Frances and me in our matching No on One bracelets on election night

I know there’s a way to look at the bright side when it comes to the 2009 election in Maine. I haven’t yet found it. Yes, there’s a victory in Washington for same-sex couples, one that directly affects my family’s lives. And that’s not a small victory at all–let me not shortchange that win.

But Maine. Oh, Maine.

We’re not at all sorry we passed through to lend our support to the No on One campaign. We met amazing, dedicated people who stopped their lives to devote everything they had to ensuring equality for all Mainers–whether they lived in the state or not.

And I still don’t believe that’s how a majority of Mainers feel–it’s just the majority of voters in the 2009 election who feel that way. Who want to deny their neighbors the rights they have. Who believe them to be not worthy of the rights and protections they enjoy simply because of who they love. Who want to make the children of same-sex couples suffer. These are the children most directly affected by marriage equality, make no mistake about it.

Your kids, you Yes voters, may very well grow up to be just as straight and small-minded as you. Or they may not. Your vote has nothing to do with it. Straight, bigoted people have been raising flaming faggots, scary bulldykes, and homo-lovin’ commies under “traditional,” oppressive, discriminatory laws for centuries. Thank God in His heaven.

So what’s it like for LGBT Mainers now that Question One has passed?

Maine

• It’s not all bad news for same-sex couples who live in Maine. There is still a domestic partnership registry in Maine. According to HRC, “Registered couples can inherit a deceased partner’s property if he or she dies without a will, make funeral and burial arrangements, be named a guardian or conservator if their partner becomes incapacitated, be named a representative to administer a deceased partner’s estate and make organ and tissue donations. Same-sex partners are also explicitly protected in the state’s domestic violence laws.” As we know, Question 1 overturned the Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom, which passed in May 2009 by both houses of the legislature and signed by the governor. It did not prohibit same-sex marriage by law, or add an amendment barring same-sex marriage to the Maine Constitution.
• “An adult who shares an emotional, physical, and financial relationship with the patient similar to that of a spouse” can make certain medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated same-sex partner. There is also the domestic partner registry mentioned above, but it is not necessary in order to make medical decisions for a partner who can’t make them him- or herself. And the law also provides for adults to name a power of attorney for health care–in writing and signed by the individual and two witnesses. Adults may also name people they consider immediate family for the purpose of hospital visitation.
• Married and unmarried people may adopt in Maine, and in 2007 the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled on behalf of a lesbian couple that unmarried people may jointly adopt. There is no prohibition against the adoption of a partner’s children, but no court in Maine has heard a case to affirm this right.
• After sex reassignment surgery, a Maine birth certificate may be amended to reflect the individual’s true gender.
• Maine’s hate crimes laws protect people on the basis of sexual orientation, but not gender identity. Due to the passage of federal hate crimes laws, gender identity is protected on the federal level.
• Maine laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
• There are no safe schools laws in Maine, though there is a Maine Legislative Youth Advisory Council that examines school safety, among other things. [via HRC]

Proposition 8 last year, Question 1 this year. Which state’s taxpaying families will have their rights ripped from them next year? Or will next year be the first one in which a state’s voters will uphold marriage equality? Better yet–will we see the end to these hate-mongering propositions and initiatives?

An initiative that prevented the majority from ever again taking rights from a minority group–now that would get my vote.

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

In Alabama, Ami would be considered my roommate. My “friend.” And that would probably be how the nice people described our relationship. We’ve left the Promised Land, and it’s a long way to California.

Effectively, it’s just me and Keith Olbermann in the room. I would rather be at a No on 1 or Approve R-71 party. And party is what I expect them to do in Maine and Washington. Preliminary numbers in Maine are good–if close. I’ve been refreshing the page on the Bangor Daily News site devoted to referendums and bonds.

It’s almost time to turn my attention to Washington, our home state, where shortly we will have a significant expansion of our rights. Or we won’t.

For now, I am quietly waiting. Tears will fall, either way. And either way, tomorrow we will be in Alabama, where we are NOT married.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Matthew Shepard, 1976-1998

On Wednesday President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard & David Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law.

The Act was buried in a defense spending bill that had wide Republican support, and in this way found its way to the president’s desk after ten years of advocacy. Yesterday Obama lifted the HIV travel and immigration ban that barred positive individuals from visiting or immigrating to the U.S. And he reauthorized the Ryan White Care Act–having worked for an HIV/AIDS organization in the past, I know how critical these funds are to people living with HIV/AIDS.

It’s been a pretty good week for LGBT activism. Let’s hope next week is even better. It could be the first time pro-LGBT legislation has been approved at the polls (Washington State) and the first time anti-marriage-equality legislation was defeated (Maine). If you live in Washington, get that ballot in the mail and contact Approve Referendum 71 to see how else you can help. We plan to be on the phones this weekend. If you live in Maine, volunteer for election day activities by calling the No on 1 Campaign. If you live elsewhere, give them a call anyway. There are still ways you can help.

I don’t know where we’ll be on the night of November 3. Maybe Atlanta. I do know what we’ll be doing: watching election returns. Let’s make this year the one that finally turns things around in our favor. I know we can do it.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

From the 'No on 1' Campaign Headquarters

You know, I wasn’t always a big gay. For more than half of my life so far, I did not self-identify as queer.

In fact, the number of years I’ve had to think about marriage are about three-to-one the number of years I’ve had to think about queerness. I’ve encountered marriage as a child, as a teen, as a straight-by-default, as a closeted queer, as an out queer, as a married queer, as a Lutheran, as a Mormon, and as a person with enough Comparative Religion credits to need several paragraphs to express their spiritual perspective.

So I was very surprised to learn something about marriage while volunteering for the “No on 1″ campaign in Maine. I was calling a list of people who had expressed interest in supporting the campaign previously. I was calling to ask them to do whatever they could to get the vote out on the big day.

I placed a call to a number of an 84-year old gentleman we’ll call “John.” A younger woman answered the phone, and she told me John wasn’t available. I said, “Well, maybe I can speak with you? <smile> My name is Ami and I’m calling from the “No on 1″ campaign.”

And then the most appalling thing happened.

She said: “You don’t need to speak to me. We’re Yes on 1.” Then she hung up.

I know, I know: for a seasoned cold caller, that would be a very gentle let-down. But after a lifetime of having it insinuated, but not said to my face, it was a real shock to hear someone say: “I don’t believe you should be able to marry anyone. Ever. Because of ‘how you are.’”

Usually, I’m live-and-let-live to a fault. But this call changed my perspective for good. Having had several run-ins with religion in my childhood, I still thought of marriage in a religious framework. I hadn’t really conceived of it as a right. I hadn’t really realized that people thought they could take it away from me!

This woman’s fear and righteousness are the basis of the fight against same-sex marriage, and what they fail to see is: Marriage, although I believe it to be a spiritual endeavor, is not a religious institution. It is a civil institution. Their side struggles to ‘defend marriage,’ when really that’s like defending business licenses, or any other civil procedure. Defend land use permits! Defend parking tickets!

What do they mean when they say “Defend marriage”, then? They want to confuse the meaning of the word marriage with as much (muddily-worded and religious-laced) rhetoric as possible.  Take for instance (from the Yes on 1 website):

If Question 1 fails and LD 1020 is allowed to take effect, marriage will be redefined to be about any two consenting adults without regard to gender, the focus being only about what the adults want for themselves, and not what is best for society as a whole. [Because personal fulfillment damages society? Down with the pursuit of happiness!] The roles of husbands and wives would become irrelevant. [I know a lot of straight people that would love to define their own roles, so this is just super. In fact, the happiest, longest term marriages I can think of are based on non-gender specific, personally-fulfilling, self-identified roles. Huh.] The reliance on marriage as an important fabric of society will no longer matter, [I know there's not a language arts pre-req for writing things on the internet, but this metaphor is so ludicrous that I'm straining to get a point at all. If anyone can locate a subject or a verb in all that circular reasoning, please email me a diagram.] and the marriage laws will not consider what is best for children. [Flat out not true...says WebMD, the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association--the list grows with the years.]

To all you Yes on 1 folks in Maine, to all you Reject R-71 folks back home in Washington, to the DOMA supporters and to anyone out there that thinks same-sex marriage is ruining something or taking something away from them: I’m fighting for marriage because marriage isn’t yours to give. 

Marriage isn’t just for straight white male landowners. (Although wouldn’t that be just a bit gay!?) Marriage isn’t just for the people in power, or the people who think they know what’s “right” for everyone else. Marriage is a civil right. It’s my civil right.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites