Representative Jay Inslee and our family

Act I: Getting There
Act II: You Again, Barney Frank?

It’s been over a week since we met with Representative Inslee, and some of you are probably wondering why it’s taken us so long to blog about it. Let me assure you: it’s not because we haven’t been thinking about it. There have been logistical problems in finishing the story, like the awful Internet connection I’m using as I write this. And the election happened.

Aside: speaking of the election, though the anti-domestic partnership–um–people have not conceded, we won in Washington State. Despite the small margin, we are elated. No, elated doesn’t cover it. We are overjoyed, thankful, and humbled by the people of Washington for their history-making vote.

When Inslee walked in, the first thing he did, as he folded his long body into a chair that had seemed perfectly adequate in size before he sat in it, was compliment Frances. That’s a way to win a mom’s favor, for sure. He said he had a grandson who was ten months old, and gestured to the pictures. I told him I was just asking about his grandson. Brody, your grandpa practically offered your hand in marriage to our little Frances, so grow up to be a good guy, OK?

Looking back on it now, I can see the strategy Inslee was using when he began the real conversation with us: start with a point of agreement. “What do you think of Referendum 71?” he asked.

“Well, we wish it had never happened in the first place, but we think it will pass,” I said. Everyone was still in the room, and I feel a little bad that with Inslee there, his legislative assistant, David, kind of faded into the background.

“My wife and I made a donation to the campaign,” he said. “And I sent out an e-mail in support of it–or at least I think I did–if not, I will.”

It must be interesting to have no idea if you’ve sent an e-mail or not. That’s not a criticism. I can only imagine having so much to do and so many people helping you get it done that you have no idea which steps you’ve completed and which ones you haven’t.

He said he’d been told we drove to DC to meet with him. That wasn’t exactly true, but it was a good way to up the importance of our visit, so I was fine with the misunderstanding. I did tell him the real purpose of our trip, though.

And then we talked about the Respect for Marriage Act. We brought up a couple of our talking points. Ami mentioned taxes, and I threw in a great phrase I’d picked up on the DC Marriage Equality website: “the poor man’s lawyer.” I explained to Inslee that to accomplish what marriage does, we have to pay a lawyer to write documents to even come close to the protections of marriage.

“The poor man’s lawyer,” he said. “I like that.”

We had done some research, as I mentioned. We were surprised to learn that the Respect for Marriage Act did not actually include the portability of our marriage. From the HRC summary of the bill: “The bill does not require states that have not yet enacted legal protections for same-sex couples to recognize a marriage.  Nor does it obligate any person, state, locality, or religious organization to celebrate or license a marriage between two persons of the same sex.  This legislation only requires the federal government to equally apply its policy of looking to the states in determining what legal relationships are eligible for federal benefits.” The bill is a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and given that some states have now affirmed our right to marry, the bulk of DOMA seems to be that you can’t force states to recognize that marriage. It was curious to us that it was not in the bill.

Then he asked us, if a bill were to pass to give us all of the federal rights and benefits of marriage, would we have the same rights as he and his wife?

I said yes, except for full faith and credit. Full faith and credit is the nickname given to Article VI, Section I of the U.S. Constitution–“public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” are recognized in all other states, not just the one in which they occurred.

“Well, I talked to [one of the main co-sponsors, either Nadler or Polis], and asked him about the full faith and credit part of the bill. He said not to worry about that.” Inslee said. “But that part is unenforceable. And I can’t sign on to something that isn’t legal.”

Here’s where I should have said that the law didn’t include marriage portability. But there were two things going on. One was that I was kind of dumbstruck–if you know me, you know that’s not a common occurrence–by talking directly to our Representative. The other was that given that he said he’d talked to one of the co-sponsors about it, maybe my information was incorrect. So I said nothing.

“Do you have the legal information on that?” He asked. Of course, we didn’t. “Nevermind. I’ll get the legal briefs from HRC.”

“I can contact them and ask them to send the briefs to you,” I offered.

“No, no, we’ll take care of that. That’s not your responsibility.” Attention, HRC, if you’re reading this, please make sure that Jay Inslee has those legal briefs, whether he asks for them or not.

And with that, the purpose of our visit was pretty much brushed aside. He needed more information. We didn’t have it. Shelved.

Throughout the meeting, he used the term “federal rights and benefits” a lot of times. Though he never said so, it seemed that he would co-sponsor a bill that gave us those “federal rights and benefits,” but not necessarily one that allowed us to marry.

Then guess who came up again. Yep, Barney Frank. He hadn’t heard my rather pointed rejection of the Barney Frank Excuse, as poor David had, but Inslee moved on when I replied that Frank’s position on the Respect for Marriage Act was very unpopular in the queer community. I told him to Google it. The word queer made him squint a little.

And then we were swept up into the land of agreement. We should all have the same rights, federally. Inslee’s a talker, and so am I, so we wound up speaking at the same time on occasion, which would horrify some people as incredibly rude. I’m from New York City, however, where the rules around turn-taking in speech are very different. So if Mr. Inslee was offended by my simultaneous chatter, I apologize.

We took a picture, and were all set to go. But I felt like I’d been talked out of my marriage. It was a non-sequitur, and not well-put, but I said, “Before we go, I just want to put in a plug for marriage. Even if we have all the rights of marriage, there are emotional and societal reasons that marriage equality is important.” I held out my hand toward Frances. “She’s going to understand the concept of marriage long before she’ll understand what a domestic partnership is.”

“So it’s not just the poor man’s lawyer, is it?” He said.

“No,” I answered.

And with that, our meeting was over.

I have, in the time since our meeting, thought about what I would have said about why marriage equality was the goal, not merely a federally recognized domestic partnership or civil union. It’s a topic for another post, though, and even within our family there is some degree of disagreement. Ami doesn’t care what we call it. I do. I’m trying to win her over to my side, but as of now we’re divided on the issue. And as we saw in Washington State with the first-ever passage of a pro-same-sex partnership bill by a popular vote, there are good reasons for shelving marriage, since it gets everyone so upset. For now.

If you want to hear some of those reasons, Jeanne Cordova does a good job of outlining them in her post, “What the Maine Vote Tells Us.”

Bookmark It

Hide Sites