Writing As I See The World

Brad and Gary's Wedding Pictures

It has been two months since Brad and I were married (on November 1, 2008), but we now have photos and I thought I would share them with you.  It was a tremendous day that we were blessed to be able to share with a few close friends.  The attached album includes several pictures from the ceremony.  Photos include our officiant and dear friend, Norm Self, one of our witnesses, Kim Grubbs (the other was Tho Vong), and the Master of Ceremonies, Stoli (who stayed right in between us throughout the ceremony).  The location is our dining room.  Thank you to our friend Rich Walker for taking the photographs!  You can find the photograph album in the sidebar to the left (scroll down a bit).

Proposition 8 has, so far, had no impact on the validity of our marriage.  It is, however, before the Supreme Court of California.  It is not clear when a decision will be rendered.

Right! It's About Traditional Marriage!

Having survived a barrage of advertising from the 'Yes on 8' campaign quite preoccupied with setting forth the idea of saving the sanctity of traditional marriage, it seems like a good moment to reflect on what 'traditional marriage' means.  The answer is:  It depends a whole lot on where you sit and which tradition one chooses to reference.

It is particularly amusing that the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) have been so heavily involved in this campaign.  The question to the Mormons might be what 'traditional' marriage looks like.  Would that be one woman, two, three, or more for each man?  Depends a lot on which Mormons you might be talking to.  That's a whole lot of Big Love to pull off. 

Historically (and thus perhaps most traditionally) in most of Western history, marriage is about bringing the business/resources of two families together.  The wife had many fewer rights than the husband, and was expected to be subservient to him.  Marriage was substantially an economic arrangement in which there was little room for love, and even affection was not considered particularly essential.  Maybe that is the traditional marriage evangelical Christians seem determined to assert into all of our private lives.

In ancient Sparta, sexual relationships between men were encouraged.  At the same time, Sparta insisted that men married and produced children.  This seems to lend support for a traditional marriage which includes having sex on the down-low.

Early in Roman history, men had considerable power over their wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, and even kill as he saw fit.  A rather drastic interpretation of traditional marriage.  In later Imperial times, husband and wife approached marriage as equals, yet there was a concomitant decline in birth rates.  Hmmmmm.  In addition, there was a form of marriage in the Roman era that involved no ceremony but was established by the couple living together for one year.  The Romans also tolerated prostitution and concubinage, and had no qualms about male-male relationships.

In ancient Israel, women were considered the property of their fathers or husbands and could do nothing without their consent.  Single men and women were despised, but a man could have several wives or concubines.  Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines, which frankly makes my head swirl.  Divorce was permitted if a man found some "uncleanness" in his wife, and consisted of writing her a bill of divorce and sending her out of his house (Deuteronomy 24:1).  Later, there was the levirate, or the obligation of a man to marry his brother's widow.

In early Germanic law, marriage was essentially a business deal between the between the groom and the bride's father.  The symbol of a successful 'bride sale' was the ring, which was given to the bride.  The payment of the the 'bride price' was made on delivery (i.e., the wedding).  Women were largely treated as domestic slaves.  Keeping women as concubines was acceptable.

In early Christian Europe evolved the idea of marriage as coming from the free consent of two partners.   It thus became possible for couples to get married secretly if they could not gain anyone else's approval.  It also became possible for very young children to get married, if their parents could coax the necessary consent out of them.  This was particularly popular in cases in which a politically advantageous match was found for their young sons or daughters. 

In the 17th century, English Puritans passed an act of parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular.  It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace.  The law was abolished by the Reformation, but the Puritans brought it with them to America.

Martin Luther condoned polygyny in 'exceptional' cases.  For example, he permitted Philip of Hesse to take two wives.  Of particular note is that Protestant churches do not view marriage as a sacrament, as do the Catholic and Orthodox churches (post 12th century).  This break was part of Protestant effort of purification of the church from practices/rituals thought to be departures from the Bible.

In America, the Oneida Colony (an offshoot of Quakerism), established in upstate New York in 1848, cultivated a form of group marriage called "complex marriage" in which theoretically every woman was married to every man.  Exclusive attachments between people were considered selfish and idolatrous, a particularly intriguing take on traditional marriage.   The community also practiced "scientific breeding" in which potential parents were matched by committee for physical and mental health. 

Marriage in the US was still largely an economic arrangement well into the 19th (and 20th) century.  Husbands controlled the wife's property, and had many other rights denied his wife.  He was also favored (and to some extent still is) by a moral double standard that offered the male considerable sexual license.

This is just an idea of how marriage has evolved, and continues to evolve, in Western society.  In addition, there are a vast array of 'traditional' notions of marriage around the world.  When one speaks of traditional marriage, it is unclear what one means, particularly in a multicultural society.  Even Christian notions of marriage have changed considerably in just the past century.  The concept of marriage as the union of two people who love one another is actually quite recent.  Marriage continues to evolve, as does our relationship to it, as our society and concepts of family also evolve.  The archetype of a family consisting of the union of a man and woman as a prerequisite for raising children is not fully reflective of our culture.  Among the many permutations of families, there are single women raising children, single men raising children, male and female same-sex couples raising children, couples of all persuasions without children, and people choosing their families rather than having families wholly defined for them by birth. 

The possibility for how one chooses to define the union of two persons in the context of our culture should be as available to them as are the possibilities for defining relationships and families.  It is not about tradition, but an institution struggling to keep up with cultural context.

Sitting with Conflicting Emotion

I watched with joy as Barack Obama gave his acceptance speech.  I admired the grace with which John McCain conceded the election.  I sat stunned as the results came in for Proposition 8, hoping that maybe the numbers would change.

They didn't.  Proposition 8, which took away the existing right of same-sex couples to marry in California, won with 52 percent of the vote.  The buoyancy of Obama's victory left the celebration and I am sitting today with deeply conflicting emotion.

I celebrate the outcome of the Presidential race, it's repudiation of eight years of the George W. Bush Presidency, the sense that my country finally seemed to come to its senses, and the apparent victory Barack Obama's election means for race relations.  It is, truly, an historic moment.  It is a moment filled with hope for the future, with the hope of fundamental change in the direction of my country. 

And yet I am having a very difficult time feeling celebratory.  It is really hard to watch the news, read the reports, and fully share in the enthusiasm.  The vote on Proposition 8 feels deeply personal, and I am aware of how much attachment I have to a more favorable outcome.  However, am I to feel bad about who I am for the rest of my life?  It is constitutionally legal to discriminate?  I looked behind the numbers to try to make some sense of the voting, knowing that I was trying to make sense of something inexplicable, for which there are no easy answers.  It only added to my conflicted feeling.  

What stood out to me was the African-American voting pattern.  Clearly, for this community of people the Presidential election holds particular significance.  It was an historic opportunity to vote for a President of African-American heritage, something that few dared dream of in their lifetimes, and as a whole rightly celebrated making history in the process.  That said, it is wholly contradictory that this same community voted overwhelmingly to take away the right of same-sex couples to express their love for one another and have that love recognized by their community.  Sixty-nine percent of African-American voters cast ballots in favor of Proposition 8.  I do not mean to imply either that African-Americans are solely to blame, or that many people representing the Mormon church, Christian fundamentalist churches, and the Catholic church did not have conflicting intentions.  In many cases the latter are directly responsible for a very un-Christian, mean-spirited campaign that communicated to me that my love is such a threat to the fabric of society it is necessary to keep me contained at any cost (in this case, making it the most expensive campaign in the country after the Presidency).  Surely there are better ways to spend $70+ million on social issues.  The stridency, outright lies, and threats behind the campaign also communicated to me that the issue had little to do with 'saving marriage' (from...?) and at its core was an expression of bigotry.

The conflict within the African-American community stands out to me as this particular group as a whole is most directly acquainted with prejudice, and thus feels the most disappointing.  The thinking side of me, trying once again to explain the inexplicable, reminds myself that homophobia is very much alive and well in the African-American community.  I am reminded of how difficult and painful it often is for gay African-Americans to express their sexuality due to the depth of homophobia around them.  I am reminded of how often homophobia is expressed from the pulpit in African-American churches.

I am also reminded that nearly a third of African-American voters voted against Proposition 8 and that 'African-American' speaks mostly to skin color and not a homogeneous block of people.  And, I am reminded that homophobia is hardly unique to this single group of people, as shown by  'Yes on 8' campaign and the vote tally.

Perhaps the overall African-American vote for Proposition 8 ought not to be surprising in context of broader culture.  However, it doesn't feel that way.  No amount of trying to think my way into creating some sense to the outcome is changing that feeling for me.

Despite the historic election of Barack Obama as President, we clearly still have a long way to go in overcoming prejudice.  To be clear again, that prejudice goes well beyond the African-American community.  At this moment I am sitting with conflicting emotion and am acutely aware that the fight is far from over.  Despite my emotional state, I know there is space in my heart for the sense that the totality of the election outcome is one more step forward in creating a world in which we celebrate love over conflict, in which our similarities are more important than our differences. 

That space is where I want to be.  Please take a deep breath with me.

Our Wedding

Brad and I are getting married on Saturday, November 1 at 2:00 at our home.  We have asked a small group of friends to participate in our ceremony, which will be officiated by Norm Self, a friend and retired minister.  Brad was particularly drawn to the idea of our being married on All Saints Day.

We have been engaged in dialog with Norm about what our wedding ceremony will look like, passing ideas back and forth, and as I am currently in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Brad sent out an e-mailed draft last night.  It has been incredibly helpful to go through this process to come up with something that is relatively simple, but meaningful to us.  At this moment in our lives, after 17 years together, it is an opportunity to remind ourselves why we are here together.  Celebrating this moment before a small group representing our broader community seems right for us - a reminder that our relationship extends well beyond the two of us, and how we are blessed to have people around us on our journey together who offer us such incredible support. 

Marriage Benefits in the USA

Brad and I, as citizens of California, already have all the rights of marriage under state law as registered domestic partners.  Our impending marriage is about our relationship, not about benefits.  I have been surprised in talking with a number of people about how much they are unaware of the inequities in how same sex relationships are treated when compared to male-female married couples. 

It sometimes comes as a surprise to think about the institution of marriage having been co-opted by government as a secular proxy for the distribution of benefits in society.  As a result, marriage has become a shared secular/religious entity.  Thousands of laws impacting everything from hospital visitation, income taxes, survivorship rights, estate taxes, Social Security, the ability to receive  untaxed health benefits, parental rights, adoption, foster care, tax-deductible alimony payments, rights to receive spousal pensions, to reassessment of property upon death of a partner (formerly an enormous burden in California).

The largest challenge we face is that although we have marriage-like rights in California as domestic partners, we live, in effect, on an island.  There are only a handful of states that recognize our relationship, and most importantly the federal government does not recognize our relationship.  In one of the states we visit most often, my home state of Michigan, voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2004 to prohibit not only same-sex marriage, but any recognition of relationships that are not between a man and a woman.  This has enormous impact on people's lives in the state, and has potentially nasty consequences for us should anything happen to one of us while in the state. 

As a self-employed person, I receive my health insurance coverage through Brad.  In Michigan, this is not only impossible, it is illegal.  Under the unusually narrow interpretation of law regarding same-sex relationships in Michigan (probably the narrowest in the country), if one of us needed to be hospitalized, we would need to rely on the kindness of health care providers to even see one another, and it would be unlikely that we would be allowed to make any health care decisions for one another that male-female married couples assume is their right. 

For Brad and I, the federal government adds to our legal complexity as it does not recognize our relationship.  There is a litany of laws that require one to be married, and there are laws that specifically target same-sex relationships with additional burdens.

A short list of these include:

1. Spousal Employment-based Benefits: I receive my benefits through Brad.  As the Federal government does not recognize our relationship, my benefits are treated as imputed income and taxed.  Married spouses receive these benefits, notably health care, tax-free.
2. Income Taxes:  We currently must create 3 federal income tax returns each year.  Two are for submission to the federal government as 'single' taxpayers, and the third 'joint' return forms the basis of our required joint California tax return.  There is also a litany of consequences for same-sex couples including those with children and the inability to claim partners (versus spouses) as dependents.
3. Immigration:  Opposite sex citizens of another country are allowed in this country through fiance Visas and immigrant Visas.  There is no protection for same-sex couples from deportation of a foreign-born spouse.  This has become particularly problematic post 9/11.
4. Divorce:  As the federal government does not recognize same-sex relationships, it also doesn't recognize same-sex divorce. Hence, while alimony payments are tax-deductible for mixed-gender couples, they are not treated as such for same-sex couples.
5. Social Security: Married couples can receive survivor benefits.  Same sex couples cannot, despite paying into the identical system.
6. Estate Taxes: Spouses are granted survivorship rights, including assumption of property without taxation.  Same sex couples do not have these rights.
7. Adoption and Foster Care: Same sex couples are subjected to a bizarre patchwork of state laws regarding adoption and foster care.  In most states except Arkansas and Florida, adoption by single gay persons is legal.  In many states, laws regarding joint adoption by same-sex couples are unclear, and joint adoption is specifically prohibited in Michigan and Utah.  This makes it very difficult for same sex couples to ensure parental continuity in cases of the death of one partner.
   
8. Government and Military Benefits: Same sex couples are not recognized as married for purposes of any federal government employment-based benefits.  This includes not only health care, disability and retirement benefits, but also transitional and relocation assistance for spouses.
9. Gift Taxes: Gifts from one married spouse to another are deductible.  Gifts to a third party are assumed to come equally from each spouse.  This does not apply to same-sex couples.
10. Transfers of Property:  Transfers of property between married couples may occur without recognition of gain or loss.  This also does not apply to same sex couples.

This is a brief list of issues.  Marriage is used as a secular proxy by government for thousands of rights and benefits.  These laws impact not only the couples, but their children, with rights and benefits also denied the children of same-sex couples.

There are also continuing policies regardless of marital status that are not only discriminatory, but counterproductive.  High on the list is the ongoing prohibition against blood donation by any man who has had sex with another man from 1977 onward.  This is despite every drop of blood donated in the United States being tested for exposure to HIV.  It makes no sense on any number of levels. 

Also, it was only in July of this year that the US finally lifted it's ban on anyone entering the country with HIV.  This led to bizarre circumstances in which people were turned around at the border because they had HIV medicines in their possession.  It was ineffective, and a law the United States shared with only a handful of countries with stellar human-rights policies around the world, including Russia, Iraq, Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Sudan, Armenia, Brunei and South Korea.  China reversed it's ban in advance of the 2008 Olympics.

The denial of rights and benefits for couples based upon their inability to be married is discriminatory.  The issue of same sex marriage is framed by opponents through the lens of 'traditional values.'  What is often missed is that marriage is a secular proxy used by our society as a means of recognizing relationships and benefits offered to citizens of this country.  There is no societal benefit in denying these rights based upon the gender of spouses.

We're Getting Married!

Brad and I are getting married.  We decided at Brad's birthday dinner last week that as there is a possibility that voters in California are prepared to take away our right to get married on November 4, we needed to act sooner than we had thought.  Proposition 8 on the ballot would remove the right of same-sex couples in California to get married by writing it into the state constitution.

Proposition 8 had looked like it was going to lose until conservative Christian supporters started a really nasty television campaign earlier this month.  Those blatantly inflammatory, untrue ads have energized voters in favor of the proposition, according to recent polls, giving it a slim margin.  Among the fear-mongering statements in the ads is the proposition that churches would lose their tax-exempt status if they did not allow same-sex marriage.

First, there is no requirement for churches to perform same-sex marriages (and why would anyone WANT to get married in a hostile environment??).  More to the point, the active engagement of conservative Christian churches in politics in the past two decades has not managed to 'cross the line' of our constitutional separation of church and state.  These churches continue to solicit funds, direct their congregations on voting, and actively lobby politicians without any loss of their tax-exempt status.  If the political activity of these churches doesn't engage action against their tax-exempt status, same-sex marriage hardly will.

In the midst of this unfortunate and ugly media onslaught, funded by $30 million dollars (40 percent raised within the Mormon church), it would be too logical to look at the experience in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been in effect for over 4 years.  There has been no endangerment of church tax-exempt status, the status of heterosexual marriage, or anything else despite 10,000 same-sex couples exchanging vows in the state.  What it has done is offered 20,000 people community recognition of their relationships. 

During the past four years, Massachusetts has recorded 48 same-sex divorces.  The overall divorce rate in the United States for first marriages has been reported as high as 50 percent.  For second marriages it goes up to 60 percent, and for third marriages, 73 percent.  Same sex marriage is far from the biggest threat to the 'sanctity' of marriage.  That threat is much closer to home.  The ballot proposition has the effect of trying to affix the blame of the failings of the institution elsewhere.  Is it possible that the institution of marriage could be made stronger by opening it up to people in committed relationships regardless of their gender? 

So here we are.  We are having dinner this evening with a friend who is a minister to talk about what our marriage will look like and when it will happen (Oct. 31 or Nov. 1).  We want to make it memorable and special, a point of reference in our 17+ year journey together.  It is an opportunity for us to take a breath, look into one another's eyes and remind ourselves why we are here together.  It gives us an opportunity to celebrate our relationship relatively quietly with a small group of friends.  It is, more than anything else, deeply personal.

I am grateful that we have the opportunity to get married.  It would be sweet if it didn't feel necessary to rush into it due to the election on November 4.  The defeat of proposition 8 would be even sweeter.

Marriage Proposals and... Now What?

When the California Supreme Court ruled in May that same-sex marriage is compatible with the state constitution, striking down a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, I was ecstatic!  That evening I asked Brad to marry me, and he unhesitatingly said, yes!   We just celebrated our 17th anniversary together last week, so the topic is fresh in our minds.

The freedom to marry has, however, lead to a bit of a quandary.  What does marriage look like to us?  Does the placement of a ballot initiative to create a constitutional amendment in California defining marriage as between a man and a woman impact our choices? 

First, the ballot initiative.  The initiative is currently scheduled to be on the November ballot, although there is legal maneuvering to get it removed from the ballot.  Our first reaction to the ballot initiative was... 'do we really want to head down the road of creating a ritual declaring our love for one another before our community, to then have it yanked away again?'  It was upsetting to get married in 2004, realizing just how powerful it is to declare our love for one another before community, to then have the Supreme Court declare that it was illegal and thus never happened.  Those were not happy days, especially since our 'annulment' occurred while I was at a retreat at Wildwood and Brad was at home.  We couldn't hug and remind one another that what happened was still very real in our hearts.

It has become clearer in the intervening two months since the Supreme Court decision that the ballot initiative, if it is on the ballot and if it passes, would be effective only for marriages occurring after the election.  There would likely be dispute about that, but legally that appears fairly certain.  It is also fascinating to see how public opinion about same sex marriage has changed since the anti same-sex marriage law was approved by voters in 2000.  It appears that for the first time a majority of Californians would support same sex marriage.  The ludicrousness of ballot-box civil rights legislation notwithstanding, it is heartening.  I'm tired of being a ping-pong ball in a debate in which I am treated like an object rather than a person, my bond with Brad treated alternately as important and disposable.

The larger question out there for us now is what a marriage ritual looks like for us.  Does it look like a simple civil ceremony at City Hall?  Do we invite friends and family to some slightly more involved ceremony in which we truly are declaring our love before our community, or do we expand it to something much larger and traditional?  Or, do we simply ignore the whole thing, happily remain domestic partners in the eyes of the law in California, a status that has the rights and privileges of marriage within the state?  That has been the focus of our more recent dialog.

It is a strange place to be after 17 years of sharing our lives.

The odd part is that I completely agree that marriage is a religious institution.  It is, however, a religious institution that has become secularized by our government, an example of the permeability of our constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state.  An enormous array of secular laws are based upon the institution of marriage, and, in the process, marriage has become the cultural standard by which We (our culture) gauge commitment to one another.  Whether one is affiliated with or actively engaged in a particular religious faith makes little difference.  Marriage is the standard.  Domestic partnership is a sort of marriage 'lite' not taken seriously by most of the population.

Imagine what it would be like if the standard were a civil union to create a cultural and legal bonding of two people.  If a couple chose to then have their union recognized by the religion of their choice, they could get married within that religious institution.  How.... civil.  We would need to go back to the 'old country' for that kind of common sense.

But here we are in California, part of the federation of states making up the union (often feeling like a dysfunctional family these days) of the USA, and that is not our current reality.

As such, our intention is to get married, before November, just to be sure.  It is on some level a political gesture, true, but we are also clear that it is a whole lot more than that.  It is a wonderful opportunity to take a moment to express our love for one another in the company of people who love us and who are our family/tribe, and to have our commitment to one another recognized by the broader community.  It is a powerful moment in the course of our lives together - a gift we give to one another and to our community.

Someday, maybe even the federal government will choose to recognize how our love gives back to the common good of society.  Right now, we celebrate what we have, with the belief that love ultimately prevails.

Marriage and Gratitude

Last Thursday the California Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is compatible with the state constitution and thus legal.  Just that morning I was reading the paper and reminding myself that it is a conservative court dominated by Republican appointees and that the decision could go either way.  The decision brought me to tears.  I felt a wall disappear.

Brad and I were married on February 13, 2004, during the window of time that the Mayor opened the possibility of same-sex marriage in San Francisco.  The mood at City Hall was celebratory as we stood in line for hours with hundreds of others to get married.  In our haste to get there, expecting that there would be an injunction against our marriage at any moment, we realized we didn't have a camera.  I went home for a camera, and on the way back selected a bouquet of Gerber daisies, Brad's favorite. 

After hours of waiting and filling out forms, we were escorted to the balcony under the huge dome of the building.  From there we could see marriage ceremonies being performed all around the rotunda.  Moments into our ceremony, as we looked into one another's teary eyes, we both realized we were profoundly moved by the experience. 

Our love for one another was being publicly recognized in the most meaningful way possible in our culture.  The experience is incredibly powerful, particularly in a culture where I cannot avoid expressions of hate for my simply being who I am.

The Supreme Court annulled our marriage in August 2004.

The news last Thursday morning brought the wave of emotion, on a balcony at City Hall, back to me as I cried.

I sent out an e-mail announcing that the California Supreme Court rocked my world!  Among the first people to respond was my Aunt Joy, offering congratulations.  This led to a dialog with her about marriage, marriage rights, health insurance and access, social security, survivorship rights, and most importantly the public act of recognition of relationships being valid... issues that so many people who are married take for granted as part of their lives. 

In the process of feeling myself jump on my soap box, I stopped.  I wrote to her that our exchange helped me to realize how grateful I am to be able to be in a position to even have this conversation.  I am not occupied with worries about where my next meal comes from, whether I will have shelter tonight, or whether going to the market might be the last thing I do in this world. 

My heart is full of gratitude for the Supreme Court decision.  Their act reminded me that love is the core element of life.  Without love, we lose our way, our 'connectedness.'  With love, anything is possible.