Are We Married?

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

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

Let’s talk about Garfield County, Washington, population 2,060. To my knowledge, I’ve never been there. In fact, until yesterday, I had no idea Garfield County existed. Currently it holds the record for the greatest percentage of voters to reject Referendum 71, the everything-but-marriage referendum. More than 77% voted to reject R-71.*

But nearly 22%, 192 people, voted to uphold the law. Doesn’t sound like much, it’s true. How about this number? 219,897–that’s the number of people who voted to approve R-71 in the yellow counties, the ones like Garfield County, in which a majority of voters rejected R-71.

In Washington, as is the case in many other states in which one area’s population is massive and the rest of the state’s just isn’t, the Puget Sound area of Western Washington and its left-leaning voters usually win statewide elections. This creates a lot of bitterness in the eastern part of the state, and I guess I can understand why. It would suck to feel like your vote didn’t count.

And in case I didn’t remind you yet today, we are winning in Washington. Approve R-71 holds its lead. Sorry, Eastern WA (not really).

219,897. That’s 37% of the current count of votes in favor of R-71. That’s 219,897 people in the more conservative areas of Washington who didn’t succumb to the pressure of their neighbors to reject the rights of same-sex couples. As much as it mattered that King County and other Puget Sound residents sent in their ballots this year to put R-71 over the top, it mattered that these people did, too. I want to thank each one of those 219,897 people, but I especially want to thank the 192 Approve voters in Garfield County. You are my heroes of the day.

A few days ago we were in Clayton, Georgia, population 2019. We drove up from our campsite at Talullah Gorge State Park about 10 miles south to visit Wendy’s. No, it wasn’t because we wanted a Frosty. Wendy’s is one of the few places in Clayton, Georgia that has free WiFi for its guests, an amenity usually missing from state park campgrounds.

We were there for about a half hour when another WiFi user, a guy, came in and sat across from us, next to the only visible outlet in the place. We exchanged pleasantries, and almost immediately my gaydar went off. No, Ruby. This is small-town Georgia.

We started talking with him about Frances, and several times he dropped hints about his sexual orientation. Still I argued with myself. What were the odds? We were nearly the only people in the place. But when he said, “Well, I’m not going to have children unless they figure out a way for men to give birth,” I had to admit it: this guy was gay.

We spent hours in that Wendy’s, talking to Brandon and eventually his friend Kristen, a straight ally. We talked about the difficulty of being out and gay in a small town, worrying about your safety. We agreed that the recently-passed federal hate crimes law was a good thing.

Then Brandon and Kristen told us about other gay people in the area. There was a gay couple who owned a restaurant that we could see through the window from where we sat. Down the road was a bar owned by a lesbian couple, an LGBT hangout. And nearby, Brandon told us proudly, was an all-LGBT church. Just over the border in North Carolina, he said, was a small town that had one of the highest per capita gay populations in the country.

We were kind of floored by this. I think I used to believe that part of the coming out process for everyone who wasn’t born in a big liberal city was to move to one. And maybe that’s usually true. But some people stay, or come back. And they have friends.

In Garfield County, Washington, they have 192 friends. Brave, wonderful friends who vote with their hearts to protect our rights throughout the state of Washington.

*Note: the numbers change frequently as remaining votes are counted. All numbers quoted are as of 6:39 a.m. PST on 11/5.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

We didn’t plan to come to Florida. In fact, knowing what little I did about Florida’s laws concerning LGBT rights, I would have preferred to avoid the state altogether. But it was hot today in Alabama, and that got us thinking about the beach. And there we were, directly north of Pensacola. So we veered left and made our way into the Sunshine State.

I was driving as we passed the sign welcoming us to Florida. Having grown up in New York City, I feel like Florida is a relative of mine. Indeed, I have at least two retired or semi-retired aunts who spend the winter months on the Barrier Islands. So I am particularly disappointed in Florida for being so hostile to us, the way you might be when you find out Grandma voted Republican. I mean, aren’t the Keys just one big gay party?

When I heard the story of the Langbehn-Pond family’s experience in Miami, I was afraid, angry, and deeply sad. In 2007, Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond, a lesbian couple who happened to live in the Washington city of Olympia, took three of their adopted kids to Florida to embark on an R Family cruise. You know, a Rosie cruise.

They never sailed. While they were still in port, Lisa Pond suffered a brain aneurysm. She was rushed to the Ryder Trauma Center, and Janice and the kids followed behind her. When they arrived, Janice was told that she was in an anti-gay state, and would not be allowed to see her partner. The rest of the story is the stuff of gay nightmares.

As we crossed into that same anti-gay state where Janice Langbehn was denied the right to be with her partner during the last moments of her life, I gripped the steering wheel a little harder and went over our plan. We haven’t paid to have power of attorney documents written up, so we would, in the case of such a tragedy, enact plan B.

“Remember,” I said to Ami, invoking our friend Jenny’s wise advice, “if something happens to one of us, we’re sisters.”

“I know,” Ami said, in the tone you use when someone’s reminded you of something a hundred times.

“And whichever one is healthy is Frances’s mom.” I stopped. “Biological mom.”

Ami and I look enough alike that if you didn’t know us and we told you we were sisters, you’d believe us. Who cares what the consequences of such a lie are in that situation? Sue me. Bring me up on charges. I know what’s right, and being by my wife’s side in a time of danger trumps just about everything else. I probably don’t need to remind you that if we were heterosexual, nobody would blink if we said we were married–which we are. There would be respect and empathy shown to the spouse, as there should be in times of mortal fear and grief.

Florida

• In 2008, in a 62 – 38% landslide [via Ballotopedia], Florida voters approved this anti-marriage equality amendment to their state constitution: “Inasmuch as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
• Recognized only as a close friend, and in the absence of relatives to take precedence, medical decisions may be made on behalf of a partner. An advance directive may also be written and signed by two witnesses to grant a partner medical decision-making rights. But this is, it seems, subject to interpretation by hospital administration.
• “Homosexuals” may not adopt in Florida. Period. I’m glad there are no foster children in Florida who might need a permanent home with a loving family.
• After sex reassignment surgery, a Florida birth certificate may be amended.
• Florida hate crime laws cover sexual orientation but not gender identity. For gender identity, it’d be the Feds who’d have to prosecute.
• Gender identity has been interpreted in case law as covered by the prohibition of discrimination based on disability. There is no law protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
• Florida safe schools laws do not mention sexual orientation or gender identity. The teachers’ code of ethics prohibits harassment by teachers because of sexual orientation. [via HRC unless otherwise noted]

The good news? We’re leaving Florida tomorrow.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites