Tag Archives: same-sex marriage

Another Year (Almost) Over

The coming year is going to be ugly.

The economy is still in the toilet, environmental degradation is edging dangerously close to the point of no return, our infrastructure is crumbling, and Republicans in Congress remain committed to one thing and one thing only—defeating Barack Obama—even if they have to take the country down to do it.

Meanwhile, Larry, Moe and Curly are vying for the GOP Presidential nomination.

It isn’t easy finding things to be upbeat about in this environment, but there are some—and amazingly enough, the few bits of good news involve gay rights.

This year we’ve seen—finally—the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” More recently, the Obama Administration, represented by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the President himself, put the treatment of gay citizens by their governments squarely on the human rights agenda—serving notice to governments like Uganda’s that American aid would henceforth be dependent upon their willingness to treat their gay citizens humanely. New York became the 6th state to recognize same-sex marriage. And for the first time ever, Gallup found a majority of U.S. citizens supporting such marriage. Not just civil unions—real, honest-to-god marriage.

Not a bad year on the equality front.

Perhaps the most gratifying element of this cultural shift is the diminishing salience of far-right appeals to homophobia. (One of the very few good things about an economic downturn is that it does tend to focus people’s attention on bread and butter problems rather than the hot-button, divisive social issues so beloved by the culture warriors.) A recent New York Times poll found that even among likely Republican primary voters in Iowa—one of the most conservative (dare we say batshit crazy) electorates in the country—appeals based on the old reliable “God, Guns and Gays” have lost traction.

And when “all hat, no cattle” candidate Rick Perry—desperate to reverse his falling poll numbers—made a homophobic video ad in which he decried the “attack” on Christianity signified by allowing gays in the military but not organized prayer in public schools, the ad was met with satisfying ridicule—probably not the response he was trying for.  (Hate to tell you this Rick, but that “liberty” you keep talking about includes religious liberty even for people who aren’t Christians. There’s this provision in the First Amendment called the Establishment Clause that prohibits government from imposing your religious beliefs on other people’s children in the public schools. And there’s another clause in that Constitution you clearly have never read that requires government to treat its citizens equally. Can we say “oops”?)

I’m not sure why it is that at a time of real social discord, gay citizens are finally beginning to achieve a modicum of equality. It seems counter-intuitive, but the social changes that are bringing GLBT citizens out of legal purgatory (or worse) are too obvious to deny and appear too strong to resist.

Of course, if one of the clowns running for President on the GOP ticket actually manages to defeat Obama, all bets are off—not just for the gay community, but for all the rest of us.

A Question for the Godly

The New York Times recently reported on a town clerk in upstate New York who was refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite passage of the recent New York law recognizing such unions. She cited evangelical Christianity as a bar against performing her official duties.

“For me to participate in the same-sex marriage application process I don’t feel is right,” Rose Marie Belforti told The Times. “God doesn’t want me to do this, so I can’t do what God doesn’t want me to do, just like I can’t steal, or any of the other things that God doesn’t want me to do.”

I’m impressed by Ms. Belforti’s godliness. But since she seems to have an intimate relationship with God, and seems to know what He/She wants with such precision, I’d love to ask her a couple of questions. For example, how does God feel about her issuing licenses to divorced folks? People who’ve previously been convicted of crimes God disapproves of?

But most of all, I’d like to know how God feels about her continuing to take a government paycheck while refusing to perform the duties she’s being paid for. Isn’t that like stealing?

Ms. Belforti is absolutely entitled to her religious beliefs; however, she is not entitled to work for the government. If she can’t do her job–for whatever reason–she should be replaced by someone who can.

Comments

I Cry At Weddings

I cry at weddings, and last week I had yet another opportunity to borrow a tissue.

I was invited to this particular ceremony by someone I have come to know through service on a nonprofit board. He’s the sort of quiet, solid citizen that others depend on, the guy down the street who works hard, who harbors zero political ambitions despite serving a couple of terms on his township’s school board, the guy whose neighbors know they can call on him in a pinch.

There wasn’t a large crowd at the church—the couple’s families (including my friend’s children by a prior marriage), folks from the neighborhood where they have lived for twelve years, others they’ve met through a variety of civic organizations. It was probably as racially diverse a group as I’ve seen in a church, perhaps because this particular couple is interracial. The crowd was not only black and white, however; among the people I knew, I saw Christians and Jews, Republicans and Democrats, gay and straight, young and old.

During the brief ceremony, there were readings from members of both families, including my friend’s children from the prior marriage. One of his daughters (the mother of his adored grandson) is deaf, so she signed her part, which was lovely and touching. I didn’t really tear up, however, until the part where the couple left the altar to present each of their mothers with flowers and express their gratitude for the years of love and support. (Hey, what can I tell you—I’m a mom too!)

Finally, after rings were exchanged and the ceremony concluded, the grooms invited everyone to join them at the reception.

Oh yes—I forgot to mention that this wasn’t a legally-binding marriage. It was a commitment ceremony. Although it was otherwise indistinguishable from other Christian wedding ceremonies I’ve attended, my friend and his life partner walked out of church still strangers in the eyes of the law. Although they have lived together for 12 years, although they publicly declared their intent to live together for the rest of their lives, although they have the love and support of their families, although they are law-abiding, taxpaying citizens, they won’t be filing joint tax returns.

Their relationship won’t entitle them to the 1012 legal incidents of marriage that my husband and I automatically enjoy—“special rights” like social security survivor benefits, hospital visitation, automatic joint ownership of the home they’ve shared, an automatic right to inherit property that they’ve jointly acquired, and on and on. For my friend and his partner, securing these rights requires copious and expensive legal documentation.

As if this denial of equal treatment isn’t galling enough, the Indiana Legislature is once again trying to rub salt in the wound of second-class citizenship by passing a constitutional amendment to confirm that status—and arguably prevent passage of any other legal recognition, including civil unions. If HJR 6 passes, it will send a strong signal that gay people are not welcome in Indiana.

One of the other people at the commitment ceremony was a woman I hadn’t seen since my days in City Hall, during the Hudnut Administration.  She is a very conservative Republican, and I was surprised to see her there. She explained that she had met our mutual friend through their joint service on a nonprofit board. Then she added something well worth pondering: “I consider myself a strong social conservative, but for the life of me, I can’t understand why same-sex marriage threatens my marriage or hurts anyone.”

I don’t understand that either. That’s one reason I cry at weddings.

Comments

Tales of the Times

When I settled down this morning with the Sunday New York Times, I couldn’t help but be struck by two totally unrelated stories that seemed–at least to me–to summarize the choice we face as a nation. These stories weren’t momentous public events by any means; they were more like indicator lights on your car’s dashboard.

The first was the front-page coverage of the (non-binding) Iowa straw vote. Michelle Bachmann (anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-choice, anti-evolution, anti-environment) came in first, with Ron Paul (“we don’t need no stinkin’ government”) a close second.

The second story was from “Vows,” the Times’ weekly wedding feature. It focused upon a wedding conducted just a few days after same-sex unions became legal in New York. In the large photo accompanying the story, two elderly men in wheelchairs are holding hands; the accompanying text explains that the two had been admitted to the hospital together–one with leukemia and the other with advanced Parkinson’s. “Faced with the prospect of their own mortality and separation after 39 years together, they asked the doctors to postpone Mr. Beaumont’s chemotherapy until–in a last grand gesture–they could get married.” The hospital staff provided white smocks, an Episcopal Priest performed the ceremony, the hospital’s chef baked a cake. Friends sang love songs.  I’ll admit it–the story brought tears to my eyes.

So–here are two vignettes of our  possible futures. We can express our fears and frustrations by flocking to the banner of people who deny complexity, reality and humanity, or we can act on our better natures, recognizing that the human family–just like our own families–is composed of many different kinds of people, all of whom are entitled to respect and affection.

We can live by slogans and ideologies, or we can try to understand the world we occupy. We can reject reality, wrap ourselves in self-righteousness and insist that others live by the rules of our particular gods, or we can admit (to ourselves as well as others) that we don’t have all the answers, that our common life is messy and times are tough, and that the only certainty is that human compassion and kindness will serve us better than denial and intolerance.

Yesterday, in Indianapolis, there was a terrible accident at a State Fair concert. A stage collapsed, pinning the front rows of the crowd under massive girders and equipment. Out of all the coverage, perhaps the most poignant picture was one showing how many of the other people in attendance rushed to help–a picture of dozens of hands trying to lift the debris so that the injured could be rescued. No one stopped to ask the politics, religion, race or sexual orientation of those who were pinned beneath the rubble. No one stopped to ask whether they “deserved” assistance. They were fellow humans who needed help.

What I want is a future and a country that nurtures that instinct.

Comments

Pathetic Policy Discourse

There are a lot of examples of what happens when those making policy don’t know what they are talking about, but here’s one that just annoys the hell out of me every time it comes up.

The New York legislature is preparing to vote on whether the state will recognize same-sex marriage. The Times reports that one of the “concessions” being demanded is explicit language protecting churches that refuse to officiate at such unions.

I know I harp on the importance of constitutional literacy, but this is a perfect example of what happens when even the most basic, rudimentary constitutional knowledge is absent.

The First Amendment religion clauses not only protect all of us from governmentally-imposed  religion, those clauses also protect the free exercise rights of religious organizations. That means–at a minimum–that government cannot force churches to engage in activities that are counter to their beliefs. Churches and other religious organizations are even exempt from civil rights laws when hiring for religious positions. Bottom line, it would be unconstitutional to demand that clergymen officiate at same-sex weddings, and any effort to sue them for refusing to do so would be immediately tossed out of court.

Furthermore, the “marriage” that government recognizes is civil marriage only. Government classifies people as married for purposes of determining who is entitled to the 1000+ legal benefits that accompany recognition of that contractual relationship. Civil and religious marriage are different. Governments do not and cannot “sanctify” a marital union–for that, people have to go to their respective churches (a growing number of which are willing to do so). Our constitution separates church and state (no matter what Michele Bachmann and her ilk think), and that separation means government has no authority over religious doctrine and belief.

When political actors demand statutory “protection” for churches, you can be sure the actor is either dishonest or ignorant (not that these categories are mutually exclusive). Granted, adding language that duplicates the existing constitutional protection doesn’t require proponents of same-sex marriage to give anything up. But it implicitly suggests that–absent such language–the government could make the demand in the first place, and adds to the ever-growing stupidity of our national discourse.

Comments