At the moment it's actually 99 degrees here in Texas, which feels like one big toaster oven. Don't feel like writing much today, so you guys can go read these stories if you want to:
--A surprising yawn. Even major homophobes like John Cornyn (R-TX) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) didn't bat an eye while voting for J. Paul Oetken's lifetime appointment to the Manhattan bench. Go figure.
--This last article gives a good recap of pre-DOMA attempts to win marriage recognition, and profiles two early leaders in the marriage fight: Evan Wolfson and Andrew Sullivan.
Unknown couple in a tintype - from the 1850's, I'd guess by their costumes.
Documenting the American South is a splendid online collection of original texts and images about the the South from colonial times to the twentieth century. Historical-minded folks like your Head Trucker can easily spend hours or days just browsing through the many and varied sources that, unlike Hollywood, give a true picture of my beautiful, tragic native land.
Yet the picture is not always a pretty one. Here is an excerpt from a speech given by the learned - and often wry and witty - Walter McKenzie Clark, a Confederate veteran and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, to the Federation of Women's Clubs in New Bern, 1913. In light of the then-raging controversy over giving women the right to vote, the Chief Justice surveys the history of laws subjugating women to men over the course of the centuries from the ancient Hebrews down to his own time, showing that marriage was always a changing, evolving institution - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Along the way he has much to say about the conditions of marriage in his own state - all of which gives the lie to the idea that rightwing ranters are so fond of repeating, that "marriage has always and everywhere been the same."
Naturally, the anti-equality voices in his day prophesied the ruin of the nation and the destruction of the family if women were allowed to vote - just as they had previously cried when women were given property rights, and before that when women were given access to higher education. You see, fellas? It's always the same old shit: the world will come to a screeching halt, utterly collapse, if anybody is allowed to do anything even a hair different from the way Grandpa did it. Because what Grandpa did was the Will of God! Q. E. D.
The legal status of women under the common law may be briefly stated. It was simply that of a slave. A married woman under the common law owned no property, except after the death of her husband. She could make no contracts, not even for necessaries and not even with the consent of her husband. She could not will or devise her property. Upon her marriage the husband and the wife became one--and that one was the husband. He was master, the wife was a nonentity. The moment she married, he became entitled to all her personal property. He was entitled to the rents and profits of her real estate, which he could sell for his lifetime, or it could be sold for his debts. If she died, the husband still possessed the right to the rents and profits of all her realty for the rest of his life, while at his death she received only a child's part of his personalty and a life right, called a dower, in only one-third of his realty, and for a long time under North Carolina law she could be deprived of even this, for, if he chose, he could sell his realty without her consent and deprive her of dower. She could not appoint a guardian for her children even when she outlived her husband.
As to her personal rights, the married woman came under the absolute control of her husband, who could chastise her if he saw fit, provided the chastisement inflicted no permanent injury. The reason given for this by Judge Pearson as late as 1868 was that it was the husband's duty to "make the wife behave herself," and if he beat her without good cause it was held that the courts would not punish him, because it was too small a matter to take notice of, unless she was permanently injured. The reason seems to be worse than the decision. The husband had the right to imprison his wife, and if in her terror she was driven to take his life, she was guilty of petty treason, as was a slave who took the life of his master, and the penalty as to both was to be burned alive at the stake. This last law was not repealed in North Carolina till 1793, and even after the Revolution, in Iredell County [1787] a widow was thus "drawn and burned at the stake" for the murder of her husband. There were doubtless other cases if the records have not been destroyed by the lapse of time. This was the law in England for many centuries. . . .
If, conditions becoming intolerable, a wife left her husband, at common law he had the unquestioned right to bring her back by force, like any other runaway slave. About twenty years ago, in the famous "Clitheroe case," this was done, but the highest court in England, without any change by statute, reformed the common law and set the woman free. Old-fashioned lawyers were shocked, and asserted that this was the end of marriage; but the prophesied evil has not materialized. . . .
In this State, down to 1899, in at least two sections of our Code "married women, infants, idiots, lunatics, and convicts" were placed in the same category. Practically they have been more or less deemed in that category, in all respects, by decisions of the courts til these have been overruled by the Constitution or by legislative enactment.
A single woman was held fully capable of contracting and controlling her property. On marriage she instantly lost that capacity. The fact of marriage proved her in the eye of the law fit to be classed with idiots and lunatics. In view of the legal status of married women at that time, it may be that there was some force in the idea. . . .
N. B. - Using the very same metaphor, both Queen Victoria and Virginia Woolf - and two more dissimilar personalities can hardly be imagined - testify in their writings to the truth of what the learned jurist says - namely, that "women are but slaves to men."
Now you young'uns must not take that metaphor as a literal description in black and white: the laws were what they were, but nevertheless, your great-great grandparents and those who came before them danced, flirted, courted, fell in love, married, made babies, and lived happily together most of the time. Women were not beaten all day, every day, no more than slaves were; in fact most women were never beaten, women being regarded as the "weaker sex," and placed on a pedestal of respect - the "angel in the house," as the saying was. Decent people would have severely frowned on wifebeating as an unmanly act. Most of the time, people just got on with living and made the best of things, as we do today, even while hoping for more freedom and equality.
Then as now, it was just as true in most homes: "If mama's not happy, nobody's happy," as Chief Justice Clark humorously shows in his anecdotes about Lord Coke and his lady.
The horror, however, was not that these terrible things happened all the time to everybody, 24/7 - but that they could happen at any time to a wife, or a slave, depending on the whim of their husbands or masters, or on circumstances that caused a change in their condition. Likewise, most gay people today have never been the victims of a gay-bashing; though of course we are all aware that it could happen, anywhere, anytime. And the history books record many instances in which injustices or terrible things did happen; so the need for change was not imaginary, as Chief Justice Clark so eloquently shows.
Your Head Trucker believes it's important to have a clear, realistic view of how life was really lived - neither too rosy nor too grim - if we want to truly understand the past, and thereby, understand our own time.
Oh, and about Victoria and Virginia - despite what they wrote, they both had happy marriages with devoted, loving husbands who supported their work. But still, they felt the chafing inequality of the social system in which they lived.
Unknown male couple in a daguerrotype from the 1850's.
Texas marriage license and certificate, 1879; the couple was married by a justice of the peace, not a clergyman - which made it a legal marriage just as good as any celebrated in church.
I've blogged about this a time or two before, but since a couple of you fellas have touched on this point in some recent comments, seems a good time to put the legal definitions out there so everyone can make use of them as need be.
One big huge ginormous problem with the whole marriage debate is that our oh-so-holy religious kin, friends, and neighbors have got the idea so strong in their heads that marriage was invented by the Christian Church, and is thus The Will of God and eternally unchangeable - and moreover has always and everywhere been exactly the same thing it is right now, except of course for those nasty, perverted, pagan places like Spain, Canada, and Massachusetts.
Wrong. Dead wrong. Even your Bible shows you, knucklehead, that people were marrying long before Jesus ever walked the earth. "Well, the Hebrews started it then, when God gave them the Ten Commandments." Wrong - don't you ever go to Sunday School, you heathern? Jesus himself said, "in the days that were before the Flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark" (Matthew 24:38). Before the Flood. You ain't a-gonna argue with the Lord, are ya bubba? Though there is some folks I've knowed who was just so bullheaded, they would argue with Jesus Christ hisself.
So then, going just strictly by the Bible, you see there was plenty of marrying going on away long before the time of Christ, long before the Ten Commandments, long before Moses or even Abraham. Long before there was any notion whatsoever of a Christian Church, and long before there was any idee of a Hebrew religion, even. You can check out Genesis for more references to marriage and husbands and wives, including ol' Noah hisself, who natcherly took his wife along in the boat with him - not to mention his sons and their wives. You do remember that story, don'cha bud?
There was also marriage going on in every other place on the face of the earth too, whether God liked it or not - you remember who tempted Joseph, don't you? That's right - the wife of Potiphar, an Egyptian woman. So marriage wasn't something the Hebrews dreamed up all on their own.
"Oh well it doesn't matter, because marriage has always been the same, and I want to keep it just like it was in the Bible." Izzat right, friend? Well now, how 'bout you consider the fact that Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, David, Solomon, and a lot more of them old boys had several wives, and concubines too - and nobody thought a thing in the world about it, including God himself, who actually encouraged that kind of thing with some of them.
"Oh but Jesus changed all that." Well now if you're a-gonna start quoting Jesus, how about this saying from his own mouth: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark 10). But say, bubba, that didn't stop you from trading in your old lady for that purty little blonde you got a-stirring your grits now, did it? And you ain't felt a minute's guilt about any o'that, have you bud? Still setting up there in the pews, front and center ever Sunday morning, pleased as punch with yourself, ain't ya?
So enough with "thuh Bye-bul says" routine; it's plain as day from your own scripture that marriage - of all kinds and stripes and shapes - was going on long before there was ever a Christian to be seen on the face of the earth, and also that you straight boys have done just exactly as you please with the rules of it, in every century and in every clime. So just sit down and shut up about it now. You might learn something.
I'm not going to try to keep up with the professional bloggers and news outfits who will be covering the Perry case day by day; you can catch all that coverage from the links under "Russ Recommends" in the right-hand column if you like - and I just added a new blog there, the daily Prop 8 Trial Tracker from the folks at the Courage Campaign out in California.
But I do feel a need here to remind my readers and Truckbuddies of just what is at stake here, and offer some observations on marriage from my own experience and reflection, for whatever it may be worth to anyone.
Of course, I am strictly an amateur writer on this subject; readers who care to know the actual facts of what they are talking about - as opposed to the mentally lazy slackers to be found in great numbers all over the blogosphere, on the left as well as on the right - as well as in the mainstream media, I might add - thoughtful readers would do well to consult the works of reputable, professional historians and jurists. For example, Harvard historian Nancy F. Cott has been testifying at the Perry trial the last couple of days, and you can see excerpts - not the entire work, alas - of her book, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation, here in Google Books. It's well worth reading; and you gotta love a historian who quotes Mae West in her introduction.
I've also blogged on this subject, and in particular on the history of marriage, with links to other sources here and here. And in light of the present court case, it's worth reposting Dan Savage's remarks on what the institution of marriage means:
Now to follow up what Dan said, here are your Head Trucker's thoughts:
1. Marriage is not about declaring and celebrating your love in a public ceremony. That's a wedding. Lots and lots of people have the two concepts totally mixed up. If the two are not clearly distinct in your mind already, please stop and ruminate on them until you figure it out.
2. If this applies to you, please get over that juvenile, narcissistic, hippie attitude that "oh, we don't need a piece of paper to prove we love each other." Guess what, chum - nobody but you and your partner fucking cares whether you love each other or not. Your friends and family know, but are usually too polite to say, that the person you are mooning over so dreamily today might well be the total bitch/bastard you are cussing tomorrow. Happens all the time; and you know it does, because you've watched the same goddamn thing happen to all of them, isn't that right?
3. Marriage is not about love and romance, not at all: it's about money and property, houses and cars, pensions and taxes, and all the other concrete, real-world stuff that so many misty-eyed romantic types just can't be bothered thinking about - until it's all snatched away from them, and then they rage and scream and cry and whine about how terribly unfair the world is.
4. Marriage was invented - go look it up, I'm not in a mood for research at the moment, but you can trust me on this - to protect the couple's rights to their property and wealth, and the rights of their children, if any, to that property; and in some cases, the rights of other family members. Love has nothing to do with it, bud.
5. Civil marriage is the name we give to a legal contract - just as much a contract as the one you sign when you buy a new truck or a house or take out a credit card - a legal contract that specifies both the rights and the responsibilities/obligations of the individuals who marry. This is a matter of law, not romance, and not religion.
I can just hear some Abercrombie princess saying right now: "Oooh, law - how boring, and anyway I'm not into materialism . . . ." Well you better grow up and get over that attitude, Mary. Try to think with your big head here. Suppose you've been shacking up with that hot number you finally convinced to move in with you a few years ago. Who has been steadily getting less and less hot, and grayer, and bitchier, and with a noticeable beer belly now. Well, it beats trawling the bars, so you hang in there with him. Then one day you get an email or a text message that reads: "I can't deal with your shit anymore, adios asshole." And come to find out, Mr. Used-to-be-so-hot has cleaned out the fifteen thousand bucks in your joint checking account, as well as run up a similar amount on your joint credit cards, taking his new stud to relocate in Hawaii. And sold "your" car - which was in his name because he found a great deal and you weren't around to sign the papers at the time.
He couldn't get away with all that if you two were married; if you ain't married, and you don't have fifteen thousand more dollars stashed away somewhere to pay for a damn good attorney, you can kiss all those material goods - which you did say you didn't care about, right? - fucking goodbye.
Or let's take a different example. Just like me and my Cody, his family is so welcoming, so kind, so nice - "Oh, we love you," they say . . . "you're part of our family." The two of you are always included in family gatherings, always front and center at every birthday party, Thanksgiving, Christmas, weddings, anniversaries, and Sunday dinner every week. All well and good - you think.
But then one day, your partner ups and dies, boom, just like that. Now who are you and where do you fit in? Honey, you are nothing and nobody to his family, and you belong nowhere. The house was in his name - well, better get your shit packed in a hurry, because his parents own it now. You have no right to be there; they can call the sheriff at any time to set you on the street with just a few days' notice, you're merely a tenant there. His car? They sold that yesterday while you were at work. His bank accounts, that you were a signer on? They cleaned those out the first morning after he died.
And what about the china and the silverware, the crystal figurines, the window treatments, the Monet print, the hand-painted lamps, the TV and DVD player, the gas barbecue grill, the riding lawn mower, the brand-new microwave, the king-size bed, his computer, his books, his clothes - and even the little dog? Get your queer hands off all that, honey, none of it belongs to you. Not a teacup, not a pencil, not a shirt button - nothing you can't prove you bought with your own money.
Are you getting this picture? Don't give me that "I don't care about material things" crap. You will care very damn much when you wake up one morning and find yourself, for all practical purposes, a homeless man - and an utter stranger in the eyes of the law. If you aren't married, then when your partner dies you have no more rights than the dog.
6. In addition to money, real estate, and personal property rights, the federal government confers 1,138 specific rights and benefits on married couples that you have no access to whatsoever if you aren't married. And each state confers several hundred more.
I won't try to list all of them here, but consider just two: for example, if your partner were killed by someone else's negligence, say in a car wreck or plane crash - if you were married, you could sue for damages for the loss of your spouse. But if you two were just shacking up? Tough.
Also, suppose somebody were to sue the two of you sometime, or even just one of you. If you're married, you cannot be compelled to testify in court against your husband. Oh, you aren't married? Then raise your right hand and repeat after me . . . .
Plus of course such things as being able to draw social security or veteran's benefits when your spouse dies; which can make the difference between a comfortable old age or miserable poverty.
7. Another big point of confusion that I've blogged about before: the Christian church did not invent marriage. Did not, did not, did not. Even a cursory glance at your Bible shows that people were getting married long, long before the birth of Christ; and in fact, as you should remember from Sunday school, many of those Old Testament marriages were, in fact, polygamous.
And the Old Testament is the record of just one rather tiny nation. Marriages of one kind or another, often polygamous, and sometimes incestuous even, were occurring all over the rest of the world too. The Greeks and the Romans were pretty much monogamous, and were getting married many long centuries before there was a Bible as we know it, or a Christian church of any kind.
So don't pay a bit of attention to all the ignorant dipshit rightwingers who mouth about "oh marriage has always and everywhere been the same." It just fucking has not, and the proof is right there in those Bibles they love to wave about.
As Dan says in the clip above, straight people have continually been changing and adjusting and reinventing marriage all down through the centuries and millennia to suit their own agendas and purposes and desires; and now in our civilization, marriage is an egalitarian institution from which there can be no rational reason to exclude gay people.
Because not only does marriage protect your individual rights, as well as bestow certain obligations - it also does two other very important things for each individual.
One - it means you are a fully grown up, fully competent and fully free adult. Children are not allowed to marry because they lack the maturity to fully understand, and thus give legal consent, to such a contract. And in the past, slaves could not marry because they also were considered legally incapable of giving free consent, for the obvious reason that they were not free, but the actual property of another. And the laws may have changed in some places nowadays, but I do know that historically, mentally incompetent people - the insane and what used to be called retarded - were also not allowed to marry, for the same reason.
Two - it makes you legally related to your husband's family, and thus part of the network of relationships that make up society. And before you start spouting all that hippie crap about "well I don't care what society thinks," just remember: until you guys say "I do" and sign that piece of paper, you are only just "the boyfriend" in everybody else's eyes. No fucking matter what they may say - you aren't really, truly "part of the family" until you man up enough to make a permanent, public, legal commitment to being one of them. Which is terribly important not only for the material reasons I mentioned above, but also for the social and emotional reinforcement of your and your husband's bond: the public as well as familial acceptance as being a true part of the group, the clan, the tribe, the country. It ties you into the rest of society in a way that mere shacking up or just getting your rocks off with a hot trick never can. It links you in, makes you part of the long, complex molecule, if you will, of humanity, rather than just a free atom bouncing around all by yourself.
If you don't think that's terribly important, just stop and think one damn minute: even though you might appear to act the same on the outside, isn't the real truth of the matter that you have an entirely different attitude on the inside towards your sister's boyfriend - as opposed to your sister's husband? Well, then just turn it around, bud, and consider how all the rest of the family thinks about your boyfriend, who is not your actual husband.
And one more reason - not everybody needs to be married, that's a fact. Some are simply too immature, some are simply too narcissistic, some are too irresponsible (though of course none of this has ever stopped anybody from trying). But for most people, it's the mature, fully grown-up thing to do - to take the awful leap of faith with another person, to man up and actually commit yourself, for better or for worse, to another person. If you both chose wisely, and if you both do the work it takes, you will be better men, and bigger human beings, than if you stay stuck in the sexual fantasies of adolescence. As too many gay men do. Which of course, until just the last few years, there was no incentive to do anything else, was there?
8. I haven't even mentioned here the whole idea of parenting, which is another reason for marriage. Your Head Trucker, once upon a time when he was much younger, wanted to be a father very much - something I've rarely mentioned even to my closest friends. But when I came out, I realized I would have to let that dream wither, bury it underfoot. Loving another man and having children - it just did not seem at all possible thirty years ago, boys. So, as much as it hurt me to let that idea die, I did. I don't know about you guys from other parts, but for us Southerners, that idea, that desire, for the renewing of the blood is a deep, strong current inside.
A loss I will carry with me to my grave. My son - my daughter - who were never born - I never saw their faces - never held them in my arms. You understand?
Now, of course, it is indeed possible. Too late for me. But possible now for millions of gay couples in time to come; a very happy thought. And your Head Trucker is old-fashioned enough to believe that if you are going to have kids, you damn well ought to be man enough to marry their other parent. Enough said.
Well I guess I've said all I needed to say today, at least, on this subject. It's just very important to be clear-minded on what this court case, and the whole movement for equal marriage is really about. It's not about tuxedos and cake and a fabulous honeymoon - hell, you really don't need a piece of paper for all that, guys - you can throw a fucking party any damn day of the week you please, if that's all you think marriage means.
But that's such a little-boy, grade-school idea. Marriage is about so much more, and is so much deeper than all that. It's worth fighting for - as long as it takes, no matter how many defeats we suffer along the way. We can't give up on this fight, boys, not hardly.
You aren't equal - you aren't free - you aren't grown up - until you have the right to marry, just like everybody else. Case closed.
Tomorrow you can expect to hear all kinds of hooting and hollering regarding the California Supreme Court's hearing on whether Proposition 8 is valid - or not. Lots of high-powered legal arguments will be offered on both sides, and even though the Court may not issue a final ruling for another 90 days, observers will be quick to take the measure of the court's attitude by what is said or not said from the bench tomorrow.
It's a very sticky question. We know, of course, which way we would like the justices to rule. But although I'm not a lawyer, I realize this question is stirring up some very deep constitutional waters. It's not a cut and dried thing; the justices are walking through a minefield.
As I see it, the question is, which is the trump card: democracy (via a free election, such as was done in November), or the laws (which include the court's previous findings on the constitutional obligation to extend marriage rights to all). The vote of the people, or the rule of law?
Before you blurt out an answer, stop a minute and transpose the situation into another framework. Let's say the Supreme Court ruled that alcohol was a dangerous substance and outlawed its sale or consumption in the state; or that the right to bear arms must be extended to allow everyone to carry a handgun openly in all public places; or that children cannot be compelled to go to school against their will, at any age. Or any other issue, plausible or not, that you can think of.
Then suppose the voters pass an amendment overruling the Supreme Court's logic.
Who rules? The people? Or the courts? What are the limits of democracy, of rule by majority vote? Who gets to say where the limit is, and why? It's not enough to say, Well I don't like it. You have to justify by compelling reason why you override either the law or the vote. It's a very complex question, and I don't pretend to have the answer.
But what I do know is the the justices will be excoriated without mercy no matter which way they decide. God help them, I sure wouldn't want to be in their shoes right now.
Prop. 8 from the CNN exit poll. [November 4, 2008]
For those who voted Yes on Proposition 8 [against same-sex marriage]:
84% of weekly churchgoers – (32% of those polled);[note 1] 82% of Republicans – (29% of those polled);[note 2][note 3] 81% of white evangelicals – (17% of those polled); 70% of African Americans – (10% of those polled);[note 4][note 5] 68% of voters married with children (31% of those polled); 65% of all Protestants - (43% of those polled); 65% of white Protestants – (29% of those polled); 64% of voters with children in household – (40% of those polled); 64% of Catholics – (30% of electorate); 61% of age 65 and over – (15% of those polled); 60% of married people – (62% of those polled);[note 6] 59% of suburban dwellers – (51% of those polled); 58% of non-college graduates – (50% of those polled); 56% of union households - (25% of those polled); 53% of Latinos – (18% of those polled); 51% of white men – (31% of those polled).
For those who voted No on Proposition 8 [in favor of same-sex marriage]:
96% of gays and lesbians - (24% of those polled); 83% of those who never attend church – (21% of those polled); 79% of white Democrats – (21% of those polled); 78% of Liberals – (26% of those polled); 67% of whites age 18-29 – (9% of those polled); 64% of Democrats – (42% of those polled); 62% of singles – (38% of those polled); 61% of age 18-29 – (20% of those polled); 58% of those without children – (60% of those polled); 52% of white women – (32% of those polled); 51% of whites – (63% of those polled); 51% of Asians – (9% of those polled);
While the CNN election exit poll has sparked discussion concerning the widely discussed roll of the African American vote in the passage of proposition 8, another report indicates that African American influence was overestimated and that religiosity, party identification, and political ideology were more closely correlated to votes in favor of the proposition.[150]
Annie Liebovitz in front of one of her most famous photographs
Another reason marriage matters: let's say you finally do find your soulmate and settle down in that cozy little house/condo/cottage/doublewide/whatever, to live happily ever after, with the dogs and the picket fence and the plaster cupids, etc. And then one day when you get to the end of ever-after, he dies.
If the house is in his name, you better start packing your bags pronto, buster. You don't own it; his snarky relatives do. Oh they may be nice as pie right now while he's alive, they may fawn over you and proclaim loudly every chance they get how much they love you; but watch out for the knives as soon as he's gone. Trust me, I know.
Even if the house is in both your names, you're still on very shaky ground: it's not the relatives you have to worry about in that case, it's the IRS. You will have to pay up to FIFTY PERCENT of his share of the value in taxes. Yup. Even though your name is on it too.
Why? Because you aren't his widower; you guys were never legally married in the eyes of the law. You have no more rights than a stranger. Even if he left his share to you in a will, you still have to pay.
Stop and do the math: if it happened today, where would you get the cash to give the taxman? Or would you have to sell your home and slink away like a homeless person? Suppose it didn't sell for what you paid, or for what your equity is, or suppose you couldn't sell it for any price, as in today's market: what would you do?
The IRS is going to get what you owe them, of course; they can garnish your wages if need be. Or other financially devastating things.
That's why marriage matters. As it seems legendary photographer Annie Liebovitz has discovered. Granted, she's in a much higher financial bracket than most of us will ever be. But the principle is the same.
If you aren't married, then when one of you dies, the other one is crap in the eyes of the law. You have no rights to anything that was your partner's. Believe it.
Out Vanity Fair photographer Annie Leibovitz recently took out a loan against her prized photographs in order to pay off her outstanding mortgage debt. Miss Leibovitz is not alone in suffering from the global economic crisis, but what struck me about her story was that most of her financial woes stemmed from her inheritance of her long time partner, Susan Sontag’s, estate.
As Suze Orman pointed out in her Valentine’s Day wish for gay marriage, same-sex couples do not have the same privileges as straight married couples when it comes to inheritance. If your partner passes away and leaves her estate to you, you have to pay up to 50 percent of the value of your inheritance in taxes. However, if you and your partner were recognized as a married couple, you wouldn’t have to pay a dime. And it is precisely this unjust double standard that got Annie Leibovitz into financial trouble.
When Sontag died in 2004, she bequeathed several properties to Leibovitz, who was forced to pony up half of their value to keep them. Yes, she makes a nice chunk of change from Vanity Fair, and yes, she probably could have just sold the properties when the market was good in 2004, but that’s not really the point. The point is she should never have been in the position of paying or selling to not pay as much in the first place. Her wealth and poor decision-making are incidental.
Some people in the community don't understand what all the fuss is about. "Why should the government be in the business of recognizing anybody's marriage, straight or gay? Why not just drop the whole marriage issue for everybody" they say.
Because, dummy, marriage is not about cake and ice cream and oodles of nifty gifts from your adoring friends and relatives. It's about money and property and insurance and pensions and houses and cars and life and death and the equal protection of the laws. It's about all those things that make it possible to have a safe, secure life together.
The legal advocacy group GLAD has just filed suit in federal court in Boston on behalf of 8 married same-sex couples and 3 surviving spouses - including Dean Hara, the widower of openly gay Congressman Garry Studds - challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies to same-sex married couples in any state the rights and benefits of 1,138 federal laws that refer to marital status. Among those rights and benefits are:
* Social Security spousal protections that ground a family’s economic security while living in old age, and upon disability and death;
* protections for one spouse’s essential monetary resources and the ability to stay in the family home when the other spouse needs Medicaid for nursing home care;
* the ability to be included in a family policy of health insurance, and if receiving that family health insurance, to be free of income tax on the value of that insurance;
* the ability to use the “Married Filing Jointly” status for federal income tax purposes that can save families money;
* family medical leave from a job to care for a seriously ill spouse;
* disability, dependency or death benefits for the spouses of veterans and public safety officers;
* employment benefits for federal employees, including access to family health insurance benefits, as well as retirement and death benefits for surviving spouses;
* estate/death protections that allow a spouse to leave assets to the other spouse – including the family home – without incurring any taxes; and
* the ability of a citizen to obtain a visa for a non-citizen spouse and sponsor that spouse for purposes of citizenship.
GLAD was successful in filing court cases that eventually brought about same-sex marriage in both Massachusetts and Connecticut. Let's keep our fingers crossed on this one.
Red, orange, and yellow represent states where same-sex unions are banned by law.
This week a Texas couple filed for divorce in a Dallas court; but the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said he will oppose the suit. In 2003, the same AG blocked a Beaumont couple from getting a divorce; they had obtained a civil union in Vermont.
As the Dallas Morning News reports,
The attorney general said Thursday that he will intervene in the Dallas case as well to defend Texas law – and the will of the people." "In the State of Texas, marriage is – and has always been – a union between one man and one woman. To prevent other states from imposing their values on this state, Texas voters overwhelmingly approved a Constitutional amendment specifically defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman," he said in a written statement. "Because the parties' Massachusetts-issued arrangement is not a marriage under Texas law, they are asking a Texas court to recognize – and dissolve – something that does not legally exist."
In 2005, 76 percent of Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment banning not only gay marriage but also "any legal status identical or similar to marriage." The yes vote was over 90 percent in a lot of rural counties like mine.
The couple in this week's filing has been together 11 years and were married in Massachusetts, where they lived at the time, in 2006. A hearing will be scheduled after a mandatory 60-day cooling-off period.
As the Dallas Voice reports, the plaintiff's attorney, Peter Schulte, has said
the divorce is not a “test case” designed to try to advance LGBT equality. But this week he said he also doesn’t think it can hurt. “The gay community can’t get any worse than they are right now,” Schulte said. “We’re at ground zero.” Schulte said he’s disappointed that Abbott is trying to make the case about same-sex marriage as opposed to divorce. “He’s trying to muddy the issue and make this a political issue that he can try to capitalize on and take over [U.S.] Sen. [Kay Bailey] Hutchison’s seat when she resigns.”
Schulte has said he plans to argue that the divorce should be granted under the “full faith and credit clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which calls on states to recognize contracts from other states. However, the federal Defense of Marriage Act gives states the explicit right not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
Jenny Pizer of Lambda Legal's National Marriage Project says the Texas divorce suit could have unhappy effects on other gay couples: “Often bringing a lawsuit is not going to solve the problem and it can make the situation worse for that couple and for everyone else in that state by building an ever-higher edifice of bad law.” Others said they fear that "the Texas Supreme Court could use the same-sex divorce case as an opportunity to issue a broad interpretation of the constitutional amendment, endangering domestic partner benefits offered by cities including Dallas and Austin."
The plaintiff has asked that news organizations not report his or his partner's names because "Personal things could happen to us that wouldn't happen to other people. My company has an extremely low tolerance for publicity."
All of which points up the complete absurdity of the current situation for most gays in this country, many millions of us: in most places, you can't marry; if you do marry, you can't divorce; and whether you are married or not, you can still be fired just for being gay.
All because of stupid, arrogant, ignorant, fascist, fundamentalist Christianists and their unthinking bigotry.
But it's 2009, people. Way past time for all of that to stop. What are you going to do about it?
My God. There is intelligent life in Lubbock, after all.
Arnold H. Loewy, a distinguished professor of criminal law at the Texas Tech School of Law, father of four and grandfather of six, has this to say about the question of equal marriage rights:
I fear that what really may be afoot is the perceived need for heterosexual superiority.
At one time in our nation's history, Christians were favored over non-Christians, men were favored over women, whites were favored over blacks and heterosexuals were favored over homosexuals. The first three categories are gone. Non-Christians, women and blacks are all entitled to be treated equally. So, the last bastion of superiority remaining is that we heterosexuals can marry the mates of our choice, but you homosexuals cannot.
The nation has been well-served by eliminating notions of inferiority based on religion, gender and race. It would be similarly well-served by eliminating notions of inferiority based on sexual preference.
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is discord, harmony; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. Grant that I may seek not so much to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.
.
We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love.
and welcome to the Blue Truck, a blog for mature gay men with news and views on gay rights, history, art, humor, and whatever comes to mind. Plus a few hot men. The truck's all washed and gassed up, so hop in buddy, let's go.
CAUTION: For mature gay men only beyond this point. Some posts and links may not be suitable for children or the unco guid. You have been warned.
Insert valid picture ID with date of birth now, or click here.
My Story
click photograph to read
Churches say that the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes the physical, the touching, embracing, kissing, the genital act - the totality of our love makes each of us grow to become increasingly godlike and compassionate. If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual?
It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual. You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred. It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society.
If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God.
