Notes from the Front Lines of the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage
February 29, 2004:
The press conference organized by Marriage Equality New York to start at 1:30 this afternoon draws a large crowd. One of the first couples lining up at the City Hall security gate are Gena and Zosha Zaks, 30 and 34. They carry a homemade poster declaring: “Just Married in New Paltz! Thanks, Mayor West!” They agree to an interview:
Q: How long have you been together?
A: About two years.
Q: Would you tell us about your experience in New Paltz?
A: It was great. It was fantastic. We got there, and the ACLU attorneys briefed us – about New York law and how same-sex marriage is legal here. And then we were couple Number 6.
Q: Out of how many?
A: 21. It started out with just a dozen, but as the meeting went on with the ACLU attorneys, the number just kept increasing. But I think they had to cap it at about 21 because of time constraints.
Q: Did the Mayor perform the marriages himself?
A: Yes. There was a platform, and they made a little aisle for us. Each couple went down and then got on the platform. He would listen if you wanted anything special. Like we’re Jewish. So we did a little prayer. He did the vows and whatnot. And we said, “I do.” And then everyone was cheering, and we got off the platform and walked back down the aisle. And people threw birdseed at us! [They laugh.]
Q: How did you feel?
A: It was so great! It was perfect.
Q: Did it change the feeling about your relationship?
A: We had a wedding in September with our rabbi. And so we definitely felt that change already, do you know what I mean? But there’s an added dimension to the legal aspect of it. Because we need the same protections as everyone. We just want the same rights that everybody else has.
Just as an aside, we got the first court-approved change of name specifically for the purpose of domestic partnerships. So Gena changed her last name to mine in November.
Cathy and Sheila Marino-Thomas wait in front of City Hall with their daughter for the press conference to begin. Cathy, 43, speaks for the couple:
Q: Why are you here today?
A: We’re a family, and we need protection.
Q: How long have you been a family?
A: We’re a family almost eleven years.
Q: What do you hope to achieve today?
A: We’d just like the mayor to listen to us. My own saying is that I’m taxed like a straight person. I should have the rights of a straight person.
Q: What else would you say to Mayor Bloomberg if you had the opportunity?
A: I’m a life-long New Yorker. I was born and raised here. I love this city, and I’d like this city to love me and my child.
Q: How old is your daughter?
A: She’s four.
Q: What do you think the likelihood is that Mayor Bloomberg would listen to your message?
A: I have faith in the City of New York, and therefore I have faith in the officials we elect. And I think that he went into office knowing what this city stands for and what we’ve always represented here. And I think he’ll listen to us.
Tavares Jones, 30, also waits with his partner for the news conference to begin:
Q: Why are you here today?
A. To send a message to our misguided president that I’m a human being, I’m a citizen of this country. And I have a right to love whom I choose to love. This man [gesturing to his partner] I’ve been with for six years, and at some point we’re going to get married. And the president has no right to take away what is given to us by our creator. And I’m here just to make that statement.
Q: What about Mayor Bloomberg?
A: He’s not standing up for the citizens of New York. We’re here; we pay taxes; we make contributions in numerous ways to this society, to this city. And to have an official who isn’t going to uplift and uphold his people – we need to hold him accountable. So that’s why we’re here.
Q: If you and your partner decide to marry, how would that affect your relationship and your lives generally?
A: In my heart, already we are married. Marriage is something that you share with the world, something that you already have. I mean you already have to have that relationship within your heart and within yourselves, and marriage just affirms that to the rest of the world, to your friends and family and other loved ones.
Q: Would there be any legal ramifications from marriage that would be important to you?
A: Most definitely. I was watching the debate earlier today, where they said there were over 1,000 legal rights that are given to married couples in this country. And because gay couples are not allowed to participate in that, we’re discriminated against. And that’s something that can’t be condoned. We’re citizens; we’re human beings; we’re people; we deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Father David Murphy, 50, is interviewed just before the news conference begins:
Q: I notice your cleric's collar. Are you a priest?
A: I’m with the American Catholic Church in the United States, which is a break-away from the Roman church.
Q: What is your reason for being here today?
A: To support gay marriage as an issue of respect and equality for everybody.
Q: What would your message be to Mayor Bloomberg if you spoke to him directly?
