One side of our family, mine, is almost entirely Catholic. The other side, Ami’s, is mostly Mormon. I’m not going to identify the relative who sent the note because much as this card hurt us both, it came from someone whom we both want to continue to have in our lives. And while it was one person who expressed the thought, it could have come from a number of our family members from both sides. We will call the writer Chris.

The front of the card said, “Thinking of You,” and the envelope was addressed to both of us. It was from one of the relatives we had visited on our trip. Inside there was an affirmation that we were always welcome in Chris’s house. Then it said, “I don’t think of your relationship as a marriage! nor do I like how you’re living it!” That first exclamation point was obviously inserted as an afterthought. It was signed “Love, Chris.”

To say that the card hurt us is an extraordinary understatement. Even days later, this card makes me cry.

When we visited, Chris had made no indication that our family was anything but a family, and seemed to very much welcome Frances. There were gifts for her, and at Chris’s request, we agreed to send a portrait of Frances to go with the other family photos Chris had on display. Everyone got hugs on the way out the door.

So what happened between the visit and our return home that made Chris write that card? I suspect guilt at having defied his or her church in some small way for having welcomed us. I suspect shame–maybe Sunday came around, and at church Chris worried that some other congregant might know and think poorly of Chris.

If I were to write a response, it would say something like this:

Dear Chris,

Thank you for welcoming us to your home. We very much enjoyed our visit and do plan to return.

However, we do have to say that we do not believe in the Catholic (Mormon) faith, nor do we like how the church is behaving. It has hurt us in both personal and practical ways, and has hurt many other people in our community as well.

Love,
Ruby

How have the queers hurt you, Chris? I can ennumerate the ways that the Catholic and Mormon churches have hurt us. 1. Proposition 8. 2. Question 1. We’re just trying to have our own private lives while your churches are pouring money into state ballot measures–money collected from congregations all over the world–in order to keep us in our closets, keep us ashamed.

That Chris wrote the note to both of us–her biological family member, with whom she might feel an entitlement to express her opinion, as well as to the in-law she doesn’t believe in–implies that s/he feels a moral latitude to correct gayness in the world at large.

The subtext of that note is this: you should feel ashamed of your relationship. God and I think so. You can come to my house, and we’ll all pretend to be a family, but you need to feel shame while you are in my home.

I will not be ashamed.

Chris, you are a member of my family. I will visit your home, and I will participate in your life to the extent you allow, as long as you never express or even imply your opinion on the subject to our daughter. I will keep quiet about your private correspondence to us, and I will not send my response, out of deference to your esteemed place in the family.

But I will never be ashamed or act ashamed of my family or whom I love. This is where the charade ends.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Cheese Store of Silverlake

We left the Silverlake neighborhood of Los Angeles in the afternoon, in the last hour of pink-sienna-magenta sky before twilight. I’d sampled amazing Italian olive oil at The Cheese Store of Silver Lake, taken a delightful turn through the ReForm School, and eaten the best gelato of my life (Market plum! Chocolate covered raisin! Salty chocolate!) at Pazzo Gelato.

We were sad to leave L.A., but I was even sadder that we were leaving for Fresno.

Fresno: n., The place that you struggled to leave physically many years ago, but still struggle to leave mentally. A place you don’t like to visit, because as soon as you’re back it seems like nothing ever got better at all.

You know what, though? I’m married in Fresno. And I have my family with me. So maybe there’s only one coffee shop (Thanks for the WiFi, guys!) downtown, only one or two gay bars (Glad to see you still bustling, Veni Vidi Vici.). Maybe it freezes at night and you can’t stand to be in the sun after 11 a.m. So what if the public transportation consists of your cousin’s tattered 10-speed and FART, the Fresno Area Rapid Transit?

Fresno has a PFLAG chapter, a Lesbian and Gay Film Festival in its 20th year, and a Gay Fresno website.

After a less-than-perfect morning with my mother, who is an active Mormon, Ruby reached out to the local PFLAG chapter. They were empathetic, and invited Mom to a meeting, even offering to meet with her beforehand to talk. But ultimately it would be up to her to contact them, and only then would she be able to access the literature she desperately needs to begin to understand us. The likelihood that she would do so seemed, well, slim. So the search continued.

I can’t believe I’m writing this, but we found a group of Mormons for Marriage.  As in our marriage.

I cried. At first, when Ruby said, “There must be Mormons out there that support their gay family members,” I didn’t even respond. I thought, Ya, like there must be a Protestant Pope. I’m sure he has a website, too. But lo and behold: “Mormons for Marriage supports marriage equality for all, and stands in respectful opposition to California Proposition 8.” There’s even The Feminist Mormon Housewives, and the Family Fellowship–a volunteer service organization, “a diverse collection of Mormon families engaged in the cause of strengthening families with homosexual members.”

Ruby wrote an e-mail to Mormons for Marriage, and a woman named Laura immediately wrote back. She attached four documents written by Mormons who are LGBT or support LGBT people. She copied another woman who she thought may know some people in Fresno. They even mentioned a book: No More Goodbyes: Circling the Wagons Around Our Gay Loved Ones.

Maybe Mom won’t read the book when we buy it for her. Maybe she will and even then still say things like, “I’m sad in my heart [about the fact that your aunts outed you to your grandmother], but your grandma and your aunts love you, no matter what choices you make.” Maybe my wife will still cry in the living room once Mom has left for work, feeling like she was that ill-advised “choice.”

But today, in sunny, oppressive Fresno where I once learned internalized homophobia, I found just a little hope for our family. Our whole family.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

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

Washington's Referendum 71 results as of the morning after the election

It’s too early to say for sure, but it looks like the first ever win for a pro-gay initiative on a state ballot. And it’s our state, Washington, that will claim it. The voter-approved law, Senate Bill 5688, will change Washington’s definition of spouse–in every law in which it appears–to include registered domestic partners. For that reason, it’s nicknamed the “everything-but-marriage” law.

We don’t know for sure, though, because too many ballots are still pending. Washington became an all-vote-by-mail state this year, and ballots had to be postmarked, not received, by November 3.

Dawn also finds us at status quo for same-sex marriage on the ballot. Maine, where the results are essentially final, saw a “Yes” answer for Question 1, the challenge to their legislature- and governor-approved law granting same-sex couples marriage rights. That means the law allowing people like us to marry will never take effect.

I had a similar personal experience last night to my experience watching election returns in 2008: there was elation (R-71, Obama) and heartbreak (Question 1, Prop 8).

The Seattle P-I has a summary of what will change when the law in Washington goes into effect:

Some rights and responsibilities that would be extended to gay and lesbian families under the latest legislation are:

Workers’ compensation coverage.

The right to use sick leave to care for a spouse.

Victims’ rights, including the right to receive notifications and benefits allowances. Business succession rights.

Legal process rights, such as the ability to sign certain documents, the requirement to join in certain petitions, rights to cause of action, and ability to transfer licenses without charge.

The right to wages and benefits when a spouse is injured, and to unpaid wages upon death of spouse.

The right to unemployment and disability insurance benefits disability insurance issues

Insurance rights, including rights under group policies, policy rights after death of spouse, conversion rights, and continuing coverage rights.

One they don’t mention concerns our family directly. We have been waiting for this legislation to finally take effect so Ami can adopt Frances without the insult and expense of a home visit by a social worker. Originally it was scheduled to take effect shortly after she was born, so it wasn’t much of a wait. And we didn’t really believe that Referendum 71 would wind up on the ballot. So we waited, and waited. We will be thrilled to celebrate Ami’s adoption of Frances as soon as this law takes effect.

In today’s Seattle Times, Danny Westneat wrote:

Gays can’t win at the ballot box.

That has always been the harsh reality. Put the subject of equality for gays and lesbians to a vote of the people — practically any people, in states from deep red to dark blue — and the people have always said: “No. Not here. Not yet.”

Until — it appears — now. Right here.

There’s a week’s worth of ballot-counting remaining in an election everyone is saying is too-close-to-call. But it appears Washington state will be the first in America to approve a gay-equality measure not by court fiat or legislative action, but by the direct will of the people.

Let’s ignore for the moment the outrageous inequity of other people voting on your personal rights. Because no matter how very wrong it is, it’s happened again and again in this country, in state after state. I don’t believe it’s right to vote on this issue, even when we win.

