The agony of waiting
The California Supreme Court decided today that it will hear the issue
of constitutionality of Prop8, probably in March. So many lawyers think
this is a reach, that I am not hopeful. Six months of joy and euphoria,
now we enter six months limbo, waiting for a crash.
Unexpectedly, the justices have also requested arguments on the legitimacy of the approximately 18,000 existing marriages, which had not been directly brought up in these suits.
I find myself in unexpected tears at my desk. I feel completely violated and dehumanized. Lawyers in court will argue whether or not our marriage is "real" or "valid", over our protests. People who do not know us, or care about us, will presume on the "validity" of our marriage.
Are we slaves? Are we comatose? It's degrading, as though we have no say about this. Are we people, human beings? Apparently not. We are mere objects that bigots will revile, and our fundamental humanity denied. The clinical distance and detachment of the judicial process makes us things, not real loving people.
It feels like that Youtube ad I posted before, where the two men force their way in the home to tear up the marriage license of two women. It feels violating. It really does.
This isn't getting any easier.
(cross posted at Friends-of-Jake)
Blog badge: This blog supports gay marriage, can be downloaded at Friends-of-Jake.
Unexpectedly, the justices have also requested arguments on the legitimacy of the approximately 18,000 existing marriages, which had not been directly brought up in these suits.
I find myself in unexpected tears at my desk. I feel completely violated and dehumanized. Lawyers in court will argue whether or not our marriage is "real" or "valid", over our protests. People who do not know us, or care about us, will presume on the "validity" of our marriage.
Are we slaves? Are we comatose? It's degrading, as though we have no say about this. Are we people, human beings? Apparently not. We are mere objects that bigots will revile, and our fundamental humanity denied. The clinical distance and detachment of the judicial process makes us things, not real loving people.
It feels like that Youtube ad I posted before, where the two men force their way in the home to tear up the marriage license of two women. It feels violating. It really does.
This isn't getting any easier.
(cross posted at Friends-of-Jake)
Blog badge: This blog supports gay marriage, can be downloaded at Friends-of-Jake.
Advertisement
It's an absolute disgrace! I couldn't agree with you more. The old California lawyer in me tells me that you will prevail once all is said and done (May or June next year). I am sorry that you have to suffer in the meantime. Hang in there!
November 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your willingness to share this, IT. My heart goes out to you and your spouse. I find myself speechless in the face of your suffering. I can only repeat what I wrote on Sunday (link below):
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2008/11/dignity-hospitality-community.php
PS - if you follow IT's link, you'll notice a "blogbadge" to the right of her post - that can be downloaded. (Let's make it viral!)
November 20, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP - I read your reply to my last comment on still's culture and labels post. When I said I was fascinated by your religion post on a political blog it was because of the seamless way you threaded the two together so that the political was not obvious.
As Prop 8 shows, efforts to right the injustice politically are not succeeding as well as we counted on, leaving us with the religion angle, ABSENT the political, as another route to try. I was admiring your ability to so clearly see that, because I tend to fall back to the political, despite myself. (Of the two, I have much more familiarity with the political.)
November 21, 2008 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we likely have two adversaries. One needs to be reminded what the Constitution says. And the other needs to be forced to argue a position that, frankly, is untenable unless it pertains to what their church chooses to do - but should have no sway under the Constitution.
After the 2004 election, I could see the way the right had "taken over" religion and was using it as a battering ram. So I decided to study theology, in order to be ready to man the barricades from "inside" so to speak. It's now paying off! Indeed, I took the courses along with religious conservatives, which was a trial in itself - a bit like being a CIA mole. I learned a lot - mostly about the political motives of certain religious conservatives seeking to impose "orthodoxy" - by cutting off their brethren from the church! It was a painful experience - to see people literally wanting to prove their orthodoxy by giving up on evolution. Imagine me as a psychologist operating almost like an anthropologist. Yes, I came to know these people well... but kept a foot in sanity at the same time.
I am now going to devote much time and effort to teasing apart church and state - in the service of helping my fellow persons, who are being persecuted simply for loving. This irks the heck out of me!!! (and as I say... I have undergone quite an education and thus, yes, I can weave these things together and slice them with a mighty sword!)
Glad you're on case too, seashell! (and personally I am fascinated to see more women at TPM now... I think we're going to have a very important impact over time... irregardless of those few who clearly seek to undermine some of our voices)
I love the abuse button.... Haven't used it yet. But I'm waiting... and watching.... patiently. (like when I took those courses...)
Ooooh.... I now see that up above this IT is laying out a beautiful case! Gonna read that now.
Thank you, IT!!!
November 21, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I missed this post initially, but TheraP sent me to it as a result of a discussion on another post concerning the culture wars and how the two sides can find common ground.
As a fellow human being, my heart goes out to you. Being hetro, I can't say that I actually know what you are going through, and won't pretend that I completely can. What I am trying to do is reach some common ground, where the people who disapprove of gay marriage on religious grounds and those who are gay and wish to marry can meet. I am not attempting in any way to be offensive or dismissive. My motives are as pure as they can be.
So to start, I have to be better educated than I am, so I am asking for your help. If I am being too personal, just tell me so. I ask not to make you feel bad in any way, but just so that I can understand. Are you looking for legal protections that allow you the same sense of security that a hetro "married" couple receive, or is the act of being "married" rather than having a strong civil union that you are looking for?
I ask because what I'm hearing from the right is that they believe that marriage is a religious covenant between and man and a woman and God, so that forcing a change in that language to include same sex partners is an affront to their religion.
If they were asked if they would object to same sex partners having the same legal rights as those given to "married" man/woman couples, I don't know that the objections would be as strong.
Do you mind sharing your thoughts?
November 20, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
To help IT understand where you're coming from, I'm posting a link for your blog from yesterday, where you go into that, stillidealistic:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/stillidealistic/2008/11/culture-wars-and-labels.php
November 20, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, stillidealistic. I will be happy to answer your questions.
First, I'm going to take issue with the religious idea that marriage is defined by GOD. If this were true, atheists would not be allowed to marry! CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage, is what we are talking about. God is NOT PART of civil marriage. It's that pesky separation of church and state--they aren't allowed to force their religion on me. As Andrew Sullivan posted today,
Second, I will tell you that civil unions are NOT the same. There are now numerous examples in California of legal domestic partners being denied their rights, for example of hospital visitation. Of course it's illegal, but it keeps happening, because frankly DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS AREN"T MARRIAGE. Small comfort to sue someone after the fact if your beloved is dying in the ER, don't you think?
The fact is, that without case law establishing every individual aspect of marraige, civil unions are NOT the same as marriage. They are not only not honored in the obvious things, but it isn't clear that they really will be the same for inheritance (Tax value step up, for example), or protection against testifying against your spouse. Indeed, our attorney told us that with no case law behind them, and since we still needed all the powers of attorney, trusts and wills to cover us, she really wouldn't recommend a civil union at all right now. The fact is, simply, separate is not equal.
Third, I'm going to send you to this post about our marriage in October. I'm 46, I' have loved my wife with every ounce of being for many years, and yet.... and yet.... that day was magical, wonderful, amazing, and earth-shattering to me. A $10 form notarized at Mailboxes Etc (a civil union) JUST ISN"T THE SAME. WHile you're over there, feel free to noodle around my other posts on Prop8.
Hope this helps clarify where we are.
Also you might find this blog, Who voted on YOUR marriage? helpful.
Remember, we are actually, legally married, with the license to prove it. The Pro-Prop8ers are not just trying to block future marriages. They are trying to forcibly anull my existing marriage, against my will.
We are crying nearly every night, my wife and I.
IT
November 20, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to add one more thing, Still, now that I read your blog. Although I am not a believer, my wife is (she's a very active Catholic). Obviously she disagrees with her church on this issue; but as she said, her faith also tells her to use her brain, and she knows our deep love and commitment to each other is a good thing.
This whole PRop8 thing has really hurt her deeply. Not her faith in God but her faith in her religion and her community. She looks at her church, and knows that many people who know her.... who know us.... voted against us. (We also know that many of our friends are great supporters; Catholics are masters of don't ask don't tell which should be obvious if you just think of the contraception issue). But still...it's deeply deeply hurtful that they attacked a CIVIL issue.
we didn't ask the church to change their minds and marry us. We don't ask them to change anything. we just want them to let us have a civil marriage with all the rights and responsbilities pertaining thereto, that any citizen can get, regardless of color, faith, income, etc etc.
Because if Britney Spears can get married and anulled in a day in Vegas, you can't tell me that a faithfully committed couple like us, devoted for years, till death do us part, is dishonoring CIVIL marriage.
November 20, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so very much for taking the time to explain your point of view to me. I don't know how we are going to get passed this as a society, but I certainly hope we can figure out a way.
Gay marriage doesn't give me a lot of stomach acid, although from a religious perspective, I think it is supposed to. The problem people like me have with this issue, is that the Bible defines marriage as being between a man and woman, and we are to accept the Bible in its entirety, not pick and chose which parts we want to believe. That leaves us in a precarious position.
I don't know many gay people, but those I do know are great people and I would never want to cause them hurt or pain. Mostly, I just try to avoid thinking about the issue, because I can't reconcile what my religion says and the reality I see. There is a part of me that can't believe that God doesn't love you just as much as He loves me, and wants for you to have the same joys in life I have. A lot of Christians look at gay people and see sinners. I look at them and see people. I know I am in a small minority. I just don't know how to bridge the gap, and as long as we can't, we're split "them and us" and we make no progress on anything...
It's hard to ask you to be patient, when all you want is what everyone else has, but change will come. When more Christians "know" more gay people, their hearts will soften. As it stands, what they mostly see are the militant, in your face gay people in the news who scare them. And when you are scared, you dig in. Hang in there. As time goes by, more hearts will change. I know that is of little comfort, but we have a black president (whoda thunk?) Nothing is impossible.
Thera, thanks so much for connecting us up! ...appreciate it greatly!
November 22, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, IT!
November 20, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
My heart goes out to you and your wife, IT. Please know that there are many people in this country that support your dreams and goals and are outraged by the injustice of it all.
I'm far from California, but I'm still shocked and bewildered that Prop 8 passed in an election that was so motivated by change.
November 21, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a beautiful couple more comments from you, IT. If enough of us, gay and straight, work together, we can cut this Gordian Knot. Because that's really all it is.
It is so helpful to have your voice here.
..........................
As for the "marriage" not being "defined" by God, we're up against the second chapter of Genesis. And the folks who believe every word is "true" and refuse to take into account centuries of textual study which indicate that Genesis was only written after many other books (and as myth to justify a Hebrew identity in relation to a guiding Creator). So, the role of Genesis in terms of a relationship with God, not as a guide to marriage! Plus, in my view, we're also up against the role that a "chosen people" has played in western history. (or if you want to go to the East... look at the role of castes in India... as a religiously ordained type of bigotry)
And not to forget, the Mormon church also carries forward this sense of a "chosen people" - and their sense of it is really, really scary - and we need some people skilled in Mormonism to counter that!
So I am truly - as we speak - literally waking up in the morning thinking about these things... and how to work on two fronts, one the Constitutional (which is logical), the other the religious... which is minefield of bigotry - based upon a belief that in righteous zealotry.
But since believing every word in the bible is true leaves them defying science and unable to explain whey they do not stone their daughters or follow other weird or tortuous practices... we're gonna win eventually! Nonsense won't fly forever!
Which doesn't help your immediate situation. So keep telling us all the reasons you are suffering in a land that guarantees you "equal treatment under the law."
For God's sake, Spain now has gay marriage!
Spain, which refused to recognize our civil marriage 41 years ago! But which, strangely, believed I, a US citizen, was married to my husband - but he, as Spanish citizen, was not married to me! (because we'd gotten a civil marriage in the US!!!) (I need to dig up that essay from long ago.) I'm honestly not sure what they would have classified our son as....
Maybe that experience helps me to understand your plight.
November 21, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we need to really focus on the fact that CIVIL marriage is not "holy matrimony" in any religious sense. In many countries around the world, there is explicit separation of the civil marriage from any religious ceremony: you go to the office of the state for the legal contract, and then go to the church of your choice, if so inclined, for a religious marriage.
In this country, we have unfortunately conflated the two. We make religious folks agents of the state, by making it possible for them to perform both the civil and religious component at the same time. We use the word "marriage" for both components.
I doubt (in a deeply conservative country) that this can ever be untangled, but if one were establishing it de novo, one would obviously do it with a bright line of separation: everyone is eligible from a state "civil union" whether straight or gay, and religious communities function independently of the state.
Meanwhile, some religious already function independently. I want to quote something else from Andrew Sullivan:
So there is already religious discrimination on this issue. I guess it depends whose ox is being gored.
But back to the original point: it is essential that we focus on the idea that this is civil marriage only we are talking about, a legal contract, and religions are free to view it as they choose within the context of their faith just not in the context of the state.
IT
November 21, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, but I'm confused ....
Isn't that the strategy that the organizers of Prop 8 used? Don't make this a gay vs faith thing? From the NYT:
You have to read this article TheraP - it's mostly about strategy.
November 21, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they did make it about faith, seashell, it was ALL about faith. Indeed, the core of the Yes-on-8 argument was that civil same-sex marriage infringes on the rights of religious people who don't believe in it. Put simply, if they are not allowed to discriminate against ME, THEIR rights are somehow infringed. Religious values require discrimination against others in the secular sphere. Isn't that astonishing?
All the major newspapers in the state came out against 8, even the very conservative San Diego Union Tribune, and both the U/T and the LA Times specifically called out the Yes-on-8 campaign for its deliberate lies and mis-statements and fear-mongering.
That was the 2nd editorial on Prop8 in the LA Times, which came out 2 days before the election. Obviously voters didn't read this or didn't care.
And I look at people now, guardedly, thinking "You might be one of the bigots. You might hate me." It makes me angry, unfriendly and distrustful. For the first time, people have used the Constitution to eliminate the rights of a minority, in a popular vote. To me, the lesson of Prop8 is that in California, a gay person is not a "real" citizen.
Equal under the law? Pretty words, but pure hypocrisy. THAT'S what we should teach our children.
Whose rights will we vote on next?
November 21, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whose rights will we vote on next?
Reminded me of this:
When Hitler attacked the Jews ... I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church—and there was nobody left to be concerned. Author: Martin Niemller
Thanks for the info.
November 23, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink