This Time It's Personal: Me, Gay Marriage, and Canada

[Plaid Adder]

Last Wednesday morning my partner Liza and I had a wonderful and much-needed vacation temporary soured for us when we happened to buy the local paper in order to watch Bush twist in the wind as he attempted to justify his bullshit rationale for war. Misled by the headline--"Bush Stands Firm On War"--we discovered when we read the story that Bush had decided to deflect criticism about the war in Iraq by declaring war on me and Liza.

Yes, I'm talking about that much-discussed threat to "codify" heterosexual marriage. Today there was an article on DU arguing that such a threat would backfire immensely because even Scalia wouldn't uphold a federal law that was that dismissive of states' rights. With all due respect to what was overall a great article, I must point out that I think this is an underestimation of what Bush is really planning. We already have a federal law "codifying" marriage--the infamous Defense Of Marriage Act--and Vermont has demonstrated that it is not strong enough to prevent a state government from granting same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual ones. The most effective way for him to "codify" heterosexual marriage would be to push through a constitutional amendment, and when we read that article, that's what we assumed was in the works.

That's why Liza said, a few minutes later, "If this passes, would you consider moving to Canada?"

Before I get around to my answer to that question, let me back up.

Liza and I fell in love almost 15 years ago. We have never lived in a state that had a domestic partnership or civil union statute that would have allowed us to legally register as a couple. As we are both Catholic, we also do not belong to a church that is liable to ever allow us to have a religious ceremony. As a matter of fact, the Vatican is busily trying to outdo the Bush administration on this subject, arguing not only that same-sex marriage is an evil they will never sanction but that placing adopted children with same-sex couples is "actually doing violence" to the children. Yes, because they are SO much safer in the company of those celibate priests...but I digress.

We could, of course, have had a commitment ceremony anyway, as many of our lesbian friends chose to do. We never have. It took my family a very long time to accept my sexuality and to accept Liza, and during the first, oh, 8 years or so of our relationship, I doubt my parents would have attended any ceremony we had, which would have made me very sad. By the time they came around, we had already been together for so long that it seemed sort of pointless to have a ceremony just to affirm that we were committed to each other; we had realized that about six months after we started going out.

When we had been together ten years, we bought each other matching rings and exchanged them on our anniversary. We had been excited about this at the time, but we were both surprised to discover how much it meant to us afterwards. Even now, almost five years later, I still love looking at the ring on her hand, and I still look at mine and remember how lucky I am to get to spend my life with her. I would never have realized until we did it that it would actually matter to us to have this one symbol of marriage.

Still, we have never had a public ceremony; and one of the reasons is that it just galls Liza too much that it would have no legal meaning. Liza is a lawyer, and I guess because the law is her whole career, she really has an emotional investment in the law that I don't have. The Lawrence decision meant a lot to her; we read it together, and I could tell that it was touching her in a way that was different from the way I was reacting to it. The Lawrence decision made it seem as if American law was finally catching up with justice, where we are concerned, and that gay rights law had turned the corner the same way civil rights law turned the corner after Brown v. Board of Education.

All the same, neither of us had ever made same-sex marriage a make-or-break issue when choosing a candidate; there were a lot of things that mattered more to us, like the war, social justice, and so on. We have been lucky; we're both alive and in good health, we have no dependents, neither of us has lost a job or had to go through a life-threatening illness, and now that my parents have come around we no longer worry about our families trying to prevent us from, say, seeing each other in the hospital in case one of us ends up in critical condition. So the fact that our relationship is not recognized by state or federal law has only impacted our lives symbolically--until we started thinking about having children.

Here, it starts to spring into much sharper focus. We have already had to give up on adopting from China after the Chinese government put new restrictions in its policy to prevent lesbian couples from adopting children out of their orphanages. Adopting in this country is something we have yet to fully research, but we can only assume it will be a nightmare. Even if we can manage to adopt domestically, there is the issue of health insurance. Liza would like to take time off work when the children are young; but once she's not employed full-time she will have no health insurance, and of course I can't put her on my health insurance because we are, what, not married. My employers could of course decide to do that anyway; but I know my employers, and the chances of them voluntarily doing that are about the same as those of George W. Bush getting into heaven.

