Meeting with Rep. Inslee on the Respect for Marriage Act – Act I: Getting There
Oh, travel. You fickle harlot.
Somewhere along the way, we’d decided to drive to DC on the day of our meeting with our representative. I think it was partly a comfort concern–we were staying at my cousin Ceil’s apartment near Philly, and it’s got great things like a guest room and a shower. It was also partly a money concern–the park closest to DC is also very expensive–twice the price of some RV parks–so we didn’t want to stay there two nights. It takes about 2 1/2 to 3 hours to get from Philly to DC, and our meeting was at 1 p.m. We left at 7:09 a.m. I looked at the clock on the way out. I remember being proud of us for coming very close to making the 7 a.m. goal we’d set.
We arrived, all of us, dogs included, in the car, minus the trailer, at 12:59 p.m. I got out with Frances while Ami went to look for parking. I blame the Maryland highway system, and in our very roundabout detour I had enough time to call them and make a complaint. They’re sending me a form to make a claim against them. Do you think they’ll send me money for pissing me off?
Attention Maryland Department of Transportation: if you have a special detour for people carrying propane tanks, you must let them know before the exit on the highway that takes you to that detour.
There. I’ve vented that. Now we can move on.
The House Office Building is pretty impressive. Long hallways where women’s shoes click so loud you can hear them at the other end of the corridor. Well, most of the women in the building, anyway. My rubber-soled shoes didn’t even squeak. All of the offices have round metal plaques that invite you to come on in. We arrived at Inslee’s door just as another guy did, and since he was in a wheelchair, I held the door for him. The front room was crowded with men in suits who smiled at me as I pushed Frances in the door. I must have looked pretty out of place. Stroller. Rubber-soled shoes. Jeans. (Black, but still.)
Before we had a chance to worry about where we’d sit, Laura, the woman who’d been so patient with our scheduling needs, popped out of an office in back and introduced herself. She also said that Jay was held up in a meeting and introduced us to his aide, David. I was a little crushed. People more experienced than us in political matters had warned us that we might not get to meet with the Rep himself, only an aide.
It was a huge disappointment. We’d traveled so far. We’d waited in the Northeast so our schedule would match up with Inslee’s. This was, however, no time to quit. We would have our meeting, with whomever was there to listen. And with any luck, we’d get to speak to the man himself at some point.
Our Podcast Debut! Listen Live to Closet Talk Tonight
We’ll be live on the ‘net tonight on Closet Talk with Jay of jaysays.com! In about a half hour, so get ready.
We Voted! To Approve R-71, in Case You Were Wondering
- At the post office mailing our ballots!
Today we mailed out ballots from Pennsylvania. This is us at the post office, excited to vote to approve R-71.
In Maine, we met a Californian at the No on 1 campaign office. He said he was more worried about Washington and R-71 than he was about Maine and Question 1. I listened, and I didn’t disagree out loud. Maybe I got a little scared for a day or so. But in my heart I know Washington will do the right thing.
Do the right thing, Washington! Please!
Why should you Approve R-71? Because families like ours will benefit. There will be financial benefits, like we won’t get fired if we have to take time off from work to care for one another if one of us gets sick. And like not having to pay a social worker to come to our house to evaluate Ami’s fitness to adopt the daughter she’s been caring for since before conception.
Did I mention it’s the right thing to do?
If the heartbreak we experienced at the election results in California last year when Prop 8 passed is any indication, we will be ecstatic if the voters in our state uphold our rights. Even if 49% of the people who live in Washington believe we are not entitled to the rights and responsibilities that married couples have, that 51%–that a majority–welcomes us into the adult world is edifying. No, it shouldn’t have to happen in the first place. No, people should never have to or get to vote to say whether some group or other deserves (almost) equality. But since we have to, since it’s gone the other way so very many times in our country, it will be incredibly meaningful and triumphant when it goes our way.
You hear me Washington? I didn’t say if. I said when. Make us proud. Do it for Frances.
Tomorrow we head back to Washington, D.C., where we will meet with our Representative in the House, Jay Inslee. Send us all your good gay juju at 1 p.m. EDT.
Marriage (and Other LGBT) Rights in New York and New Jersey
New Rochelle, New York: wild dogs, a goose, and cops. Not necessarily all in one incident. But that’s a synopsis of last night, which was probably the worst one of our trip. Don’t worry, we’re not writing this from the Westchester County Jail.
I would say more, but it’s not quite funny yet. Let’s have some laws, shall we?
New York
- New York, by statute, does not issue licenses to same-sex couples. In 2004, the mayor of New Paltz, NY, Jason West, decided to preside over the marriages of about two dozen same-sex couples. He was charged with 19 violations of New York’s Domestic Relations Law. [via California Yankee] The State Attorney General ordered the marriages to stop, and in 2006, the state court decided, in Hernandez v. Robles, that it was not a violation of the state constitution to deny licenses to same-sex couples. In 2008 there was a ruling that same-sex marriages performed outside of New York were entitled to legal recognition in New York. The appeals court decided unanimously not to review the case, and to date same-sex marriages from other states (like ours) are recognized in New York. In addition, there is no domestic partner registry in New York, but same-sex partners are allowed to visit each other in the hospital and are given priority for the disposing of each other’s remains.
- Same-sex partners who are not married are allowed to make medical decisions for one another in the case of an incapacitated partner, as a close friend. Others, like parents and adult children, are given priority. A health care proxy may be assigned to a partner if the proxy is named in writing and signed by the individual and two adult witnesses.
- Unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, and married same-sex partners may adopt in New York. A 2002 decision in the courts affirmed the rights of same-sex couples to adopt. In 1995 a court in NY decided that same-sex co-parents could adopt each other’s biological children.
- There is no New York law concerning issuing of new birth certificates upon sexual reassignment surgery, but in practice new certificates are granted.
- New York hate crimes law specifically mentions sexual orientation, but not gender identity.
- Some gender identity discrimination cases have been pursued in New York on the basis of sex, but there is no specific prohibition against discrimination on the basis of gender identity. There is protection for sexual orientation.
- School violence is generally prohibited, but there are no specific protections for kids on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. [via HRC unless otherwise specified]
New Jersey
- New Jersey does not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but they have civil unions which confer all of the same state rights as married couples. This was due to a 2006 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that said it was unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage. There is no prohibition against recognizing same-sex marriages from other states, but no affirmation of the recognition, either.
- Civil union partners have the same rights as married couples in New Jersey concerning health care visitation, decision making, etc. Partners who have not had a civil union can name each other through health care advance directives, which must be signed and witnessed by two adults.
- Unmarried LGBT people may adopt in New Jersey. Couples can adopt jointly, and adopt each other’s children.
- New Jersey will issue a new birth certificate with a physician’s affidavit regarding sex change, and proof of name change.
- Hate crimes laws in New Jersey protect people on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity.
- You may not discriminate in New Jersey on the basis of either sexual orientation or gender identity.
- Safe schools laws in New Jersey also protect on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity.
Not bad, New Jersey, not bad.
A Paradigm Shift for Marriage
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.
http://arewemarried.com/feed
