second-class to first-class citizens right before our eyes.

After waiting nearly a lifetime, they were finally granted equality under the laws of the state of California.

[…]

While Proposition 8 asks us to weigh in on whether we believe in fairness and equality for all Californians, it also gives us the opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of community we want to build.

I have recently been reminded of Martin Luther King Jr.'s notion of the "beloved community." He envisioned a community in which people would find themselves existing in an integrated society of sisters and brothers committed to peace and justice, and redeemed through the transformative power of love.

This beloved community would respect the rights of those who are different from us and would work to reconcile our differences. As King said during the civil rights struggle: "The end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the Beloved Community." Surely we are faced with another opportunity to explore the meaning of building this more perfect union.

[…]

[jw]

Commentary: Gay families are here, no matter what the Florida Constitution says

2008-10-05T19:33:46-07:00

Link: South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
by Michael Mayo

Excerpt:

Adelle Barsky-Moore is 5, and she doesn't know about wedge politics and the Culture War. All she knows is that she loves her two dads and they love her.

Her parents, Allan Barsky and Greg Moore, have been together 10 years. They were married in Canada, Barsky's native country, in 2003. They wear wedding bands, are registered domestic partners in Broward and live in Lauderdale-by-the-Sea.

Barsky, a professor at Florida Atlantic University, is opposed to Amendment 2 on the November ballot. It would constitutionally define marriage in Florida as between a man and woman. It states, "No other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

A few weeks ago, Adelle tagged along as her parents campaigned against the amendment.

"Why are you telling people not to vote?" she asked.

Barsky explained they want people to vote, but were telling them to vote no on the amendment. He explained it wouldn't allow two moms or two dads to get married.

"She got really upset and started crying," Barsky said. "She said, 'If it passes, does that mean you and daddy have to break up?'"

Barsky told me this story last weekend, during a group picnic at Holiday Park in Fort Lauderdale. Adelle and other kids romped on the playground while parents kept an eye on them. There was fried chicken, macaroni salad and brownies on the pavilion tables.

"Just like anyone else on a Sunday afternoon," Barsky said.

[…]

More than anything I could say, this scene showed why Amendment 2 is irrelevant, misguided and just plain wrong.

Same-sex couples exist, and they're raising loving families.

In that respect it doesn't matter what state law, which bans gay marriage and gay adoption, or the Florida Constitution says.

Except it does matter. For these families, life would be easier, less stressful and more just if the state gave them the same rights as heterosexuals.

For now, they'll consider it victory enough if an amendment that codifies inequality doesn't get the 60 percent needed for approval.

[…]

[jw]

CA: Nikkei [people of Japanese ancestry abroad] Should Stand for Equality by Voting No on Prop 8

2008-10-05T19:22:15-07:00

Link: The Rafu Shimpo - L.A. Japanese Daily News
by Stan Yogi

Excerpt:

“I simply love him and he loves me,” wrote a young Californian in a public letter defending a non-traditional marriage. “It is a matter solely between us two. I cannot see how our marriage will interfere with the workings of the community in any way or to the detriment of the church.”

Helen Gladys Emery, daughter of the archdeacon of San Francisco’s Episcopal diocese, made this statement nearly a century ago in reply to the violent opposition that erupted because she planned to marry Gunjiro Aoki, an Issei. Her words are apt today as a response to Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution to take away the existing right of same-sex couples to marry. As the targets of similar measures, Japanese Americans are in a unique position to consider Proposition 8 within the historical context of anti-Japanese laws and initiatives.

Most Japanese Americans now take interracial marriage for granted, but when Aoki and Emery tried to marry in 1909, and for decades after that, many considered interracial relationships unacceptable. The children of such unions were thought to be “social problems.”

Emery’s family sought medical opinions to explain why their daughter was in love with the wavy-haired immigrant. Even Aoki’s Issei compatriots opposed the partnership, offering him $1,000 to break up with the sweet-faced 21-year-old.

In Emery’s hometown of Corte Madera, a crowd threw bricks at Aoki and threatened to tar and feather him. When Emery left with her mother to marry Aoki, a mob met them at the train station, jeering and yelling, banging tin cans and throwing rotting flowers.

The couple faced not only societal disapproval, but a legal barrier. The California legislature passed an antimiscegenation law in 1850, prohibiting marriages between whites and blacks. With growing immigration from Asia, the legislature later amended the law to ban marriages between whites and Asians. Civil and religious authorities who performed marriages between whites and people of other races faced criminal prosecution.

[…]

Japanese Americans, like gay men and lesbians today, were the direct targets of a voter initiative—or “ballot measure”—to legalize inequality 88 years ago, when Nikkei were an unpopular minority.

In 1920, the Native Sons and Daughters of the Golden West and the American Legion qualified an initiative for the November ballot to expand the state’s existing “Alien Land Law,” which prohibited Issei from owning land. Issei had navigated around the law by transferring land titles to their Nisei children. So the 1920 initiative barred Issei from buying land in the names of their children and leasing land for any length of time.

During the months before the election, anti-Japanese groups led a blitzkrieg campaign with the catch phrase “Save California from the Japs.” Anti-Japanese organizations pushed a broad agenda, including not only the Alien Land Law initiative but also a federal Constitutional amendment denying citizenship to Nisei, exclusion of Japanese immigrants, and assurance that Asians would forever be barred from citizenship. To justify this political program, the anti-Japanese propaganda campaign accused Japanese men of being spies, sex fiends and rapists who debased white women.

The smears worked. California voters approved the initiative by a three to one margin.

It took several Supreme Court decisions, and another initiative vote to repeal the Alien Land Law 36 years later.

[…]

History has shown it is unjust to single out a group—whether Japanese Americans in the 1920s or lesbians and gay men today— for unequal legal treatment, let alone to enshrine that inequality in the constitution.

Nikkei can be on the right side of history by standing up for fairness and voting no on Proposition 8.

Stan Yogi, a Sansei [third generation of Japanese ancestry] from Oakland, is the co-author of a history of civil liberties in California to be published by Heyday Books in 2009. Opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Rafu Shimpo.

[jw]

CA: Opinion--Prop. 8 and teaching to the marriage test

2008-10-05T19:16:25-07:00

Link: Los Angeles Times
by Meghan Daum
Excerpt:

A television ad supporting Proposition 8 implies that gay marriage would have to be "taught" in California public schools unless the right of same-sex couples to marry is overturned. It makes me wonder: What exactly do you teach when you teach gay marriage? How to get same-sex weddings announced in the New York Times?

And, wait a second: If gay marriage would have to be taught, is heterosexual marriage already in the curriculum? Do teachers say "Today, boys and girls, we're going to learn about passive aggressive behavior related to laundry"? Are there workbook exercises called "Ten things I'm accusing you of that really have to do with my own insecurities"? And don't those lessons already cross over to gay marriage?

As it turns out, the only thing in the education code related to marriage has to do with teaching "the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood." Moreover, it's only a requirement for school districts seeking state funds for health education, which not every school does.

In other words, no matter what happens with Proposition 8, "Secrets for Meeting and Marrying the Same-Sex Partner of Your Dreams" won't make the syllabus, at least not because of the education code the ad references. Granted, if gay marriage remains legal, a thoughtful teacher (especially of older kids) might see fit to acknowledge that fact. Call me a latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, personal-responsibility-touting lunatic, but that sounds pretty reasonable, because in so doing, he or she would be conveying the fact that no one, regardless of sexual orientation, is off the hook when it comes to marriage's legal and financial aspects.

[…]

Still, just because gay marriage is nothing new for the general public doesn't mean kids necessarily understand the complete concept. But that doesn't have as much to do with homosexuality as it does with the fact that some young people can't tell the difference between getting married and going on a really long date. So maybe marriage class should be mandatory -- with an emphasis not on gay or straight but, rather, "wait!" (As in, "until you're older.")

As inundated as young people are with superficial, misleading and often incredibly tacky messages about sex, they're barraged with equally superficial, misleading and often incredibly tacky messages about marriage. Don't believe me? Watch the Wedding Channel for just five minutes.

[…]

And that's why students need marriage-ed. They need it because we're being taught to associate marriage not with permanent commitment but with social status, diamond rings, gifts, throwing a big party and, for women, wearing a dress that doesn't necessarily fit through the door. As a result, many teens of all sexual orientations (and many adults too) not only confuse sex with love, they confuse the long-term implications of marriage with the short-term gratification of wedding and honeymoon planning.

No matter what happens with Proposition 8, the way the education code is worded, it's unlikely that a lot of classroom time will ever get devoted to thinking deeply about marriage of any brand. That's a shame, because what students desperately need to be steered toward is not straight marriage or gay marriage but grown-up marriage. Now that would be radical.

[jw]