Still. It never became an emigration-worthy issue, until George W. Bush gave his ninth press conference.

Liza's point of view was this: how can we stay in a country that is going to *write discrimination against us into its constitution,* when right over the border is a country that is nationally recognizing same-sex relationships? How could we respect ourselves and still live here? What would we tell our children about why we stayed in a country that has actually amended its constitution in order to declare that the relationship between their parents is null and void--or worse?

She has a point. If you look over the history of constitutional amendments, you will note that most of them, apart from those that have been repealed (like Prohibition) are about either protecting the rights of all Americans, or *extending* rights and privileges to previously disenfranchised groups. If they can get a constitutional amendment against gay marriage to pass, that will be the first time that the constitution has been amended in order to *restrict* the civil rights of a particular group. There are any number of reasons why this would be a disaster for constitutional law in general--I mention the concept of states' rights and the idea of the separation between church and state, to name but two--but the main thing is that such an amendment would make discrimination against us part of the legal bedrock of our country.

In "Cabaret," a Jewish character who has been passing as Christian in 1930s Germany says, "A Jew in Berlin? Only a fool is this, I am thinking." Maybe I'm an idiot to want to be a lesbian in George Bush's America. Maybe we should go to Canada. We're close enough to it we could drive it in a day. We would have to give up our careers, of course; but we like the Lake Superior area a lot, maybe there's a resort somewhere that could use a couple of highly overeducated housekeepers.

I told her that I think it would take a lot to make me go to Canada; that after all the Constitution treated African-Americans shamefully for hundreds of years and they stuck around and fought and so should we. She said, "OK, but think about it." She won't go without me, of course; but I won't stay behind without her, either.

So this is what the "issue of gay marriage" means for us, now. Whether we can live here or not. That's what this whole debate is about, from where we are. I don't plan to spend a lot of time on the "do you support gay marriage" threads, because frankly it's too painful for me to watch; but I thought my straight DU brethren and sistren might like to know what it's like for someone on the other side.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Ysabel]

1. If you leave...

it will be our country's loss (and we have already lost quite a lot) good luck - whatever you decide...

i don't want to leave - but have been thinking about it also...

[pw]

3. Feel free to move to Vermont

It's not the same, but maybe it would make a good interim step...

[w4rma]

2. I hope you'll get a Civil Union in Vermont, instead (n/t)

[Capn Sunshine]

4. Yeah. What she said.

Besides the great loss to our country if YOU leave, PA, I just can't picture the time and place when an ammendment based on SEXUALITY is placed in the constitution. They can take this as far as they want, it's a dead end, done to mollify the extremists who just don't get it.

As long as there are repressed people (and there always will be) you will suffer some mistreatment at their ignorant hands. But we as a country don't approve of the viewpoint any more than writing the missionary position ammendment stating this is the only form of hetero sex allowed....and that would definitely be next IMO.

No, slippery slopes are called that for a reason, and such a proposal just opens a bigger can of worms than any american should have to contemplate.

So, PA, pay no attention to the great and powerful Boz, or his man behind the curtain.

We can all go home again once we just realize we had the power to all along.....:loveya:

[Sapphocrat]

5. Plaid...

If you look over the history of constitutional amendments, you will note that most of them, apart from those that have been repealed (like Prohibition) are about either protecting the rights of all Americans, or *extending* rights and privileges to previously disenfranchised groups. If they can get a constitutional amendment against gay marriage to pass, that will be the first time that the constitution has been amended in order to *restrict* the civil rights of a particular group.

Throughout the countless hours I've spent debating, and all the words I've written, never did I see it that way. My God, woman, what a point indeed!

I can't say you've influenced me one way or the other on the Canada question, because for me it's been brewing for a very long time anyway (and I know there's nothing that would make my partner happier than for me to say, "You're right -- my country actively engages in legalized discrimination against me, and that will never change, so screw it, let's go!").

I still don't know what the final outcome will be; she and I both have obligations we can't shirk at the moment. One thing's certain, at least: When we can raise the money, we're going to Canada and get married, so we can bring the battle back home, a la Rev. Troy Perry.

In any case, thank you, PA, for posting this. It's a fantastic point, which drives home the stark reality of just how anti-American this latest anti-gay push really is. I can't believe how clear it is to me all of a sudden. (In fact, I feel kind of idiotic for not drawing the same conclusion on my own.)

But then, you've had a great effect on me for a long time, probably without your realizing it. Your site was in the first batch I linked at GoQueer.com. :)

My thanks to Liza as well.

Wow, what a concept.

[robbedvoter]

6. On the bright side: shouldn't a constitutional ammendment be approved

by 2/3 Congress and THEN ratified by 2/3 of the states? Unless W divides Texas in about 100 states, I do not see it happening in our life times (and not even W's).
As for personal, it is for me too- the "we are all sinners" part of it. This is yet another attempt to destroy the separation of church and state and it makes me extremely angry!

[ButterflyBlood]

7. 3/4 of the states

even getting 2/3 of Congress will be difficult, this actually could be used as a wedge issue against Republicans in New Jersey, Connecticut, New York and parts of Pennsylvania

[sexybomber]

9. it's 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states

(does quick math) 38 states. That means that (more quick math) only 13 states would have to defeat the amendment for it not to pass. Let's see, it would never pass in VT, NY, MA, CT, RI, NH, ME, probably CA, WA, OR, and probably PA and Jersey. That's twelve right there. One more state would defeat the amendment. I don't think there's anything to worry about.

[Prodemsouth]

8. What about Scalia's opinion in the Florida Vote count?

That ruling was anti states right. The writer of the article "this is the title" lost credibility with me when he suggested that Scalia would not want to appear inconsistent on states rights. As a heterosexual/straight guy, I can tell you that right now I believe a constitutional amendment would pass in little over a year. Far more than "half a dozen states" would jump on the bandwagon to approve such an amendment. Califorina already has Amendment 9? or the Knight law that was passed a couple of years ago. I believe that this amendment would pass in the current climate based on my own recent observations coupled with a recent poll on attitudes on homosexuality. Bush was firing a warning shot to the courts in Mass and New Jersey, to not rule in favor of "gay marriage." If they do you will see work start on such an amendment, since this contains sexual issues, people will pay more attention to this, as you said, a distraction, unless the war and or economy become bad enough that they become impossible to ignore. It is my hope that the courts will do the wise and strategic thing, not the right thing. Here is what I mean: Gays can continue to fight for insurance, hospital rights, and other marriage issues, in 15 years you will have virtual gay marriage or defacto gay marriage, and suggesting to overturn that would be out of the question. Or if the courts rule in favor of gay marriage, then there would be a fight of at least 75-100 years to overturn a constitutional amendment. I can't say I blame you for thinking Canada, Bush seems to be running off anyone in this country that thinks. Canada's gain would be our loss.

[Plaid Adder]

11. Yeah, like Scalia really votes based on prinicple...

That was another problem for me with that article. The Florida vote proved that the Fab Five are happy to throw states' rights to the wolves when it becomes expedient to do so.

As for what MA and NY do, well, I can't help hoping for them to do the right thing anyway. I'm not sure how I feel about an amendment's chances; I like to think it would never pass, but Liza is more pessimistic.

Right now, we are making no plans, except to, as I said, "fight this on the beaches, in the streets, etc, etc." We're used to mobilizing. I think the first step would be bumperstickers reading "THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A TOY."

They're always blowing hot air about a flag-burning amendment and it's never happened; this might blow over too.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Plaid Adder]

10. DUH! Erratum:

The constitution has not been mistreating African-Americans for HUNDREDS of years; it's only been around for 100+ years. Smack me for hyperbole.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder