| Amy Hunt -- 05/01/2004 07:06 |
|
Margaret H. Marshall, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, has written an op-ed for the Boston Globe as we approach the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. Sometimes we forget how big a promise this nation had made to all of us. We are free. We are equal. We've always had a terrible time trying to keep that promise, but we eventually do, we creak and groan our way there. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor As I read Marshall's piece this morning, and as I think about the Goodridge decision -- not only the decision itself, but the grandness of the majority opinion she authored -- I'm struck again by how small, how impoverished our opposition is. They have a seemingly endless supply of puny arguments: Marriage is about boy parts and girl parts and sex, brothers marrying their sisters or their dogs will be next, this will confuse people, we should wait two-and-a-half more years, there's a psychiatrist here who still believes homosexuality can be cured, the SJCs majority was too thin, the SJC has no jurisdiction to decide this matter. There is nothing large, nothing passionate -- except, of course, for the ugliness they can stir up among people itching to resent someone, anyone, itching to indulge their anxieties, itching for a cause to give them a fleeting sense of importance. As we look toward May 17th, and the possibility of a debate that lasts until November 2006, that's really the only thing I worry about. |
| Amy Hunt -- 04/30/2004 07:46 |
|
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, U.S.A. Dear Jakarta, As you may know if you are as preoccupied with homosexual marriage as I am, the U.S. state of Massachusetts is not Las Vegas. Therefore, pursuant to a 1913 law still on our books, we're going to not only enforce our own marriage laws, but the marriage laws of other states and other nations if and when residents of those states and nations come here to request marriage licenses. I understand that in Jakarta, men may have more than one wife and family, provided they get consent from previous wives and guarantee they can support all their dependents well and treat them all equally. Please confirm this. Also, I understand that Jakarta is rife with married men who lie to their new brides, claim to be single, and forge the documentation required for new marriages. As you develop more sophisticated investigative procedures for your town clerks (that's what we call them here) any guidance you can offer Massachusetts would be appreciated. Regards, Mitt Romney http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailhea |
| Amy Hunt -- 04/29/2004 08:28 |
|
NO SPECIAL RIGHTS. Of course Massachusetts companies that offer domestic partner benefits to gay and lesbian employees and their families should plan the end of those benefits. Of course they should expect we'll marry and have access to health insurance just like our co-workers. That's the whole idea: Everybody lives by the same rules. And those companies that will start enjoying some cost savings as a result? Good for you, and thanks for doing the right thing on your dime all these years. I believe many more widely shared economic benefits will flow from equal marriage rights. The government likes to deal with family units for a reason. Who wants to manage a nation of individuals who are obligated only to themselves? That's a recipe for a course and expensive society. Marriage attaches people to one another. It puts obligated family members in between a vulnerable person and taxpayer-funded support systems. If that family fails in its duties, we can force the issue. The government dole is a last resort. All this talk about "can we afford gay marriage?" is nonsense. The Bush Administration wants to spend $1.5 billion on marriage promotion programs (heterosexual marriage, do I need to say that?) as part of a welfare reauthorization package. Apparently, the administration's research shows that marriage licenses fight poverty and are more effective at keeping people off the dole than things like job training. Who did the Republicans put first in line for permanent Bush tax cuts? Married people. Look, marriage is either a drain on the nation's piggy bank, or it's a formula for privatizing people's lives and troubles and, in the end, saving money. Can't have it both ways. http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay MARRIAGE COPS III. Same-sex marriage is legal in Ontario, Canada. Therefore, Governor Romney would say that those couples can marry here in Massachusetts without breaking the 1913 law. Is that right? And if so, will town clerks be in the business of enforcing the marriage rules of other nations as well as other states? This is now a planetary issue? What about countries that have marriage restrictions based on race and class? That idea is anathema in America (much more so than the idea of, say, me getting married). Is this really where the Governor wants to take the job of town clerk? |
| Amy Hunt -- 04/28/2004 06:48 |
|
MARRIAGE COPS II. In this morning's Boston Globe, instructions that the state has given to town clerks when only heterosexual people were asking for marriage licenses: "'A clerk cannot and must not question the citizenship or legal status of a marriage applicant." "Do not routinely ask for birth records or other proof of age." "Do not ask for proof of divorce." Any heterosexual couple will do. Even one comprised of an underage liar and a would-be bigamist, the marriage license flies out of the town clerk's hand. But now that the gays are coming, the Governor wants to give clerks Homeland Security jobs, make them look at everybody's phone bills. He talks all the time about the chaos and complication of issuing marriage licenses to gays. He's creating it. Prediction: The clerks will rebel. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl |
| Amy Hunt -- 04/27/2004 23:03 |
|
HEY, DON'T LOOK AT ME. The sanctity of traditional, heterosexual marriage has taken its first tangible hit and it's not my fault. The Globe reports that the Archdiocese can't guarantee that brides and grooms who want the religious sacrament will be able to get it at their own parishes, since some number of them will close soon in response to diminished attendance and financial resources. Apparently, some of the couples are having a hard time planning anything. They don't know what's going to happen day to day or week to week. (I know how you feel.) One thing the church could think about is a little downsizing at its political lobbying arm, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. And if that's not enough, they could give up things like million-household, four-color anti-gay mailings and shipping anti-gay "marriage protection" packages and videos to parish priests. Just a thought. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl WHO ELSE WOULD IT BE? The AP reports that the Washington D.C. law firm behind the latest potshot at May 17th was founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, who likes to promise natural disasters (floods, tornadoes, other wrathful things) if anyone's nice to the gays. The SJC has read briefs twice before arguing that they have no jurisdiction over marriage and therefore no power to decide the Goodridge case. I'm sure they'll love getting a third try thrown at them because, just like the rest of us, they've got nothing better to do. MARRIAGE COPS. If the Governor wants to use the racist 1913 law against same-sex couples, and insist that town clerks get proof of the couple's residency in Massachusetts, why use the honor system with the other key questions on the marriage application form? Why take everyone's word for it, moments later, that they're not married to someone else, that they've been properly divorced or widowed, that they're not too closely related by blood? In Massachusetts, we only check out one qualifying fact? The one fact that limits access for gay and lesbian couples? |
| Amy Hunt -- 04/26/2004 09:55 |
|
LAS VEGAS. This weekend, Governor Romney told the New York Times that he'll enforce the 1913 law designed to curb the spread of interracial marriage. Among other things, Mr. Romney said "Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage." I don't know. I'm not a big fan of martini-soaked midnight marriages to the bellhop. But if the heterosexuals can go somewhere and be that stupid and disrespectful with the government's approval, why can't I? Seriously, the Governor's very personal disdain is palpable on this one. People travel all the time to marry. One of my sisters eloped rather romantically to Vermont. The other married in the town where we grew up and then promptly moved lock, stock, and barrel to another state where her new husband had a job. Why is it that I don't have the same freedom? Why is it that, in Mr. Romney's mind, a gay couple whose marriage entails travel is more like a drunken Britney Spears rather than my sisters and their husbands? Your feelings are showing again, sir. DESPERATE MEASURES. First, the Governor files "emergency" legislation so he can personally try to block same-sex marriages until the vote to overturn Goodridge can occur -- maybe -- in late 2006. Then, C.J. Doyle and the Catholic Action League ask the Court for a stay, without articulating any problem other than the higher standards their anti-gay campaign would have to meet in 2006. (Anti-gay activists like to run campaigns based on theory, they know how to peddle gut-level fears, and resentment among people who live, work, and worship together. What will they say when Julie and Hillary have been married for two-and-a-half years and their neighbors are still avowed, practicing heterosexuals?) Last week, the harebrained "Article 8 Alliance" tried to pink slip the SJC judges if they don't start being more obedient state employees. And tomorrow, the Washington D.C.-based American Center for Law & Justice will have a press conference to assert that the SJC had no power to decide Goodridge because of an arcane provision in the Constitution that talks about the Governor's power over marriage. (The Governor was given this power until the legislature passed laws otherwise, which it did all the way back in 1785.) The Massachusetts Family Institute pitched this idea in the Goodridge briefing, and it was pitched again by many anti-gay organizations when the Senate asked for an Advisory Opinion on the civil unions trade down. With three more weeks to go, these folks should pace themselves a little. NEXT. According to the Times-Picayune, Louisiana is trying to ban low-slung pants. The bill would establish a fine of $500 or up to six months in jail, or both. The bill's sponsor state Rep. Derrick Shepherd says "the community's outraged." He knows this to be true because he, personally, is "sick of seeing" the tops of boxers and little g-string lines peeking out above the trendy, low-riding belt lines. I do wonder what the anti-gay marriage activists in Massachusetts will do on May 18th. I hope it's not this. Just bought new Diesels. |
| Amy Hunt -- 04/23/2004 01:38 |
|
OKLAHOMA. A state where more than 7 out of 10 heterosexual marriages end in divorce -- the worst failure rate in America -- gears up to keep the gays from wrecking the neighborhood. http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay 1913. Ron Crews, head of the Massachusetts Family Institute, says he didn't know that the old state law banning non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage wouldn't be allowed in their home state was enacted to support the doctrine of White Supremacy. I find that hard to believe, but okay. Interracial marriage bans -- which the 1913 law supported -- existed to allow a state "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood" and "the obliteration of racial pride" (Naim v. Naim 1955). Of course, Crews is quick to say it was a noxious law, a shameful time in America. But now, in 2004, dusted off for use exclusively against the homos, it's a fine looking bludgeon indeed: "States should have the prerogative to protect marriage within the boundaries of their state," he said. The anti-gay Right likes to argue that there are no comparisons between the fight to end racial discrimination in marriage and the fight to end discrimination based on sexual orientation. Please. By the way, the last time politicians had town clerks in a tailspin like this -- with very, very complicated front line jobs -- was when they were expected to decide if marriage license applicants had been honest in their declaration about their racial backgrounds. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac LAWRENCE. It's one heck of a good, demeaning line, which is why the anti-gay Right uses it, but the Lawrence v. Texas ruling did not "make sodomy a constitutional right." It affirmed a constitutional right for two consenting American adults to be bloody well left alone in their own bedrooms, which should not be a controversial idea in a country that likes to crow about freedom (and sometimes pays dearly to export it to repressive regimes and theocracies). What is it with the sex-obsession? For people who clearly don't like gay people they spend an extraordinary amount of time thinking about us in the sack. Personally, I spend more time in the kitchen, and in my little office, and taking the trash out back. It's probably not as much fun picturing me doing that, but give it a try: Me, folding laundry. Can't raise money for your paycheck with that, can you? Now go away and leave me alone. Which is really all the plaintiffs in Lawrence asked for, and they got it, and if that's not America I don't know what is. VIRGINIA. A whopper of a ban on civil unions or domestic partnerships from Virginia, which already has an anti-gay marriage ban in place. Virginia is the birthplace of "Massive Resistance" after the Brown v. Board of Education ruling; it closed schools rather than integrate. And it's the great state that arrested Richard and Mildred Loving for breaking its "racial hygiene" laws (by busting into their bedroom). http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/0421 GLAD. As the Governor and others try to make the issuance of a marriage license to a same-sex couple seem just slightly easier than handling an anthrax letter, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders has published a simple little information piece for those of us who have questions about blood screenings, waiting periods, and the like. http://www.glad.org/marriage/howtogetma |
| Amy Hunt -- 04/21/2004 13:01 |
|
TO THE BITTER END. Ron Crews went on vacation and started testing the waters for a Congressional run. Governor Romney held his press conference, then moved on. The Legislature is working, as it should, on the budget. But some anti-gay activists are still going at it. The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts has asked the Supreme Judicial Court to stay the issuance of marriage licenses for well over two years. Since no one really expects a stay to be granted, you do have to wonder what the point is. Posturing. Politicking. Publicity. Making people -- like, well, me -- who should otherwise be happily planning their lives a little nervous. (Thanks. That's what Jesus would do.) They dragged out all the expensive words: chaos, pandemonium, malfeasance. In the New York Times account, C.J. Doyle, Executive Director of the Catholic Action League, talked about the terrible burden that my May 17th marriage license would place on those heterosexuals who would rather I not have it. In their fight to pass a Constitutional amendment in 2006, Doyle complained that he and his followers "would be in the invidious position of rolling back gay rights." See, they prefer to take things from us in advance, in the abstract, when it's easier to do, easier to sell, easier to cobble together something that looks like a high road. Hey, it's important to feel good about yourself as you're whacking your neighbor. After May 17th, that gets infinitely harder. It should be. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/natio BITTER END II. Then, there are folks who are congenitally untroubled by what they see in the mirror. The Article 8 Alliance -- the "remove the SJC judges" group -- has paid for an automated phone call blitz inviting people to their rally tomorrow. I'm not sure who's doing their target selection for them, but they're calling a lot of homosexuals. According to my many, many sources, the automated operator says that the SJC has "acted against the will of God and the majority of the people in the Commonwealth," and its decision must be nullified one way or the other. In this morning's edition of MassNews (are you reading this every day yet?) Ed Pawlick put out a special rally invitation to all the kiddies on school vacation this week who have a unique opportunity to come and watch their parents have a public temper tantrum. "Show your anger and frustration," said the lone legislative sponsor Rep. Emile Goguen. "Don't keep it bottled up. Come and express it." I don't know. Seems to me they should just get a sitter. http://www.massnews.com GO OREGON. A halt to same-sex marriage licenses comes with respect for over 3,000 already granted. http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay GO LIDDY DOLE. Dr. Dobson's Family Research Council (the parent organization of the Massachusetts Family Institute) is steamed at Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), who has yet to sign on to the Federal Marriage Amendment. Apparently, she's yet another conservative who would prefer to see same-sex marriage get sorted out by the states. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU04D1 |
| Amy Hunt -- 04/20/2004 11:21 |
|
TRUMP-INATORS. Brian Camenker and Ed Pawlick and their little band of whackadoos are getting a bill of address filed to pressure Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and Justices Greaney, Ireland, and Cowin to change their ruling in the Goodridge case or lose their jobs. Nobody wants to touch this proposal or these particular anti-gay activists. The Governor won't even meet with them. But after months of knocking on doors, they did finally get a lawmaker to back them: Rep. Emile Goguen of Fitchburg, 70, who just last year lost his wife of 50 years. According to Pawlick on MassNews this morning, Goguen still can't talk about her without getting teary and, to get the bill filed, cancelled a trip to Florida to spend time with his kids. I'm sure Goguen is a big boy, he's lived longer than I have, but honestly, it's just sad. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl SPRING BREAK. You may have noticed that my postings were running weirdly late or early for the last week. I was in San Francisco for a little business, a little fun. I've been there several times before but this was the first time I thought of it the way the girlfriend does, she calls it "The Homeland." She insisted on an F-train ride to the Castro to see Twin Peaks, the first gay bar in America to have big picture windows, to look out at the world, to let the world look in. It opened in 1973. She wasn't born yet, I was just a kid. We visited the Museum of GLBT History on Mission Street to see an exhibit about Harvey Milk. In 1978, a year after becoming the first openly gay candidate elected to a major public office in America, Milk was assassinated by Dan White, a troubled anti-gay conservative. The exhibit contained memorabilia from Anita Bryant's anti-gay campaign to "save our children from the homosexual threat." I was struck by how little the anti-gays have evolved since then; when you scratch the surface of the focus-grouped rhetoric, it's all the same nasty fearmongering about gays as predators, strangers, cancers on polite society. In the display case alongside Bryant's brochures, there was also a tiny business card that we (or as the girlfriend calls them, "Our Ancestors") used to hand out on buses and trains. It informs the recipient that he or she just shared a ride and idle chit-chat with a gay person, and everything was okay. In that respect, what we need to do hasn't changed much either: We need to keep introducing ourselves, keep talking, keep letting the sun shine in through the big picture window. ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON. Chances are, anti-gay conservatives wouldn't have liked his "friendship recognized by the police" either. Stevenson fell in love with Fanny Osbourne, a married mother of three, ten years his senior. The pair began their romance in France where Fanny was studying art while her husband and his mistress carried on back in America. Eventually, Fanny divorced and married Stevenson. His family was distraught at the relationship. Biographers are divided in their views of Fanny, but Stevenson -- in chronically poor health --believed that she gave him life. In 1886, his "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was published. It's considered a brilliant criticism of Victorian-era hypocrisy. |
