Category Archives: california

California Marriage Equality–“How Long?”

Martin Luther King, Jr. repeatedly asked, “How long?” How long until justice will come?

Just so our gay marriage allies in California like Molly McKay and Davina Kotulski, a couple for 12 years and activists for 10 years on this issue, continue their fight for the civil right of marriage.

King, an inveterate worker in the struggle for justice, persisted doggedly in the face of daunting odds. McKay and Kotulski and their allies in Marriage Equality USA now focus their energies on the California Supreme Court to seek justice. McKay and Kotulski were at the court for the historic argument on March 4, 2008 as were John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney, a couple for over 20 years.

Gaffney explained to interviewers that his interracial parents had to rely on the same court over 60 years ago to be allowed to marry. Now he and his partner Lewis hope the court will grant them the same civil right to marry that it granted to his parents.

The California legislature has voted for marriage equality twice. Twice the governor has vetoed the bill. Couples will not have to continue asking “How long” forever. The court must rule within 90 days. Not long.

Ellen, Murder, and Love in California

My point—and I have one—is that there is a connection between murder and love in the current highly charged culture war going on in California around the issue of marriage equality. Ellen almost makes the point.

 

Today the CA Supreme Court will hear a landmark case that seeks to bring marriage equality to millions of the state’s LGBT citizens. On February 12, 2008, 15 year-old Larry King of Oxnard, CA was murdered by a fellow eighth grader, Brandon, whom he asked to be his Valentine. My argument seems like a leap, but stay with me.

 

Ellen DeGeneres spoke up about Larry’s murder on her Leap Year Show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcMEL3_YsVI 

 

Millions of Ellen’s fans watched her thoughtful commentary on Larry’s murder, and over 137,000 have caught it on YouTube. Her arguments prompted over 840 viewers to write a comment on the YouTube site and 14 others to post video responses. Thousands then watch those videos. Well, you get it, the multiplier effect. When Ellen speaks, millions of fans listen and studio audiences go wild. A very good thing.

 

Ellen talks about the seeds of violence against gay people: punch lines in comedy monologues, gay jokes, verbal and physical abuse that can escalate into murder. I call it The Violence Escalator (see below). Very important information. Had she taken note of the current anti-gay marriage climate that is being whipped up in CA, folks might have made one more important connection. Climates of hate breed violence.

 

Today in California’s highest court, the Alliance Defense Fund and their ilk will argue that gay people are not worthy of marriage equality. For months, paid signature-gatherers funded by anti-marriage equality groups such as the Colorado-based Focus on the Family and the Virginia-based National Organization for Marriage have been all over California spreading the word of hate against gay people. In shopping centers, outside movie theatres, near coffee shops, the public is learning that they can stand up for prejudice and hate by signing the ballot petition for the November 2008 election to put marriage equality discrimination into the California constitution.

 

While I’m grateful to Ellen for what she did say, I wish that she had made that last connection: bigots are actively stirring up hate in California. In a climate of hate, innocent kids like Larry get murdered because they think that they are as free to love as everyone else. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Violence EscalatorViolence starts small but can escalate steadily and rapidly. Here are some of the steps: 

STEP 1 Jokes that disparage classes of people (i.e. women, lesbians, people of color)

STEP 2 Slurs that demean (i.e. “fag,” “bitch,” “gook”)

STEP 3 Threats and blackmail

STEP 4 Bullying that becomes physical

STEP 5 Psychological threats and bullying

STEP 6 Physical violence

STEP 7 Murder

California Dreamin’

    The news out of New York and Oregon in the past week has been great. The Empire State will now recognize gay marriages performed outside of its borders. Oregon’s domestic partnership provision has gone into effect. Now this good news is topped off with the news that on March 4, 2008, the top court in California will hear a marriage equality case that has collapsed together four separate cases. Within 90 days the court will render a decision.

California is one of those crucial states that has fought for and against marriage equality at every turn. The legislature has approved marriage equality in two separate votes and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed the bills twice. Now the high court will decide. But for those of us who watch California closely the spectre of another vote at the ballot box always looms.

Of course Matthew Staver of Liberty Counsel in Orlando, FL will be in California arguing to uphold a ban on marriage. Of late, Staver has been very busy in Florida helping to round up the necessary signatures to get a vote against gay marriage on the Florida ballot in November, 2008. To the dismay of many of us across the country, the necessary signatures have been obtained. It’s time to get out support for terrific grassroots organizations like Fairness for All Families in Florida and Marriage Equality in California.

Dads for Lesbian Daughters

from the Washington Blade Online

‘Family man’ tries to overturn Wis. gay marriage ban
Wants state to vote on marriage, civil unions as separate questions
(AP) | Dec 10, 3:10 PM

Few people took Bill McConkey seriously when he filed a lawsuit in July trying to overturn Wisconsin’s new ban on gay marriage and civil unions.

The relatively unknown University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science instructor was acting as his own lawyer and didn’t have the backing of the state’s major gay rights group.

