This Married Life

Ten Minute Time Management

2011-02-26T15:48:00.000-08:00

Two wake up calls, ten minutes apart, to get her out of bed and into her robe.

10 Minutes for her to use the bathroom, then 10 Minutes to take her pills.

Breakfast is yogurt and oatmeal. 10 Minutes, followed by a banana and coffee. 10 Minutes.

Each section of the newspaper takes ten Minutes.

It takes ten minutes to convince her it’s a shower day, followed by ten more minutes using the bathroom.

The next ten minutes are dedicated to getting undressed and into the shower.

Taking a shower is another 10 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of drying off and doing her hair.

It takes ten minutes to put on her bracelets, watch and clothes.

Eight minutes reviewing all of the above, so that she’ll spend two minutes brushing her teeth.

Time management, alzheimer’s style.

Christmas Awesomeness

2010-12-21T18:16:00.000-08:00

I know it's been forever since I've posted.

But I stumbled across this on towleroad.com, it's truly awesom

The Star Wars Christmas Special...

YES!!!!!

2010-08-04T20:50:00.000-07:00

Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional. I'm just starting to re-read the decision,
which can be found here in pdf format or here on scribd .

A bunch of the evidence used in the decision is posted here:

More analysis can be found at the source of these links prop8trialtracker.com

Not in my house...

2010-05-26T21:14:00.001-07:00

Last night

2010-04-21T20:53:00.001-07:00

I thought I had died & gone to heaven.

Madonna & Glee?

Yes! Only Hulu isn't linking to blogger for some reason... damn it.

St. Patrick's Fabulousity

2010-03-17T08:14:00.000-07:00

It seems that Irish fabulousness is hereditary.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, Dad!

Olson & Boies at the New York

2010-03-14T12:34:00.001-07:00

via 365gay.com, a really interesting Q&A session at the New York Times with the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case.

It's just about an hour long. Watch for their takes on why the case wasn't televised & why just about any result will (eventually) be a win.

Watch Gay Video & Lesbian Movies

Tidings of comfort & Glee

2009-12-24T15:05:00.001-08:00

The producers of Glee have evidently gone global with the show:

Bravery, your name is Ruth.

2009-12-02T22:13:00.000-08:00

Same Sex Marriage went down to defeat in the New York Senate this evening. Not before one one Senator made the bravest, most moral speeches I've ever heard.

Stupid Callous Homophobic Legislation

2009-11-10T20:24:00.000-08:00

Brilliance!

via Joe My God

Shadows & Relections

2009-10-11T08:54:00.001-07:00

One year ago today, I married the man of my dreams. Reflecting back on it, I'd do it all over again, only sooner. Twenty years was too long to wait for this day. Friends and family from all over the country joined us as we celebrated our commitment to each other.

It's one year on, Steve & I love you more each day.

Who's got a gay face?

2009-09-13T21:55:00.001-07:00

I ask you, who's got the gay face?

Megan's Christening

2009-09-06T13:56:00.001-07:00

Megan's Christening 047
Originally uploaded by jimskater

It's done. Megan Samantha Gallagher has been baptized.

The proud god-fodders were there, as was my camera. I can't guarantee the quality of the pix, but I've thrown all 81 photos up into a set on my flickr account
here.

Ha!

2009-09-04T06:47:00.000-07:00

via towleroad.com

Go Barney!

2009-08-18T21:43:00.000-07:00

Are you as sick of the "uproar" over health care going on at town hall meetings as I am? Tonight, an Obama = Hitler anti-health care wingnut got on Barney Frank's last nerve with this result:

How gay am I?

2009-08-13T21:07:00.000-07:00

This gay:

I just discovered Glee. I can't wait for it to start airing next month. I'm even willing to watch Fox to see this. Best of all? Jane Lynch is in it.

Goddaughter Megan

2009-08-12T22:11:00.000-07:00

Isn't she adorable?

Honda LED

2009-08-05T22:50:00.001-07:00

Coolness:

Honda Insight - Let It Shine from Honda on Vimeo.

How would you feel?

2009-05-28T15:34:00.000-07:00

via joe my god.

Cold comfort

2009-05-26T10:10:00.001-07:00

That's what I'm feeling. Prop 8 is valid in the eyes of the law, but the 18,000 couples who got married between June & November are still legally married. Does anyone else see the contradiction there?

"At least I've got mine" is cold, cruel comfort.

Back from England

2009-05-26T07:34:00.000-07:00

The title should take you to some of my pics over on facebook.

Meanwhile, your erstwhile & intrepid reporter got himself smuggled into a restricted area of the Silverstone race course, and managed to get about 2 minutes of video of the last lap of the MINI Challenge race. Unfortunately, my camera doesn't have audio capabilities.

I had an amazing time catching up with the English & Irish crews. Special thanks go out to Sham for hosting me for the few days prior to MINI United and the Manchester United stadium tour.

Off to England

2009-05-16T09:55:00.000-07:00

Apologies for the absence. Steve had shoulder surgery a few weeks back, and it's kept him from using his right arm, so I've been a little busy.

Meanwhile, I'm off to old Blighty tomorrow for MINI United, a gathering of MINI fans from around the world. Click the title to see more. There have been two of these festivals before, but this one is special because it celebrates the 50th anniversary of MINI, in the home of the Mini.

Meanwhile, the travel frustration mounts. My trip tomorrow will be my 4th time traveling outside of the US.

In 1996, I traveled to Germany with no problem. I presented my luggage, passport, ticket & driver's license and was sent on my way.

In 2005, I traveled to Ireland. Outbound, I had trouble getting a boarding pass. On the return, the same problem. I had to go through an extra level of security check. Both times, the res agent's eyes got big & a supervisor was summoned, in order to verify that it's safe to allow me on the plane.

In 2007, I traveled to Ireland and the UK. Once again, on both the outbound and return legs, I had to go through the "OMG his name is on a list" routine. Traveling between the UK & Ireland, I had no problem.

My father, who shares my first and last name (or do I share his? ), has gone through the same hassles. Since his retirement. my Dad is now able to travel, and he's had delays getting on three or four different cruise ships and a flight to Turkey. This includes his most recent cruise (three weeks ago) from Florida, through the Panama Canal, and back to San Francisco, where my parents live. Note: my mother has never had any problems.

This morning, I attempted to print my boarding pass for my flight to the UK tomorrow. Continental Airlines even sent me an e-mail reminder to do so. I dutifully entered my passport information, number of bags, etc. and was informed that Continental is unable to print my boarding passes, and that I would have to go through the check-in procedures tomorrow.

Evidently, my father & I share a name with someone on a watch list somewhere. Both of us have had issues getting on domestic flights, as well.

Just to make it clear to everyone over at TSA: I am not a danger to my fellow passengers. Nor is my 73 year old father.

Thank you.

Improv Everywhere Style

2009-04-10T06:42:00.000-07:00

Via joemygod, Improv Everywhere style dance fest filmed in the Antwerp train station. Evidently it was produced by a Belgian TV channel.

Watch it. It's priceless.

It's real

2009-04-09T17:08:00.000-07:00

I'm home from work today, with either a reaction to a medication or man-flu. Temp of 102 last night, nausea, aches, gastro-intestinal upset (at both ends, no less).

Maybe I'm sharing too much.

Anyway, Stacey from Steve's doctor's office just called. I went looking for him, having forgotten he'd gone across the street to talk with one of the neighbors.

"Just a second, let me see if I can find him."

I looked the house and out into the back yard, then asked Mom if she'd seen Steve. No luck. I asked Stacey why she was calling, she responded with "Who am I speaking to?"

"His husband," I replied.

"Is this James? I can leave the message with you. Tell Steve his prescription has been phoned in."

Sometimes it's the little things that tell you it's real.

And now Vermont

2009-04-07T22:53:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

One step at a time, baby. One step at a time.

The Vermont House Debate & Vote can be seen here.

Now let's hope the California Supreme Court is paying attention.

Iowa, where rights are protected and maintained

2009-04-03T12:55:00.000-07:00

Iowa's Supreme Court released their unanimous ruling in the Varnum v Brien case this morning. Repeat: this was a unanimous decision. Iowans seem to be possessed of an uncommon amount of common sense.

The Court held that Iowa's statute banning same sex marriages violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Iowa State Constitution. The court further ordered that all marriage legislation in Iowa must be interpreted to allow and include same sex married couples. Beginning in 21 days, barring a re-hearing motion, Iowa will allow same sex marriages to take place. See the video below to understand why it'll be at least two years before this can be overturned via a constitutional amendment, a la Prop 8. Iowa, like California, doesn't require residency for marriage.

The opinion can be found here. Evidently some 350,000 people tried to access the Iowa Court's server this morning as the decision was about to be released, causing the server to crash. It's back up now.

What a good way to start a morning.

A message from Iowa State Senator Matt McCoy:

Unfortunately, other than public opinion, I don't think the Iowa case will have any affect on the forthcoming Prop 8 decision. Varnum v Brien is analogous to the Prop 22 cases that led to the In re Marriages decision--both dealt with statutory provisions, rather than the constitutional nature of Prop 8.

Going away ...

2009-03-25T21:14:00.000-07:00

Heading to Las Vegas tomorrow for A MINI Vacation in Vegas

I'm at the 4:13 mark in the video in the GP, my sister is in her convertible two cars behind me.

I've been to 4 of these, this will be my fifth.

400 or so Minis & MINIs, terrorizing the streets and inhabitants of Vegas.

