Bio
The ramblings of a queer defense attorney living and practicing in a red state.
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Second-Class Citizens

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 13
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Some of my blog fans have asked if I currently have a life-partner. I do, I actually have a wife. We were married in Dana Point, California on October 3, 2008. We are two of the 18,000 queer people who are legally married in California, having married during a brief time of legality before the passing of Proposition 8. Prop 8 made marriage between same-sex couples illegal again after its passage.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is making its way up the judicial ladder, currently awaiting a setting in the California Supreme Court. Perry is the landmark California case concerning the fight over Prop 8. The basic argument by the Plaintiffs is strong legally, based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. California has no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses. Anyone with the ability to read can come to that conclusion. The hard part is getting people to admit it. Gay bias makes people turn away from cold hard facts. It takes ignorance to discriminate when the laws in place are on point!

Imagine what you would feel like if strangers were deciding if you could marry the person you loved? Americans against gay marriage argue we are a democracy and the voice of the people shall stand ... always!

Frankly, I always have thought that is the biggest problem with people's definition of that style of governing. It took Loving v. Virginia to allow interracial couples to marry; the majority would have never allowed it.

The majority of Americans read on a 7th grade level and have actually never even picked up a copy of the United States Constitution. If you haven't read it lately, Google it today when you have time. It is actually good reading, a beautiful document.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 to the Constitution reads as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Plain English? As a queer girl, I get the same rights as a straight girl and equal protection under the law. I cannot be denied any right or privilege heterosexuals have by any state as long as I am a citizen of the United States -- it is illegal to do so. Wow, that sounds surprisingly simple!

Notice it doesn't mention religion. We have that little rule "separation of church and state" in America. My marriage has nothing to do with your religion or any one else's religion. It is a civil ceremony and a civil right if I am a citizen of these United States.

Facebook recently decided to add two categories to the information section regarding your relationship status. They have added "in domestic partnership" and "in a civil union" to the descriptor list. To me, that is the equivalent of saying to a black person, "you still have to sit at the back of the bus, but we have added extra cushion and really nice red velvet to the section!" Thanks, but no thanks!! Members of the LGBT community must not cave! REFUSE ANYTHING BUT TOTAL EQUALITY!

The Declaration of Independence is worth a re-read. Check out this part of the preamble, in particular:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I had the officiate of my wedding read that very passage at the beginning of the ceremony. We were pursuing our happiness as every day, good old, law-abiding, American citizens.

Okay, back to my wife. For the purpose of this blog we will call her "Linda." Well, because her name is Linda. We had been together for nine years when I proposed, having lived through previous relationships that were not the

  • 13
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
unlucky_in_love 5 pts

I have to believe that change is coming. I know as a sister to a lesbian (couple) who has been together longer than my last marriage I can only shake my head at keeping gay and lesbian couples from having the same legal rights as the rest us! I know the kids/our youth believe that everyone should have equal rights. Marriage is a legal contract-you can also have the religious part of it and nobody can force churches to do anything but legally to withhold the ability to get married is wrong! I just have to believe the generation of youth coming up will change the world!

blahyaya 5 pts

as a partnered-but-not-yet-married lesbian, i have thought about the issue of gay marriage legalization A LOT. but you brought forth an aspect i honestly hadn't ever thought of: that it is a constitutional right as an american citizen in my pursuit of happiness. that blows doors in my mind wide open. i, also, loved your reference to this as a love letter.

peace!

stampinbuzz 5 pts

" Americans against gay marriage argue we are a democracy and the voice of the people shall stand ... always!

Frankly, I always have thought that is the biggest problem with people's definition of that style of governing. It took Loving v. Virginia to allow interracial couples to marry; the majority would have never allowed it."

This is what so many people do not understand about our government. It is not a democracy, it is a republic which espouses democratic ideals. It is our court system that protects us from the mob rule of a simple majority. Very few elections are won by a landslide and our court system is in place to insure that the 49.9% is protected from the 50.1%.

The people who work to hold rights from the minorities in this country do understand this though, and they pit Americans against each other in an effort to win elections that will ultimately do the most damage to our civil liberties in the court system.

The next two presidential elections are crucial to the balance in the supreme court. The current controlling court more and more show a political defining line in their decisions almost always siding with corporations over individuals and prosecutors over defendants and the state over the plaintiff.

If the scenes playing out in Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana do not galvanize Americans in their battles to work together for the individual rights of all of us I do not know if anything ever will.

We must look at these individual battles for what they are. Tools used against us and that we use against ourselves to divide and conquer.

We must all keep our eye on the big picture and vote not just for our own individual causes, but for the candidates who promise to preserve individual freedoms for all of us.

A 50 something Nana who loves politics, history, traveling with my darlingman, home improvement and crafting projects of all kinds. Blogging about paper crafts at The StampinBuzz ( http://stampinbuzz.com )

Gafield 5 pts

Great Blog glad I found it.
"If this was a choice, why would we choose to be part of a minority that is disparaged and rebuked daily?" ,just sums it up totally.
This has to be one of my favourite sayings. Keep up the blogging can't wait to read more.

Deb Rox 5 pts

Thanks for putting this viewpoint out to the world. Regardless about how we each feel about terminology, you make a meaningful point about the need for equality. Health and pension benefits, adoption and parenting,taxes and estates and all of the other issues affected by our partnered or unpartnered lives deserve to be fairly enjoyed or paid by all.

Deb Rox

3 Smart Girlz ( http://www.3smartgirlz.com/ ) consulting

Blog ( http://www.debontherocks.com/ ) like a freaking butterfly, sting like a Tweet. ( http://www.twitter.com/debontherocks )

lovelovelovesar 5 pts

I have been--and always will be-- a believer that love will conquer all. Although I don't share your same struggle, I am allied for your battle for equality.

Keep the faith.

Sar

http://lovelovelovesar.blogspot.com

Keira 5 pts

It didn't make sense to me when I was a 7th grader that same sex couples couldn't get married, and it doesn't make sense to me now.

Your post was beautiful, and I wish all the very best for the fight ahead.

I'm anti marriage myself, but that doesn't mean that I believe people should be denied the right to participate in the rituals and customs of their culture - it can be important.

Melissa Ford 5 pts

I agree with Denise that more choices are usually better in the case of checking off boxes -- more of a chance that an aspect of yourself can be found on the list.

But I love this post -- love it. And I love these line at the end: "This is a love letter. I am unabashedly in love with Linda, my spouse -- who just happens to be a woman. I feel good today and every day because of that love. I want to spend the rest of my life with her. Wouldn't it be nice if we could do that legally in Texas?"

Damn, I used the term "love" a lot in that paragraph :-)

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her novel about blogging is Life from Scratch ( http://www.life-from-scratch.com/ ).

Denise 9 pts moderator

I'm a lesbian and I am anti-marriage of all sorts. So I love the domestic partnership option. LOVE it.

Having more options, instead of less, is the direction the entire world should be moving toward. Not everyone thinks marriage (regardless of the genders of the married) is a glorious institution.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager
Life. Flow. Fluctuate.

emmykay 5 pts

The title reflects that you wrote:

"Facebook recently decided to add two categories to the information section regarding your relationship status. They have added "in domestic partnership" and "in a civil union" to the descriptor list. To me, that is the equivalent of saying to a black person, "you still have to sit at the back of the bus, but we have added extra cushion and really nice red velvet to the section!" Thanks, but no thanks!! Members of the LGBT community must not cave! REFUSE ANYTHING BUT TOTAL EQUALITY!"

I have no argument with your desire that same-gender relationships be called "marriages" when they are given the legal protections that merit it. I simply don't see how bringing Facebook's recent changes adds to this argument.

The majority of your post was about the legal issue, with which you and I are in agreement; I believe the article would have been just as powerful, or more so, if mention of the existence of "civil unions" / "domestic partnerships" vs. "marriages" was made in reference to legal language rather than Facebook.

And now, instead of being annoyed at an inaccuracy, I'm concerned that BlogHer is now choosing titles for posts simply on what will generate readership.

jujulaw 5 pts

Actually emmykay the administration of Blogher.com chose the title and posted it.

My point in the blog is that we need to stand strong and refuse to accept sub-categories that try define our status as a couple.

If you are comfortable with domestic partnership I would never tell you to label yourself differently. I just don't want gay couples to latch onto "civil unions"...it a crumb of bread thrown at us to appease....it creates a different class of people...a second-class.

emmykay 5 pts

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

Facebook does not take into account the gender of those who select to be in relationships. "Engaged to" and "Married to" is open to any couple: female-female, male-male, male-female.

As a couple in a domestic partnership, but having not yet had a public ceremony to consecrate it (due to family and financial constraints), my partner and I were very happy to change from "In a relationship" to "In a domestic partnership" as soon as it became available. For other same-gender couples who do not care for the term "married" (because of religious connotations, or whatever else) I am certain this was also a happy addition to Facebook.

You may argue that the *country* treats us as second class citizens; there you and I agree. But Facebook simply does not do so. I do not know why you felt the need to claim such an incendiary headline, but it is simply wrong.