But his challenge to the amendment — approved by 59 percent of voters last year — has picked up steam in recent weeks.

A Dane County judge ruled the lawsuit can go forward on grounds that McConkey was harmed as a voter by the wording of the question. McConkey claims the referendum illegally asked two questions in one — whether to ban gay marriage and whether to ban civil unions — and he wants the state to vote on each question.

So, who is this guy and why is he doing this? More

What’s great about this story is that we have another father coming out for his lesbian daughter’s civil rights. Bill McConkey joins San Diego mayor Jerry Sanders and probably millions of other fathers who support their children’s right to be legally connected and hopefully married to the person whom they love most in the world.

In suing for his civil right to be able to vote on gay marriage and civil unions as two separate ballot questions, McConkey, a political science professor at UW-Oshkosh presses for his legal rights as well as his daughter’s.

McConkey believes that the Wisconsin electorate would not have defeated civil unions in the 2006 election, but he concedes that gay marriage was probably doomed. He does believe, however, that gay marriage is a constitutional right. “I think ultimately I would say under the U.S. Constitution, the way it’s written, we cannot constitutionally deny the right of gay people to be married. Neither can the government order a church and say you have to marry gay people.”

Sanders like McConkey sees gay marriage as a civil right. He put a lot of his political capital on the line when he came all the way out for his daughter Lisa in pressing for gay marriage. As a California resident, Lisa Sanders, already had the right to enter into a domestic partnership that grants her all the rights and privileges of marriage. But as her dad poignantly noted what she does not have is the right to call herself married. On the day before he was kicking off his re-election campaign, September 19, 2007, he decided to, in his words, “lead with my heart.”

An emotional Mayor Sanders reversed his previous pledge to veto the San Diego City Council’s 5-3 vote to support gay marriage. He cited his acquaintances, staff, and most significantly his daughter, whose rights he could no longer deny. “In the end, I couldn’t look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana,” said Sanders.

Ever since I began doing research for Courting Equality, I’ve been consistently impressed with the power of parents in support of their children’s civil rights. Their support is inspired by love and fired by a patriotic belief that all of their kids should have the same rights. In Courting Equality, one of Marilyn Humphries’ compelling photos shows a mother at a 2004 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention holding a sign that reads, “My Son Is Not a Second-Class Citizen.” Her sign says it all!

As parents speak out, politicians begin to listen more intently and then more politicians speak out. As both the electorate and the elected speak out the circle of equality is expanded.

 

Being Mayor Sanders Daughter

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders has come over from the dark side. His daughter made it happen. She came out.

But I wonder what must it have been like to be the daughter of Sanders when he was saying that he would not support same-sex marriage? How did she feel knowing that the city council supported her civil right to marry but her father did not? Ahh, Mary Cheney comes to mind. But Jerry Sanders has shown that he is no Darth Vader Cheney.

Sanders has a heart as he showed at his press conference. See the video.

But still my thoughts are with the lesbian daughter. Will she now go and work for the HRC? Get a million dollar advance to write a book? Will she ever be able to tell what it was like to live with a father who did not support her right to happiness?

Coming out–all the way out. Still the most radical of acts for an LGBT person.

I hope that she has the heart of her father.

Ersatz Gay Marriage: “Confusing Twilight Zone”

 The majority of Democratic presidential candidates and even some folks who consider themselves fair-minded pretend that supporting civil unions–the separate but equal remedy for gay family relationships– gives us our civil rights. Across the country, however, LGBT experience in domestic partnerships, reciprocal beneficiary relationships, and yes, civil unions, has demonstrated  that it just isn’t so.

CA is stepping into the foreground, again, to argue in court that only marriage is equal. Ersatz gay marriage just does not cut it.

Courts, politicos, opinion leaders, and those committed to true equality should stop ignoring the success of gay marriage in MA for the past three years.

MA is the only state in which committed LGBT couples have clear rights and responsibilities because they are married. Everyone knows what marriage is. Only attorneys state by state really know what the distinctions are between a civil union in NJ or CT or VT and soon in NH. Or a domestic partnership is in CA. Or what a reciprocal beneficiary protection is in Hawaii.

When the ACLU, Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lambda Legal filed briefs last week in a coordinated case in CA seeking marriage rights for gay people, the challenge for full equality had its basis in the inequalities of domestic partnerships and it could have an anchor in reality on the East Coast of the country. MA has proved that marriage equality works.

The Advocate of Aug. 23 reported that Lambda Legal senior counsel Jennifer Pizer said in a statement that anything less than marriage is a “confusing twilight zone” for gay and lesbian couples. “We know this because we answer the distress calls every day—calls that began with the first statewide domestic partner bill in 1999 and haven’t slowed as the law broadened over the years. To the contrary, the distress calls have increased as more couples register, hoping to shield their families, and encounter inconsistent, incomplete protections. We’ve welcomed the supreme court’s invitation to explain how far domestic partnerships fall short of full marriage.”

Debating gay marriage

Cynthia Laird reports in the Bay Area Reporter (8/2/07) that the East Bay LGBT Democratic Club in Berkeley had a lively discussion about the pros & cons of gay marriage.

Former club president Tom Broughan argued that the marriage fight is likely to lead to even more states passing constitutional amendments that ban marriage–and often legal recognition of any sort for gay couples. According to Laird,

Brougham clarified that much of his concern with the current situation arises from the fact that 18 states ban same-sex marriage and civil unions and domestic partnerships in their constitutions, while eight states ban same-sex marriage. Twenty states have laws against same-sex marriage. Two states – New Mexico and Rhode Island – leave the matter undefined, and one state – Massachusetts – allows same-sex marriage.

California’s domestic partner registry includes all of the state rights granted to married couples. The state’s marriage battle is currently being waged in the state Supreme Court and in the legislature, where a gender-neutral marriage bill is pending in the Senate.

Brougham argued that the community has lost in every ballot fight except one (Arizona), “and we still have anti-marriage laws on the books.”

He’s also afraid that such efforts “will take down domestic partnerships.”

Brougham may be right that it has been difficult to fight anti-gay-marriage amendments, but we shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that civil unions offer real equality. As we all know, civil unions and domestic partnerships are politically palatable because they maintain the status quo view that gay people aren’t really worthy of marriage. When we push the envelope, we force heterosexuals to examine why this is the case. That forced introspection dramatically changed the landscape for lgbt families in Massachusetts. Real equality is worth the fight. Besides, pandora’s box has been opened, and we’re not going away.

Anti-Equality Amendment in the works in California?

from the San Diego Union Tribune July 18, 2007:

SACRAMENTO – For years religious conservatives have tried to roll back the increasing number of marriage rights that same-sex couples get as registered domestic partners.

For years they have failed either to get their bills through the Democratic-controlled Legislature or to raise the money to put a new ballot measure before voters. More

Equality California and their allies could look to Massachusetts for hope and a demonstration of the reality of same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, we’ve had three years of marriage equality. All of the dire predictions about chaos and the impending harm to the institution of marriage have proved unfounded. Opponents of marriage equality used to have the power of prediction on their side. It’s now been taken away by the triumph of gay marriage in our state.

Stripped down to their essential argument, the religious conservatives have just one point to make: marriage equality is not compatible with their religious views. BUT we do live in a country where the separate of church and state is a fundamental point on which we all supposedly agree. What the religious conservatives are demonstrating over and over in every state in this country is this: they do not believe in the separation of church and state.

We need to pay more attention to this threat to our democracy.

Book Recounts Marriage Fight in Massachusetts

    Cynthia Laird of the Bay Area Reporter makes the connection between our struggle in Massachusetts for marriage equality and the continuing struggle in California. She sees Courting Equality as a way for gay marriage advocates to share strategies that worked and to take heart that full equality is not just a hope. Laird is particularly impressed with the photographic work of Marilyn Humphries. Read on . . . 

Bay Area Reporter
Published 07/12/2007
by Cynthia Laird
With the marriage equality battle heating up in California, same-sex couples and others might want to check out Courting Equality , a coffee-table book that recounts the battle for gay marriage in Massachusetts.

Released in May to coincide with the three-year anniversary of legal marriage in Massachusetts, Courting Equality (Beacon Press, $34.95) contains more than 100 photos by photographer Marilyn Humphries, with a detailed history by co-authors and spouses Patricia A. Gozemba and Karen Kahn.

In a telephone interview last week, Gozemba, 66, said that she and Kahn, 51, were familiar with Humphries’s photography work well before embarking on the collaboration. But it was a former San Francisco Chronicle reporter, Evelyn White, who suggested that they do a book, she said.

“The photos were at the heart of the whole thing,” Gozemba said. “Marilyn’s been in Boston for the last 27 years, documenting our community.” More

Lastest on California marriage case

EdgeBoston reports:

The California Supreme Court has issued an unusual request in its hearing of a lawsuit for marriage equality: each side has been asked to answer three straightforward questions.According to a story posted on 356Gay.com yesterday, California’s highest court posed the questions because the justices felt that the briefs filed by both sides earlier this year had failed to address several basic points on the matter.
The first answer the court required from both sides was a specific and detailed explanation of how California’s existing domestic partnership law–one of the most comprehensive in the country–and legal marriage differ from one another in terms of legal rights for families.

Secondly, the court required lawyers from both sides to offer their interpretations of what the California state constitution’s provisions might be for marriage rights. Whether the constitution implicitly extends legal equality for gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage, or implicitly limits marriage to heterosexual couples, the existing constitutional provisions would have to be followed until and unless an amendment changed the state’s constitutional provisions for marriage.

From the second question’s ramifications, the court also sketched out a third question: “Do the terms ’marriage’ or ’marry’ themselves have constitutional significance under the California constitution?”

To read more, go to EdgeBoston.