A: To reach out to the disenfranchised people and those who feel disenfranchised and accept them for who they are, instead of trying to put a wedge between people.
Q: How do you think Mayor Bloomberg is likely respond to the message you’d give him?
A: I think he’s going to be lukewarm to cold. I don’t think he’s ready to take on that kind of an issue at this point. He’s too image oriented, and I don’t think that part of his image is what he’s looking at.
Q: What more do you think the community can do to persuade him of the wisdom of hearing the message?
A: I believe gathering like this. I believe that people like the Mayor of New Paltz just starting it. The Mayor of Chicago encouraging it. San Francisco throwing down the gauntlet. And then of course May 17th in Massachusetts, when people will legally be married. And there will be no challenge to it.
Q: How long have you been in the clergy?
A: I was just ordained last July.
Q: What is your church’s approach with regard to same-sex marriage?
A: We accept it.
Q: Have you performed same-sex marriages yourself?
A: I have.
Q: Here in New York State?
A: Yes.
Q: As a person of the church, you probably realize there’s a difference between a civil ceremony and a religious one.
A: Absolutely.
Q: What is the difference in your mind between the two?
A: We consider it a sacrament in a religious perspective, and work for people to come to understand that difference from the civil. Because we’re a sacramental church.
About 150 people were gathered on the steps of City Hall by 1:30. The New York City Gay Men’s Chorus began the press conference with “Marry Us” from the 1996 San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus CD “NakedMan” (Phillip Littell, librettist; Robert Seeley, composer). The song rousingly concludes with the words “Marry Us Today!”
Connie Ress, Executive Director of Marriage Equality New York, was mistress of ceremonies and gave opening remarks that included: “When we look to the mayors of San Francisco and the Village of New Paltz, we applaud their courage to say ‘No!’ to discrimination as they marry committed couples who no longer want to spend another day as legal strangers.”
City Council Speaker Gifford Miller followed and called on Mayor Bloomberg to permit same-sex couples to marry in New York: "There comes a point in history at which people either have to stand up or decide that they will not. This is such a moment. We should be issuing marriage licenses to every New Yorker equally and freely and fairly.
“In this city of tolerance, diversity and unity, it is past time that Mayor Bloomberg give the civil right of marriage to same-sex couples and immediately instruct the city clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples."
Speaker Miller accused President Bush of trying to use the Constitution to discriminate against gay people by calling for an amendment that would ban gay marriage. Miller concluded by charging that Bloomberg should "stand up for what's right, fair and just."
The security precautions at entry gates to the space in front of City Hall prevented prompt access to the press conference for demonstrators lining up outside the protective perimeter. Chants of “Let Us In! Let Us In!” from these frustrated would-be rally participants wafted over the assemblage on the steps and were rich with double-entendre.
New York State Assemblyman Richard Gottfried noted that the New York Domestic Relations Law is silent about the gender of married couples, just as it is silent about their race or religion. Yet African-Americans, Asians, and Caucasians intermarry freely in the state, just as Christians, Jews, and Muslims do. The same should be the case with same-sex couples, he said.
New York State Senator Tom Duane was the most visibly angry speaker: “Will Mayor Bloomberg stand with the Dred Scott case or with Brown vs. the Board of Education? Get on the train, Mayor Bloomberg! The time to make history is now. Are you going to stand with the party of Abraham Lincoln or the party of George W. Bush? We are going to allow same-sex couples to get married in our city. Mayor Bloomberg, that’s the challenge!”
Brendan and Tom Fay of Lavender and Green, an Irish gay organization, held up their Canadian marriage license and extolled that “extraordinary moment in Canada.” They said no more American couples should have to travel to another country to get married and announced their plan to file a joint state tax return this year.
Jerry Goodman of PFLAG New York talked about his gay son and lesbian daughter: “Children shouldn’t have less equality than their parents. Mr. Mayor, let our children marry.”
By the end of the press conference, easily 300 demonstrators finally made it through security, although many more lingered on the sidewalks outside.