Let’s do a tiny dance of joy in praise of the voters of Washington. Not so big, because our victory is very mixed–and unsure. Maybe a little wiggle in your chair would suffice.

Then let’s personify Maine for a moment, and ask him a few pointed questions:

1. What happened to your young voters, who probably support equal rights for all?
2. Yes to medical marijuana, but no to same-sex marriage? Yes to late-term abortions, but no to same-sex marriage? I’m confused about you, Maine. Civil liberties get approval, but so does discrimination. I’m not sure how to read that, or whether to invite you to my cocktail party. You’ll probably be a load of laughs, but you won’t call me in the morning.
3. You’re not going to convince us not to be homos. So why not impose your traditional values by allowing us fair access to the hetero-normative marriage we are forced to beg you for?
4. Do you really think that we’ll still remember you tomorrow as the first to recycle?
5. For a state that so relies on tourism, how do you think this will effect your bottom line? Not smart, Maine. The leaves change color in Massachusetts and Vermont, too. Next year, we’ll take our veils, our tuxes, and our fat gay dollar there, instead.

Yes, today I’m angry with Maine.

But mark my words, National Organization for Marriage, Faith and Freedom Network, Yes on 1, the Vatican, and the LDS Church: when we win in Washington, it will be the first victory of many.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Lucky for me, Ami arrived a few minutes later, just about the time that the representative’s new communications person arrived, too. He said that he always tried to sit in with David, since he was so knowledgeable. I wondered if this was a way to make us feel like we were meeting with someone important, even if it wasn’t Inslee. We rearranged for the best translation vantage point, and got started.

We explained our trip, and got to our talking points. I’ll admit, we did some research and rehearsed them beforehand so we wouldn’t forget any. We talked about inheritance, and how we are unequally taxed for property we inherit from one another. We talked about how we can’t have a family business as far as taxes go. We talked about hospital visitation and medical decision making. We talked about the fact that we don’t get Social Security benefits from one another, and how we can’t claim a non-working spouse as a dependent on our taxes. Ami said, “I’m forced to lie on my taxes. I say I’m a single person when I’m married.”

We didn’t want to draw out the conversation unnecessarily, but we were invested in waiting to see if Inslee would show up. I kept feeling like if we said just the right thing it would make a difference. I couldn’t read David’s reactions to us and what we were asking him to relate to Inslee, but I decided he was on our side because he had cool glasses. I won’t say that conservative people have bad glasses, but I will say that the better your glasses are, the more likely I am to think you vote left.

Sooner or later, David brought up Barney Frank. I hope he didn’t take my reaction personally, because I’m sure the disdain I feel for Frank’s position on the Respect for Marriage Act–and the National Equality March, for that matter–was evident on my face. I tried to explain that his lack of support for the bill was not popular amongst LGBT people. But it was frustrating, because I didn’t have anything specific to quote or point to in order to prove my assertion.

So finally I said, as respectfully as I could, “With all due respect, Mr. Frank doesn’t live in Washington, and isn’t represented by Mr. Inslee.” Barney Frank lives in Massachusetts, where should he choose to marry, he could have state-level benefits. Must be nice.

The conversation started to wind down, and maybe I panicked a little. “Is that Mr. Inslee’s grandson?” I asked, pointing to one of the many pictures of an infant boy in the office. There must be something more to say!

And before David had a chance to answer, in walked the man himself.

He looked a little like Superman, only with grey sideburns. He asked us to call him Jay, and quickly sat down with us, apologizing for being late.

I was stunned for a minute. At this point, I hadn’t expected him to show up. I realized that until he did, I didn’t really believe that he was held up in another meeting. I thought that was an excuse, politics-speak for us not being important enough.

In my next post on our meeting I’ll talk more about what it is to be an ordinary, reasonably informed person meeting with an experienced politician. But for now I’ll just give credit where credit is due. Representative Inslee showed up to meet with us. You don’t have to be a guy in a suit. You don’t have to be a lobbyist. You can be a couple of dykes in jeans, ragged and road worn, and you can talk to the people who make the decisions that affect your life.

If we can do it, so can you.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites