On Civil Rights & Marriage Equality. One last chance to fight back.

The California loss and J. Arrowood's loss put us back several years.  Take the time to mourn.  The fight returns to us soon.

California also had a proposition 2 to improve the quality of life for farm animals by requiring that they be housed in facilities with enough space to lie down, etc. While I am very happy that the citizens of California chose to pass prop 2, it's sad that they will support animal rights while restricting basic human rights and, even worse, to do that through their constitution.

I'm sorry they let you down Jake (and others).

Just because voters approved Proposition 8 doesn't make it right.

I could say a lot about how the religious right manipulated this issue, but instead I will just ask: Should women have "accepted it" when male voters continually denied them the right to vote? Should African-Americans have "accepted it" when Jim Crow laws were passed after Reconstruction? Should Latino immigrants "accept it" when towns, counties and states pass hateful anti-immigrant ordinances?

It is the responsibility of both the judicial branch of government, and people of conscience, to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". That is what the original CA Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage sought to do. It is my fervent hope that the courts will once again illuminate what is just, and not what is "popular" with some voters. 

Also, Prop 8 was passed by a narrow margin--52% to 48%. So it was the will of MANY voters that gay marriage remain legal in CA.

 I will NEVER accept discrimination. I don't care what "the voters" say. 

Elizabeth Waugh-Stewart

Ironically, I can't attend the protest because I will be attending a wedding of two gay men tomorrow afternoon. I'm sure the entire wedding party will be with you in spirit, Jake.

A Resolution in Support of Civil Marriage for Same-Sex Couples

WHEREAS, The Election Day victories by anti-gay activists in California, Florida, Arizona and Arkansas were a painful reminder that the gay rights movement still faces many challenges; and

WHEREAS, discriminatory marriage laws in the United States deprive same-sex couples of over 1000 federal rights and benefits automatically bestowed by civil marriage including, among others, health care coverage, tax benefits, divorce, domestic violence protections, privileges under immigration and naturalization law, inheritance rights, survivor benefits and child custody; and

WHEREAS, the denial of such benefits has been demonstrated to have significant psychological and social impact on the physical, social, and economic well-being of gay and lesbian couples and their families; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes marriage as one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival” and “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men”; and

WHEREAS, heterosexual relationships have a legal framework for their existence through civil marriage, which provides a stabilizing force. In the United States, with the exception of Massachusetts, same-sex couples are currently denied the important legal benefits, rights and responsibilities of civil marriage. Same-sex couples therefore experience several kinds of state-sanctioned discrimination that can adversely affect the stability of their relationships and their mental health; and

WHEREAS, the love that brings and binds two people of the same, or opposite sex, together transcends gender; and

WHEREAS, as Americans, we must remember a foundational principle of our form of government: all are created equal. Consistent with the pursuit of liberty and justice for all, same-sex couples should have full and equal access to the rights and responsibilities bestowed by civil marriage; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that The Board of Aldermen of the Town of Carrboro, North Carolina, endorse and support the rights of same-sex couples to share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitments of civil marriage.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that civil marriage for same-sex couples must include all the benefits commonly bestowed upon opposite-sex couples, including, among other rights, healthcare coverage and related decision-making, privileges under immigration and naturalization law, survivor benefits, inheritance rights, and child custody.

This the 13th day of November 2008

[Formatting fixed. -Ed.]

Hooray for the Carrboro Board of Aldermen!  Once again we land and stick in the right place.  The resolution addresses the full spectrum of this particular civil rights issue -- way beyond "nice and cool" to the real deal.  Whoever crafted it (Mark?) deserves a big vote of praise.  Now if only ... this is where Jake's efforts deserve applause as well. 

NC went blue for the first time in decades, sending a man named Barack Obama to the white house.  This is phenomenal! Imagine the implications for the gay population, climbing the equal rights ladder rung by rung.  Maybe all the way to the top in NC eventually.  

I think the practice of some European countries,  where "marriage" is a religious ceremony without legal standing;  and all legal unions are "civil" in nature, is by far the best.   I think the government should only be in the "civil union" business for all couples,  straight and gay.   Leave "marriage" to the specific spiritual practice of your choice.   I just do not understand how anyone  justifies denying a gay couple the same rights and privileges that I can enjoy under the law.    My marriage is only strengthened  by having another committed couple making a pledge to love and nurture one another.   Thank you to the Carrboro Aldermen.  That is an EXCELLENT reolution.      

Priscilla, thanks for posting the Olberman / Prop 8 link.  I realize we have not been moved sufficiently to tears by last week's election.  Love, Catherine

Jake,  you made a comment that a "civil union does not guarantee all the rights of marriage."    Is that so?  I'm trying to understand all the ins and outs of this issue.   What is the difference between the two?   

Good question, Anita. This is an issue that seems to confuse a lot of folks in the queer community as well as everyone else. The fact is, given the existence of DOMA (the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996 by Pres. Clinton), it doesn't LEGALLY matter what an individual state calls same-sex partnerships. Whether "civil union" or "same-sex marriage", no state can confer the over 1,000 rights & privileges to same-sex couples that are explicitly denied to them by DOMA (including rights to veterans' benefits, social security benefits, medical decision-making, inheritance rights, just to name a few). Until DOMA is abolished--something I hope all those who care about equality will pressure President-Elect Obama and Congress to do ASAP--all individual states can do is give a limited package of rights to same-sex couples.That said, there is a vast difference both socially and psychologically between "civil union" and "marriage". I view civil unions as separate and unequal, and have no interest in pursuing second-class citizenship. For my partner and me, the only true equality is MARRIAGE equality. Plus, as Jake said above, marriage is a common term already understood by Americans of all backgrounds. Civil union just adds confusion to the discussion of what is a basic civil rights issue, IMHO. Hope this provides some clarity. Elizabeth Waugh-Stewart

Yes, it's highly unusual for a Supreme Court to take on any case as swiftly as this.  Either the protests had some effect, or the California Supremes have spotted a serious glitch in the Prop 8 constitutional design.  The latter is more likely for them to have pounced so quickly.  It's a case at this level, not "merely" an issue.  Whoever brought this case before them must have done a very forceful job.  Things are looking up!