This morning, at the CBS News Center on West 57th Street in Manhattan, the Democratic presidential candidates held their last political debate before Super Tuesday. The sidewalk in front of the building was cordoned off with police barricades. Six long rectangular spaces near the street were filled with demonstrators. One of the groups was particularly boisterous. Their posters said it all:
“Let My People Marry”
“It’s About Equality, Stupid”
“Don’t Write Me Out of the Constitution”
“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Marriage”
“Civil Unions ≠ Marriage”
“Give My Gay Son the Same Rights I Have”
“Cheney, Don’t Amend Your Daughter’s Rights”
“I’m Already Registered at Tiffany’s”
For the visually or politically impaired, the chants cinched the message:
“Hey, Hey! Ho, Ho!
This Bigotry Has Got to Go!”
“Kerry! Edwards! Join the Fight!
Marriage is a Civil Right!”
“What Do We Want? Marriage Equality!
When Do We Want It? Now!”
The 250 or so lesbian and gay protesters overwhelmed the scene. About an equal number of Kerry supporters occupied the adjoining space. Yet they were motionless and silent – thus virtually imperceptible. The same was true of the roughly 50 Kucinich and 30 Sharpton boosters. Only a group of about 10 “Billionaires for Bush” (clad in black and carrying posters like “Leave No Millionaire Behind!”) even attempted to compete for recognition. But that morning on West 57th belonged to the queer-marriage express.
February 28, 2004:
An estimated 1.05 million lesbian and gay votes went for Bush-Cheney nationwide in 2000, with approximately 59,000 homosexual voters casting ballots for the Republican ticket in Florida alone – which state (and thereby the election) Bush won by fewer than 600 votes. Reading the numerous letters from Log Cabin Republicans responding to Bush's endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment that have been posted on Andrew Sullivan's blog, I firmly believe these Republican supporters will abandon Bush in droves this year, as well as many moderates (particularly women) who are socially liberal.
Moreover, as a political scientist, I can report that the empirical research done on the effect(s) of "wedge issues" in presidential elections indicates that those impacts are not as substantial as laypeople might think. In particular, Professor Kenneth Sherrill of CUNY's Hunter College (the "dean" of American gay political scientists) investigated gay rights as a wedge issue in the 1992 election. He demonstrated, pretty convincingly I think, that on net, George H. W. Bush lost votes as a result of the anti-gay and anti-abortion positions that characterized the Republican campaign that year.
I have no doubt the same-sex marriage debate is a difficult one for lesbians and gay men in certain regions (e.g., the South). But that isn't necessarily the circumstance nationwide.
February 27, 2004:
Tonight, at least 400 people crowded into the largest meeting room at New York’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center for the organizational meeting planning the community’s responses to Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s inaction on same-sex marriage.
Aside from the enormous energy and anger in the room, one of the most notable features of the gathering was how law abiding and middle class it was. In fact, some of the first speakers on the agenda were attorneys (one from the National Lawyers Guild) advising participants on the intricacies of New York law regulating political demonstrations and on the practical aspects of dealing with the police. (Anticipating future arrests, one lawyer insisted that the audience recite the words aloud, “I choose to remain silent and ask to see my lawyer.” She also emphasized the importance of the distinction between saying “I do not consent to a search” and “I do not want to be searched” to law enforcement officials.) There were few, if any, of the kinds of street people present last night who spearheaded the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion.
The universal sentiment at the meeting was that George W. Bush’s endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment on Tuesday was a declaration of war on the lesbian and gay community. Not only will Mayor Bloomberg, the five county clerks in the City, and the Democratic presidential candidates be the targets of demonstrations in the next week, but my hunch about the upcoming New York summer is: Can you spell Chicago 1968?
Moreover, the activism is not limited to the City. Inspired by events in New Paltz, the Long Island lesbian and gay community will soon have same-sex couples visiting the offices of every town clerk in suburban Nassau and Suffolk counties to apply for marriage licenses.
To quote that gay icon Bette Davis: “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!”
February 25, 2004:
Guest Commentary by Rachel R. Remmel:
"Government, by recognizing and protecting
marriage, serves the interests of all."
--George W. Bush, February 24, 2004
One day after George W. Bush clearly eliminated me and my family from the word "all," I find myself more hurt and upset than I ever would have predicted. I knew that Bush would endorse a constitutional amendment to please the religious conservatives whose votes he needs in the fall. Although I understood intellectually the political calculus behind this announcement, I did not anticipate what it would feel like to watch the President of the United States interrupt national broadcasting to declare that the Constitution of this country needs to be amended to exclude me. The Constitution is the essence of America; it guarantees freedom, justice, and equality for all. The President has decided that I am less than a full citizen of this country. His very argument that the Constitution needs to be amended to prohibit equal treatment of me is an admission that the Constitution demands that I be treated equally. The Constitution has only been amended to limit freedom once: Prohibition. The President proposes to single out certain Americans and ensure that they are treated as second-class citizens in the most sacred text of this land. The only other time the Constitution contained such repellant discrimination against a group of Americans was when it was written and counted blacks as three-fifths of a person. Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage, it is wrong to write discrimination back into the United States Constitution.
I am particularly frustrated with the endless invocation of "activist judges." Perhaps I need a refresher in our system of government, but I believe the judicial system is an equal branch of government. While it would be nice to win our victories through the legislative process, sometimes only the courts can protect the rights of minorities. And only winning popular opinion over can guarantee that favorable judicial rulings are not legislated out of existence. This is why I also agree that it is important to understand the arguments of one's opponents. However, I did not find any arguments that could not be refuted with facts in Bush's speech. Here is a point-by-point rebuttal.
Flawed Argument #1: This is the popular will.
President Bush:
"Eight years ago, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14. Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense-of- marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage."
First, the Defense of Marriage Act is very different from the Federal Marriage Amendment. DOMA ensures that the federal government will not recognize gay marriage and that no state must recognize a gay marriage from another state. The FMA, however, prevents any state or the federal government from allowing gay marriage or the legal incidents thereof. With this wording, the Constitution would not only remove the rights of states to decide this issue for themselves, but would strip away current or future protections under civil unions or any other more limited measure that gives gays any of the legal protections enjoyed by married couples. For example, Vermont's civil unions law would be voided by the FMA, and so would even New Jersey's law giving gay people the right of hospital visitation. It is therefore a fallacy for the President to invoke the passage of DOMA laws by the federal government and many states as support for the FMA, which is a much more sweeping measure.
Second, even if the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, simple popularity (might) does not make right. Over 90 percent of Americans opposed interracial marriage when it was struck down in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia, and there is broad consensus today that prohibiting interracial marriage is both unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Constitution is there to protect the rights of minorities from being oppressed by the will of the majority. President Bush is proposing to use the Constitution in exactly the opposite manner: to strip one minority of equal rights through the will of the majority.
Flawed Arguments #2: States cannot be trusted; courts should not be involved.
President Bush:
"In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty. After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America."
Our system of government is based upon checks and balances. The courts are a branch of government equal to the legislative and executive branches. Their actions are exactly as valid as any other branch of government. The courts are there expressly to act when the executive and legislative branches fail to act in accordance with the law. The courts are doing exactly what they have always done and what they are supposed to do: interpret the laws and constitutions of their jurisdiction, be it state or federal. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that excluding gays from marriage and the rights it entails is discriminatory. The Court did not create a new right; it simply stated that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was unable to present any compelling evidence of a state interest in excluding gays from the existing right of marriage. The court system will similarly decide whether the actions of local officials in California and New Mexico violated the laws or constitutions of those states. The FMA is not necessary to address local events; states have perfectly adequate systems of addressing these local events. Court decisions are only arbitrary and activist when one disagrees with them.
Flawed Argument #3: States and cities should not be allowed to define marriage for themselves.
President Bush:
"Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country. The Constitution says that ‘full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state.’ Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city. For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment."
First, as I stated above, the FMA is not the same as DOMA. President Bush is not advocating, as he could, amending the constitution to allow each state to decide whether or not to allow gay marriage or to accept the gay marriages of other states. He is advocating banning all states and the federal government from allowing gay marriage or any of the rights of marriage being given to gays. I call your attention to his final two sentences: "Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city. For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment." The President does not believe that states should be allowed to decide for themselves; he believes that the United States Constitution at the federal level should prohibit gay marriage and any of the rights of marriage for gays everywhere. If one believes that the states should have the right to make their own policy in this area, as has traditionally been the case, then this is a vast new intrusion of the federal government into the rights of states.
Flawed Arguments #4: Prohibiting gay marriage promotes the welfare of children. All religions and cultures have always been rooted in marriage between one man and one woman. Freedom does not extend to gay marriage. Prohibiting gay marriage serves the interests of all.
President Bush:
"An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency."
Our nation is founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. Religious arguments have no place in the debate about gay marriage. Neither the Bible nor any other religious text has any relevance to political questions. Even those who cite the Bible against gays do not agree with every word and law in the Bible, including those that prescribe the death penalty for adulterers, those who work on the Sabbath, children who disrespect their parents, masturbators, and gluttonous children. The Bible is not the Constitution, or we would execute children for backtalk or overeating.
The argument that marriage has always been the same in every time, in every culture, and in every religion has been soundly disproved by historians, by anthropologists, and by current events. Even were that so, nearly every culture includes racism. Does that make racism something we should enshrine in the Constitution or hold up as a cornerstone of society?
Prohibiting gay marriage does not serve the interests of all. It does not serve the interests of gays who want to protect their families with the 1,049 federal rights given to legally married couples. It does not protect the over one million children being raised by gay parents in this country. On the contrary, it leaves these families without the basic protections everyone else takes for granted. If government's interest in marriage is to encourage procreation, then marriage should not be available to those who cannot or do not intend to have children. However, as long as the elderly, the infertile, and those who do not wish to parent can marry, then marriage is not about procreation. In addition, although the studies are small and preliminary, children raised by gay couples have been shown to be just as healthy and happy as children raised by straight couples.
The President supports "leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." However, the FMA expressly forbids the courts, one of the three equal branches of government, from protecting the right of gays to equality. The FMA expressly forbids any level of government from bestowing any of the rights of marriage on gays. The only legal arrangements the President favors are those that can be gained through expensive legal documents designed for other purposes. My partner and I had to spend several thousand dollars obtaining powers of attorney, wills, and health care powers of attorney. These documents are not only expensive, but they do not address any of the rights we are denied because we cannot marry. There are 1,049 federal rights, let alone state rights, that go along with marriage. Is it fair that the children of gays do not receive Social Security death benefits if the non-biological parent dies, despite paying the same taxes as anyone else? Is it fair that even those gays who work for companies that grant partnership benefits have to pay taxes on those benefits as if they were income, while married spouses do not? Is it fair that even gays with wills have to go through probate and pay taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner, while members of married couples automatically inherit a spouse's property? These are only some of the ways that marriage laws penalize gay couples.
February 22, 2004:
Someone says to me: “I support civil unions, but why on earth is the gay and lesbian community handing the Republican Party a wedge issue in a presidential election year? Perhaps you should have undertaken this effort several years ago. Your cause is just but your timing is atrocious.”
The same could be said of African-Americans in the 1960s. The 1964 Civil Rights Act pushed Southern whites into the waiting arms of the Republican Party – and its ensuing lock on the Electoral College.
Yet when exactly is the time good for a despised minority to assert its rights?
“Why now?” he replies. “Given that the gay and lesbian community has waited this long, why not wait one more year and raise this issue after we've gotten rid of Bush?
“I just don't buy the argument that, if not now, the time will never come. Part of the problem I have with your position is that it fails to recognize that this is indeed a historically unique crisis point in the history of our country. This man is not only the worst president in history, he is mind-bogglingly dangerous. There simply is no greater imperative for the liberal/progressive/left community than defeating him in November. But now one of our allies is handing him an issue that could easily hand him the election.
“Why are you so complacent about the possibility of a presidential election that once again turns on a single important but emotionally charged issue that the Republicans can easily distort? Why are you so fixed on your own parochial concerns that you are willing to risk four more years of economic injustice, environmental depredation, destruction of scientific integrity, and war?
“How is the death of hundreds of young people for the sake of an imperialist fantasy sold with lies less important than gay marriage? I think it is less important, and I don't think it minimizes the injustices being done to gay people to say so.
“If nothing else, you should have sufficient political acumen to realize that you're more likely to succeed in establishing gay marriage with a Democrat in the White House,” he concludes.
Political science research has established that the single most important domestic issue driving voters in presidential elections is the health of the domestic economy. Indeed, some well informed observers believe that in an electorate as closely divided as ours, the economy is the only decisive factor (e.g., George H. W. Bush in 1992).
The 2004 presidential election will not be won or lost over gay marriage. The most adamant
opponents of the issue (the Christian right) would never vote against George W. The only voters
potentially affected would be the extreme moderates (an oxymoron?). However, if the war and
other issues you mention are as cutting as you appear to believe, the votes of moderates will not
be decided by gay marriage alone.
As a scholar, I've conclusively documented the impact of presidential party on federal judicial
behavior. So I know at first hand how important it is to replace George W. with a Democrat.
Indeed, I think John Edwards has the best chance of achieving that result.
Yet it's arrogant and politically naive to think that gay marriage alone is going to make the difference.
February 20, 2004:
With the examples of Massachusetts and San Francisco (and now possibly Chicago), why isn't there massive civil disobedience by lesbians and gay men in America? Why aren't we picketing or sitting in at the office of Mayor Bloomberg? Where are the Wedding Activists to Unleash Power?
Why are LGBT "activists" (whether in drag, tuxs, or wedding gowns) in New York City and elsewhere passively waiting for straight office holders to dole out trinkets of political largesse? What happened to the American spirit of demanding civil rights (à la sit-ins at Woolworth lunch counters)?
Michael J. Bosia replied:
The reasons activism has waned are numerous and complex, and it is also a global phenomenon. Act Up Paris, for example, was a vital and meaningful organization, getting more than 300 people to crowd a meeting room as recently as 2000. Today, it is torn by dissension and is in financial crisis. A few (random) thoughts on how to explain the dearth of activism:
1. Privatization of the movement. Activism needs the involvement of activists in setting an agenda and the mobilization of large groups. Marriage and military service, however, have been pushed by individuals, couples, and advocacy/legal groups without involving larger communities in developing political strategies. Donors have more of a role than activists, and donors rarely march in the streets.
2. Getting a seat at the table. This was supposed to cure all the ills of society. With Clinton in 1992, and the election of queer public officials, the movement changed from one of outsiders to one dominated by insiders. The community at large, however, sees that getting inside did nothing to stop Clinton from signing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 or to discourage California's liberal Senator Barbara Boxer from announcing opposition to same-gender marriage yesterday. Andrew Sullivan, a leading advocate of queer marriage, two days ago was still supporting Bush the Younger. The fact that Cheney has a lesbian daughter in a committed relationship does little to change the Republican agenda.
3. The relevance of marriage and military service at the top of our agenda. For younger queers, who have always provided the troops and enthusiasm for activism, marriage and military service might not be pressing issues. Without a partner or a desire to serve, these issues fail to ignite a following. Those who desire marriage are typically older, more stable, and often unwilling to take the risks associated with civil disobedience. And being enthusiastic about the result does not mean these enthusiasts would take the risks of activism and civil disobedience.
4. The failure to build meaningful coalitions. Gay and lesbian advocacy has transformed the word "equality" from a call for social justice to a demand for individual civil rights. A movement needs to build bridges to remain vital and relevant. In San Francisco, people of color have noted that the marriage lines at City Hall do not reflect the diversity of the City, nor has marriage for many of them come to dominate over questions of discrimination on the basis of race, economic injustice, and poverty.
5. The relevance of "our" movement. With Americans and Iraqis dying in an unjust and unjustified war, what do queer "activists" and lesbian or gay "advocates" have to say? Very little. Young people marched in the street opposing the war last year, but did queer organizations? Young people have demonstrated against globalization and economic injustice, but where were "our" representatives?
6. Death is a great motivator. What will happen if I cannot get married within six months? Well, compare that to other activist questions. From the 1980s, "What will happen if the government doesn't expand AIDS treatment and care within six months?" Or today (and during the Vietnam war), "What will happen if our troops are not brought home within six months?" More pressing issues encourage greater risks.
7. Silence. While some work to normalize homosexuality through marriage and military service, they remain silent not only on broader injustice in our society, but also on the needs of "our own." Where's the fight to improve AIDS prevention programs for young gay men, for queers of color? Where's the fight for universal health care so coverage will no longer depend on family relationships? What happened to the efforts to make American cities culturally dynamic and affordable for young residents, many of whom come to New York, San Francisco, Boston, or Chicago as refugees from homophobia? Instead, the more successful queers gentrify inexpensive housing, driving out the artists, young people, people of color, and others who have always been our strongest activists.
8. Finally, the crazy fundamentalist rhetoric has softened. We know fundamentalists believe the same things, but today's young queers have never heard the inflammatory words of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Pat Buchanan.
In short, activists moved inside, settled down, and began to push an agenda dominated by the concerns of the more successful, more stable, more risk-adverse donors who guide what can be taken for activism today. Queer activism has become commercial, guided by the search for dollars, and not by the bodies of actual activists.
February 13, 2004:
Guest Reporting by Dena Luna Zaldua. Development Associate, National Center for Lesbian Rights:
Today, the marriages of lesbian and gay couples continued (our Executive Director has pointed out that referring to “gay marriage” implies that it’s somehow different than “marriage,” which, of course, it’s not). Our office compiled a fact sheet on the legal implications and of frequently asked questions for same-sex couples getting married in San Francisco, and we needed to distribute it. So a whole bunch of us from my office went down to City Hall to pass it out. It was totally amazing.
The line was practically out the door, and the energy was tangible, infectious, full of hope, and full of joy. I really did feel like I was witnessing a moment in history. We passed our legal fact sheet out to as many people as we could, and congratulated them. They were all just so happy and so excited, and kind of awestruck, kind of in shock. A few times when we congratulated them, they seemed kind of taken by surprise, and then remembered that they were actually getting married, and gave us a very heartfelt thank you. There were so many couples with their children, from newborn babies to teenagers. There were couples getting married by city officiants on the steps of City Hall, reciting the vows where they became “spouses for life.” Lots and lots of TV cameras. Lots of flowers, lots of smiles, lots of happy people. There were groups of schoolchildren all over the place whose teachers had taken them on a field trip to City Hall to witness this historic day. Near the front of the long, long line, every time a couple would emerge from the County Clerk's office with a license, a loud cheer and applause would rise from the waiting line.
We met one couple who was getting married because one of them was joining the Peace Corps and wanted to take her partner with her – the Peace Corps only allows legally wedded spouses to join their spouses abroad. We met people who wanted to know what kinds of ramifications their marriage would have on their adoptions of their kids, and people who were binational couples, who had hopes that getting married would get them further on the way toward being able to live together in the same country. (And the strong suggestion our office had for these binational couples was that they should actually not marry, as it could jeopardize their status and put them in danger of being deported. One couple actually left the line after they telephoned our office.)
As I write this, our attorneys just called in from court, where they had been in a hearing to try to stay the injunction filed by the "California Family Alliance" and other right-wingers. The judge decided that the injunction will have to wait ’til Tuesday, when it will be heard. That means these marriages are going to continue (City Hall is opening specially tomorrow for Valentine's Day, and presumably, for these marriages) and that at least until Tuesday, these marriages are legal and valid. Who knows what will happen on Tuesday, but this is a small but important victory for now.
February 5, 2004:
I mailed this letter today:
Hon. Margaret H. Marshall, Chief Justice
Hon. John M. Greaney, Justice
Hon. Roderick L. Ireland, Justice
Hon. Judith A. Cowin, Justice
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
One Beacon Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Honorable Justices:
In 1971, as a Williams College senior, I “came out” as a gay man on the front page of a student newspaper and founded the school’s first lesbian-and-gay student organization.
Since then, I’ve received more than 125 issues of the quarterly Williams Alumni Review. Each edition carried a “Wedding Album” section with photographs of alums, their spouses, and wedding guests. Often the pictures are posed on the steps of Thompson Hall, the College’s chapel.
For more than 30 years, in the most intimate and personal way, the Review’s photos have reminded me how separate I am from the school’s other alumni. Shortly, however, my partner of ten years and I will have the right to travel to Williamstown and submit to the Review our marriage picture in front of Thompson Hall.
Bless you.
Most gratefully,
Daniel R. Pinello
Copies to:
Hon. Francis X. Spina, Justice
Hon. Martha B. Sosman, Justice
Hon. Robert J. Cordy, Justice