Friday night we'll all be on the strip.

Epic coolness.

Fred's First Pictures

2009-03-08T16:04:00.001-07:00

This is Fred. He came home with me last night, so I took him out for some pictures today.

Laying a "Whoopsie" on their asses

2009-03-07T07:57:00.000-08:00

On the eve of the Prop 8 court hearings, a New York Times op-ed offered a compromise that would grant relationship rights to gays and lesbians via Federal recognition of civil unions, while carving out a state by state religious exemption that reserves the term marriage to heterosexual relationships unless the state provides a religious exemption that explicitly protects churches from having to recognize gay marriage.

This quote, I think, is a key part of the article:

Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

Earlier this week a group of lawyers stood in front of seven judges debating whether 18,000 same sex marriages, including my own, will continue to exist as legal entities. As a result, I'm not in much of compromising mood. I think I've made it clear how important getting married has been to me.

Had this compromise been on the table prior to Prop 8 hitting the ballot, I'd probably have been amenable to it. Especially if all states would have been providing at least a basic level of same sex relationship protections. Then I look back on the Prop 8 campaign & wonder, who do I trust? The folks that flat out lied about my life and the lives of thousands of people like me, just to make a political point?

I'm tempted to say go ahead, carve out the religious exemption.

Then take away all governmental funding of religious/faith based programs. Emergency assistance, alcohol & drug programs, pre-school/headstart, etc.

That's the compromise. Churches get to discriminate, but they don't get another damn dime of governmental money. I'll even support letting the churches maintain their tax exemptions for their sanctuaries. But no more tax breaks for commercial activities. No more tax exempt 700 Club, CBN, syndicated radio shows, christian amusement parks, etc.

Because, otherwise, the "religious exemption" folks aren't compromising--that particular exemption already exists in the constitution. A compromise means both sides give up something. In my calmer moments, I know that what I propose as a compromise is not that at all. Then I reflect on the fate of the proposed relationship protections recently dismissed out of hand by the Utah legislature and realize that in some cases, even a religious exemption isn't going to guarantee that gay and lesbian families receive the most basic of civil protections. Ultimately, however, removing those tax exemptions and federal dollars will do more harm than good. Too many people would lose assistance that is provided via religious organizations that allows them to get by on a day by day basis.

When asked if a fundamental inalienable right like free speech could be voted away by a simple majority of Californians, Ken Starr said today that the voters have that right. He went further to say that the court wouldn't and shouldn't be able to do anything about it. Ken Starr is lead counsel for the pro-Prop 8 side, dean of a law school and a supposed constitutional scholar, and we're supposed to accept his judgment that fundamental constitutional rights can be tossed aside by the whim of a slim majority? That's errant arrogance of the highest order (or as my father refers to it, bull****). Despite protestations to the contrary, the people Ken Starr is representing would like nothing more than to see all ss relationship protections and rights removed, e.g. the fate of the Utah bills.

I find myself in a position where my basic rights as a citizen of this country are negotiable. At this moment, I'm left with nothing but spite. People ask "At what cost should we provide marriage rights to gays and lesbians?" and right now I can only reply, not at the cost of my rights. Maybe I'll mellow after a couple more day's worth of distance from the court arguments.

I'm disappointed to see that Jerry Brown bailed on the oral arguments, and sent up his bumbling assistant to make the state's case to overturn Prop 8. It's like sending Barney Fife in to resolve the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. Damn it, if you're going to propose a precedent setting reading of the constitution, get your A-team ass in there to defend the proposal.

Meanwhile, I can't help but lose sleep over this. Until DOMA and Baker v. Nelson are overturned, federal recognition of my marriage is extremely unlikely. I'm not too optimistic about Prop 8 being overturned in the next sixty or ninety days, either. The first attempts at gay marriage took place at least 39 years ago, as demonstrated by Baker v. Nelson. I can't wait that long for full marriage rights on both the federal and state level, I may not be here 39 years from now. I'd be 85 years old, Steve would be 88. How many 88 year old diabetics do you know?

The court might uphold both the existing marriages and the validity of Prop 8. It just seems so nonsensical and self-contradictory. Maybe it's selfish. We didn't want to be marked out for special treatment, we just wanted to get married. Now, if existing gay marriages are upheld and future gay marriages are barred, we're going to be treated differently under state law than 99% of the rest of the gay community.

"Well, at least I got mine" is not a very pleasant or satisfying emotion.

I'm feeling depressed and anxious, and I don't like it. Nor am I looking forward to the rage I know I will feel if my marriage gets tossed by the court. My respect for the rule of law and the constitutional process only adds to the confusing welter of thoughts, feelings and emotions that are running through me right now.

But what if the judges throw out Prop 8 in its entirety? Wouldn't we be paying a steep a price to ensure marriage rights for gay couples? Judicial tyranny would be overriding the constitutionally valid will of the people. I realize that isn't a price I'm willing to pay. Amending the constitution in California is ridiculously easy. I didn't know how easy until the Chief Justice explained that the California Constitution had been amended 550+ times (a little research indicates that that number is since 1911). During the oral arguments, the justices noted that]Initiative amendments are a derived legislative power. I feel that Prop 8 is an example of that power having been abused, but I also respect that the justices must follow the constitution as it is written. So I see exactly why Prop 8 will most likely be upheld as a valid amendment. I may not like that decision, but I will respect it.

On the other hand, there's more than a little irony in the fact that 18,000 same-sex marriages will most likely remain valid because Prop 8 was written so ambiguously. At the time I got married, same sex marriage was legal. Same sex marriage was allowed in California, because the court overturned Prop 22 as a statutory provision, rather than a constitutional provision. That's well within the purview of the court. With the passage of Prop 8, a constitutional bar to same sex marriage now exists. This means that the court must follow the constitution as it is written. Now we're in a situation where new same sex marriages won't be legal, but those performed prior to Nov 4th 2008 will most likely retain their validity. This bizarre situation arises because Prop 8 is fuzzily written.

These fourteen words are the entire text of Prop 8:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

It seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Only heterosexual marriage is to be allowed in California. Yet one of the questions the court considered this week is whether existing gay marriages will continue to be valid. This questions arises because the court made same sex marriage legal in California last May. 18,000 odd couples counted upon the courts decision to get legally married. One interpretation of Prop 8 could be that these marriages are no longer valid. However there is a significant amount of case law that holds that in order to be retroactive, an amendment to the California constitution must clearly demonstrate that retroactivity. The court seems to be leaning towards concluding that Prop 8 did not have a retroactive component, therefore the existing marriages must remain valid.

Here's one way Prop 8 could have been written to meet the retroactivity test:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, including those performed prior to the passage of this amendment."

Another:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed."

I'm firmly convinced that Prop 8 was fuzzily written because the writers felt that clearly retroactive language wouldn't be supported by California voters. So the writers settled for preventing future same sex marriages. The method may seem underhanded, but it's legally valid. More importantly, it's constitutionally valid. So we're left with the situation where the future exercise of a legitimately judicially declared liberty/equal access right of a protected class has been removed by a slim majority of California citizens. That the majority was driven by an ineffective anti-Prop 8 campaign and an effective, but demonstrably deceitful, pro-Prop 8 campaign only adds salt to the wound. The slim majority issue can be fixed in the future by changing the CA constitution to require a super majority (60, 66 or 75%) to pass an amendment. This is already being done in regards to certain tax increases. Why not have the same requirement for all amendments? Granted, I hope that change doesn't happen until after Prop 8 is repealed--but before a replacement anti-same sex marriage initiative can be placed on the ballot.

Meanwhile, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of out of state couples who came to get married in California. Their marriages are going to remain legally valid in California, too. The writers of Prop 8 have made a fatal mistake with their fuzzy writing by going for the short term gain of blocking most recognition of gay marriages in California. That's where we've got 'em. The gay community is going to be able to clutch our collective beads to our breasts and we're gonna lay a "whoopsie" on their asses. It's going to take a while, but it's going to be worth it.

Inevitably, some of those legally married non-Californian couples are going to be suing in their home states for legal recognition of their married status. As a result, DOMA is going down in the next four or eight years, whether or not President Obama and the Congress get around to repealing it; Baker v. Nelson will go down with it. Federal recognition will come, and will be preceded by the reversal of Prop 8 by Californa voters.

Prop 8 is an attempt to force gay marriage back into the closet. But the writers of Prop 8 have left the closet door just that little bit open. That door will eventually get kicked off it's hinges, probably by a fierce queen in a pair of amazing sequined pumps. Or maybe by a lipstick lesbian who dons a pair of doc martens just for the occassion. More likely, it'll be the average gay folks who do it: we're done waiting and are taking action, and we're determined to be the ones who lay a big old gay "Whoopsie" on the asses of Messrs. Pugno, Starr & Dobson, et al.

Edward Everett Horton and Franklin Pangborn, wherever they are, are going to be so proud of us.

Two Days

2009-03-03T06:25:00.000-08:00

The California Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on the Prop 8 cases this Thursday at 9:00 am. If your local cable provider carries the California Channel, you can watch it live on Cox Channel 23 in South San Diego County, Cox Channel 18 in North County. It's also going to be webcast on the California Channel, but expect that to be very busy.

A question

2009-02-23T22:24:00.000-08:00

Over on the political board I haunt, I was asked a question:

"May I ask if instead of marriage you decided to live together under a civil contract if you could feel the same way and if not why?"

I wasn't quite sure how to answer. So I started writing, this is what came out.

Steven & I lived as "ummers" for a dozen years before we registered as domestic partners. (As in, let me introduce you to my um, er...) Eight years after that, we got married. So we've experienced both the civil contract and the civil ceremony. There's a world of difference between them. We registered as domestic partners just in case--just in case we needed to put Steven on my insurance, or needed to go to the hospital. It was easy, we downloaded a form off of the internet, filled it out, had it notarized and mailed it off with a $10 check. Two weeks later, we received a copy of the form stamped "FILED." Bingo, we were now registered domestic partners.

We got married because we had to get married. I can't really explain it otherwise. It's what both of us were raised to do: you meet someone, you fall in love, you get married. We'd been together almost exactly 20 years when, suddenly, that option opened up for us. We were so ready to get married that we had half the ceremony planned and booked before we'd proposed to each other.

Each of us has a list of moments so special, they're forever engraved in our memories. These are a few of mine:

* I've written here about the moment when the Prop 22 court decision came down:

You hear of a court decision, and as you read it, tears fall down your face, unbidden. And you let out a cry from deep in your soul, so deep you don't know where that sound came from. You've never heard it before, it's a sound of joy, and sorrow that it's taken so long, and celebration, and the release of a pain, a burden you didn't know you were carrying.

That's what I mean by we had to get married.

* This is the complete text of my niece's maid of honor toast as I remember it:

"Uncle Steve & Uncle Jim. You've made my dreams come true. When I was five years old, I danced with my Uncle Jim at my Aunt Eileen's wedding. I remember promising myself that I would dance with my uncle at his wedding. And today I finally did. I love you both. Congratulations."

That's it. She sat down & I realized that if she had said another word, I'd have been a puddle.

* Two days after the court decision, I sat down in our living room with Steve and his mom and asked her for permission to marry her son. I've never heard the word "yes" spoken with more love, conviction and authority.

* I almost lost it when Steve & I exchanged our vows:

I, Steven Clair, take thee, James Michael, to be my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto do I give thee my pledge.

* I did lose it when we exchanged rings:

Steven, I give you this ring in token of our marriage vows. From this moment forward, may it ever be a symbol of the unbroken bond of my love for you, given to you eternally. With this ring, I thee wed.

My hand shook so much, Steven had to hold it still so that I could place the ring on his finger. Those last six words slayed me. They are the words that meant everything. They meant that all that we'd been through and all that we have yet to endure had been and would be worth it.

Rereading the question, the key part seems to be "...if you could feel the same way." But that's a might big "if." A year ago, I might have settled for the civil contract, and probably not have known what I was missing. Six months ago, I might have wondered what I might be missing. Now, I won't settle for anything less than the whole enchilada. With chipotle sauce and sour cream on top.

Friday the 13th

2009-02-13T06:12:00.000-08:00

Not that I'm superstitious or anything, but I'm staying away from ladders today.

Yesterday marked four months of marriage for Steve & I. Happy 1/3 Anniversary to us.

Yesterday, I also received a semi-official (via e-mail) invitation to a wedding in Belfast, N. Ireland at the end of May. I'm planning on going, in combination with a trip to England/Ireland for the 50th anniversary celebrations of Mini Coopers.

It's a car geek thing, you might not understand.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda

2009-02-07T14:57:00.000-08:00

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Courage Campaign is getting it. Please sign the petition in the link.

Madonna getting buff?

2009-02-07T08:15:00.000-08:00

From Sports Illustrated online:

In 2003, when he won the American League home run title and the AL Most Valuable Player award as a shortstop for the Texas Rangers, Alex Rodriguez tested positive for two anabolic steroids, four sources have independently told Sports Illustrated.

Madonna's gotten rather buff these days. I'm beginning to wonder how.

They didn't do it

2009-02-03T22:05:00.001-08:00

From an article re: the $83 MILLION spent on Prop 8:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put about $190,000 worth of in-kind donations toward passing the measure by providing paid staffers and other resources to Yes on 8 as well as subsidizing travel costs of church officials. The Mormon Church initially said that it had only spent $2,000 on the campaign.

Why am I not surprised?

So much for the "we didn't do it" defense pushed forward by the Mormon hierarchy.

We have a date

2009-02-03T18:27:00.000-08:00

From the California Supreme Court Website:

The Supreme Court has announced that an oral argument will be held in the Prop. 8 cases on Thursday, March 5, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The court will issue a written opinion in the cases within 90 days of oral argument. To increase public access to the court session, the Supreme Court has designated the California Channel, a public affairs cable network, to provide a live TV broadcast of the session. See news release.

Pat Buchanan love poem to Obama?

2009-01-24T09:52:00.000-08:00

Now I'm not a big fan of Pat Buchanan, and I have a long memory. He gave one of the most hateful speeches of the modern era back at the 1992 Republican National Convention.

But... In an opinion piece entitled A Neo-Reaganite Inaugural?, Pat favorably reviews Obama's inaugural address, aligning some of Obama's calls to action with the ideals of Ronald Reagan and 1980's neo-conservatism.

So, is the Obama's progressivism a return to the conservatism of a generation ago?

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's simply a call for common sense and common cause.

And they're up...

2009-01-22T22:31:00.000-08:00

The rest of the Prop 8 briefs.

Now to see which of them will enlighten, and which will just piss me off.

Amicus Briefs

2009-01-17T16:36:00.000-08:00

No, they're not tighty-whities. Nor would you share them with a friend, unless he's an attorney or she's a constitutional law junkie.

The amicus curiae briefs have been filed in the Prop 8 cases. The usual suspects have weighed in on the throw it out side: Labor, Lawyers, the National Organization for Women, even the California Council of Churches. In their amicus briefs, the various groups weigh in on separation of powers; the difference between an amendment and a revision; and how Prop 8 unconstitutionally limits a fundamental right.

The weird stuff starts with the briefs filed in support of Prop 8. There are only two of them, and they're out in cloud cuckoo land. Michael J. McDermott goes off on a 20-odd page rant on the Supremely Privileged Homosexual class, the supremacy of XX & XY, and how radical lesbians are not only out to destroy the world, but are waging a personal vendetta against the minority of truly masculine men left in this world, with himself as their chief target. His diatribe is linked on the Supreme Court site as "Supporting Declaration in Support of Prop 8."

The second amicus brief in favor of Proposition 8 is entitled "The Church of the Messiah in Support of Prop 8" and was filed by "The Most Reverend Messiah" of Marina del Rey, California. This one's really out there and includes the use of sparkly-star fonts for the 40-odd biblical quotes from Corinthians, Leviticus, Romans and Proverbs that make up the Rev's "legal" justification for supporting Proposition 8.

The Council of Churches brief in opposition to Prop 8 is particularly interesting in that it makes the point that, for churches that perform or support gay marriage, Prop 8 unconstitutionally violates the religious freedom rights of those churches. The Council also points out that if marriage rights can be swept away by a simple majority vote, so can religious rights. Which is a can of worms that no church in this country wants to open.

Which might explain why, unlike last time around with Prop 22, the LDS Church has not filed a brief in opposition to Prop 8. Neither have the fundamentalists over at the Becket Fund.

Anyway, the amicus briefs are linked here and in the title of this post. The parties in the case have until Wednesday to reply to the briefs. Shortly afterwards the California Supreme Court will schedule its hearing in the matter, and a decision will be handed down within 90 days of the hearing.

UPDATE: Thanks, Joey, for the further information.

There's a whole slew of amicus briefs still in process, and unposted to the California Supreme Court website. Here's a link to all of them, via the California Judicial Council. I'm assuming that the rest of the briefs will begin to appear on the Supreme Court site next week.

Indulge me, would you?

2009-01-03T10:39:00.000-08:00

My name is Jim, and I am an addict. I don't know for sure what first got me hooked. But 've got an addiction. It's serious, and has cost me thousands of dollars over the last six years. Some of this spending has been to meet daily needs. A guy has to eat and have a place to live.

But I've got it bad. I don't jones for many things, but I've got a problem with one thing in my life that I just can't get enough of.

MINIs: those cute little English cars now made by BMW. I've owned three. I want another. I'm a serially monogamous MINI-whore. Tell me about an event involving MINIs, and I'm there. I travel to MINI events all over California and the West Coast, and last spring, to the East Coast. I've been to Las Vegas, Angeles Crest, Santa Barbara, the Bay Area, Monterey, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona and on every road with more than one curve in San Diego County. All on MINI related trips. I've lost track of the number of times I've driven up and over Mt. Palomar, through Mesa Grande and down to Borrego Springs.

My idea of a good time involves 3 or more MINIs, a long series of curvy roads and a full gas tank. I travel to MINI events 2 or 3 times a year, and have added international events to my gallivanting around. I've been to Ireland & England for MINI events, and will be heading to another over there this spring. For me, the ideal tourist destination is the nearest MINI dealership. I've been to at least 12 MINI dealerships in 4 states and two countries, including the dealership up the road from the Houston hospital where my husband had bypass surgery. (I had permission, honest. Five days after surgery, Steve got sick of staring at four walls, and wanted to go out for dinner. The dealership was right up the street from the restaurant. I only spent 20 minutes there.) I put 1200 miles on my latest MINI in the first 3 days of ownership, while hanging out with 500 or so other like minded fanatics. I've left home on an 80 degree day, only to get lost in a snowstorm--on the same day I single-handedly caused the biggest traffic jam in the history of Idyllwild, CA.

I break MINIs, usually through no fault of my own. My first MINI went through 3 windshields & a driver's side door, it was also a shopping cart magnet, no matter how far away from the store I parked. My second MINI went through 3 more windshields, was rear ended twice--the first time when it was 3 days old--and hit in the side (which was the only time I caused damage, less than a week after I got it back from the second rear-ending). My third MINI is on it's 2nd windshield, and has been dented by a Sunday paper and a Chevy Suburban in separate incidents, and needed a new rear bumper cover 2 weeks after I got it home. I've gone through five sets of rims (six if you count the replacements I've had done on the current car), and 6 sets of tires.

Don't ask me to work on a MINI, though. I can tighten a bolt, change a tire and have assisted in multiple oil changes. I can wash, wax and detail with best. Anything more complicated, I leave to the experts. Electrical tape sticks to my fingers, not to the wiring harness. Cars fall off jacks when I try to help install accessories. Somehow, even with my destructive tendencies, I've made more good friends in the MINI community than I can count. Some of them came to my wedding. They've been there through good times and bad, for which I'm eternally grateful. My sister even loaned me her MINI as the limo for my wedding.

This post was originally meant to be 50 words long, and feature a couple of pictures of the cars, and a couple of snarky comments. Instead, it's turned into something self indulgent. I'd better stop & just post the pictures.

This is Ollie, for Oliver Hardy. I was tall and (thought I was still) skinny, he was English & got me into one fine mess after another.

This was taken after I thought I'd finished customizing Ollie, there were more changes to come.

When you're gay, and living in a very conservative area--never, ever send your mother an e-mail of this pic. Especially if all you tell her is "I painted the car." (It's a photoshop job)

Yes, it snows in Southern California. I found out the hard way. In May. After the traffic jam.

This one's Ollie Jr., leading a group of about 40 MINIs on a run out to 4 or 5 of San Diego County's finest Indian Casinos back in 2006.

Ollie Jr. got a new pair of shoes.

The day Ollie Jr. came home.

This one was taken a four days after I picked up Stanley (on the right), that's Ollie Jr. with his last set of new shoes.

Have a Gay Ol' Christmas

2008-12-24T18:36:00.001-08:00

Our newest Christmas ornament, courtesy of my sister.

Santa Castro, save me !

Understanding Jerry Brown

2008-12-21T16:50:00.000-08:00

I'm not an attorney, nor am I an expert in constitutional law. Nevertheless, I'm going to take a stab at explaining California Attorney General Jerry Brown's Answer Brief in the Proposition 8 cases. The brief filed by Jerry Brown can be seen here, and was filed as the State of California's official response to the California Supreme Court's acceptance of multiple cases regarding the legality/constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The following is my understanding of the questions to be resolved in the Prop 8 cases:

1) Is Prop 8 a revision to the CA Constitution which should have gone through the Legislature or an amendment which was properly entered into via the initiative process? Depending on the answer, Prop 8 was either legally or illegally placed on the ballot.
2) Does Prop 8 violate separation of powers, specifically, has the court's power to judicially review legislation been unconstitutionally overridden by Prop 8?
3) If Prop 8 is constitutional, what is the status of the marriages that took place between June & November?

Summarizing 80 pages of legal arguments very briefly, J Brown notes:

A) In response to question 1, Prop 8 is not a revision to the CA Constitution, because Prop 8 was so narrowly focused on one issue.
B) In further response to question 1, Prop 8 is an amendment, therefore the election process was properly passed via the initiative process.
C) In response to question 2, Prop 8 does not violate the separation of powers, in that the court has previously allowed other amendments to override court decisions. One example of such an override was voter approved initiative amendment which re-authorized the death penalty in California, following the CA Supreme Court's tossing out of all death sentences as unconstitutional back in the 1970's.
D) In response to question 3, if Prop 8 is unconstitutional, marriages that took place prior to November should remain legal, because Prop 8 fails on the following points:

Amendments are by precedent forward looking, with no effect on legal actions prior to the passage of the amendment--unless there is language making the amendment retroactive included in the amendment
There was no clear retroactivity language included in Proposition 8

My understanding is that Brown is in agreement with the Prop 8 supporters on issues A, B & C, and in disagreement on issue D.

None of the above is really the important part of Jerry Brown's brief. Here's where it gets interesting.

Brown goes on to state that, as Attorney General, he finds that Prop 8 should be held invalid, but not for any of the reasons noted above. He finds that the CA Constitution has been interpreted to by the Supreme Court to hold marriage to be a fundamental right. Specifically, he addresses Article 1, Section 1 of the CA Constitution:

quote:
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Over the course of the latter portion of the Answer Brief, Jerry Brown defines marriage as a fundamental liberty right, one of the most basic rights enshrined in the California Constitution. If I'm understanding his argument correctly, Jerry Brown is making the point that while fundamental rights can be limited via judicial decision, legislation or constitutional amendment they can not be denied without a compelling state interest, especially in the case of a minority or suspect class. In legal parlance, a suspect class is one that must be treated carefully by the law, so that the law doesn't discriminate against that class of people. As part of the In re Marriage Cases decision, gays and lesbians were determined by the Supreme Court to be a suspect class, based on the historic animus and discrimination experienced by them.

Brown makes a further argument that there are limits to the initiative process in that "...If the initiative process were to encompass the unlimited power to abrogate fundamental rights, article 1, section 1 would be stripped of all meaning." By this, if I'm understanding correctly, Brown is stating that a constitutional initiative amendment must pass muster in light of other provisions of the State constitution for that amendment to be considered valid.

Brown goes on to say: "The Court should give expression to the guarantees secured by article 1, section 1 by evaluation whether the proposed initiative-amendment sufficiently furthers the public health, safety or welfare. Mere majority support alone does not suffice." In other words: the state has to have a damned good reason to remove a right from a class of people (i.e. a "compelling interest"). More importantly, he's saying that a majority vote is not sufficient reason to remove a right.

Both quotes are from page 89 of the brief (which is page 105 of the linked file.)

Brown concludes with:

"The use of the initiative power to take a way a legal right deemed by this court to be fundamental and from a group defined by a suspect classification is a matter of grave concern. Existing precedents of this court do not support the invalidation of Proposition 8 either as a revision or as a violation of the separation of powers. However, Proposition 8 should be invalidated as violating the inalienable right of liberty found in article I, section 1 of our Constitution.

Alternatively, if the Court finds the initiative constitutional, it should be narrowly construed to uphold the marriages that took place prior to the enactment of the initiative." (from pages 91-92 of the brief, pages 107/108 in the link.)

In other words, Proposition 8 is, in Jerry Brown's opinion, a fatally flawed amendment that should be tossed out by the California Supreme Court. Failing that, the marriages that took place between June & November 2008 should remain legal.

If I'm following correctly, the logic above is built on Jerry Brown's belief that under the CA Constitution, marriage, like religion or speech, is an inalienable right. As such, it can't be limited without a compelling state interest.

It's that simple. It's not "creating" a right, it's clarifying the status of an existing right.

From the CA Constitution:

quote:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECT. 7 (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

That's how the relevant section of the CA Constitution read prior to the passage of Proposition 8. Remember, Jerry Brown is speaking to the fundamental right to marry as being enshrined in the CA Constitution. Section 7 is the section that was amended by Prop. 8, as follows:

quote:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

There is no Section 7.1/2/3 or 4. Section 7(a) speaks primarily to how the school system is to be run in a non-discriminatory way. Read 7(b) again, and you'll see that 7.5 is in direct contradiction to it--because it separates marriage from the provisions of section 7(b). Setting aside Section 7.5 for the moment, Jerry Brown asks the court to consider the following:

quote:
SEC 3.
(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other Authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the Interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or professional qualifications of a peace officer.
(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.

California's Constitution Secs. 3.2 & 3.4 call for broadly interpreted equal protection/access to all legal institutions for all residents; which is in turn specifically called out as being equally applicable to all classes of people. Section 3.3 is relevant in that it's one of the sections of the Constitution that allows for private, consensual relationships between same-sex couples. These Sections, in combination with Section 7(b), direct that the State must show an "Interest" if either the addition or removal of equal protection/equal access is to be allowed. The State's "Interest" in adding equal access has been demonstrated by the Legislative and the Executive branches, by the passage of various pieces of DPR legislation over the last several years, which expanded most of the significant rights found in marriage to same-sex couples. Thus, all of the constitutional underpinnings for the In re Marriage Cases decision already existed prior to the passage of Prop 22. They weren't created out of whole cloth. The Court, as a result, held that Proposition 22, by separating Domestic Partnerships and Marriages in to two separate entities, violated Section 7 and failed sections 3.2 & 3.4.

Under J. Brown's logic, Prop 8 (i.e. Section 7.5), also flat out contradicts the provisions of Secs. 3.2, 3.4 & 7(b). When these sections are considered in combination with Article 1, Section 1, it becomes obvious that Section 7.5 should be tossed.

What's really cool is that Jerry Brown is saying that, while the supporters of Prop 8 followed all the correct steps in placing Prop 8 on the ballot and that Prop 8 doesn't unconstitutionally restrict judicial review of laws, Prop 8 still sucks.

At least that's my humble opinion. The language is pretty straight forward: no denial of equal access/equal protection to any class of people within the state. Everything else flows from that. If the court agrees with Jerry Brown's logic, same sex marriages will once again be legal in California, starting right around the one year anniversary of the beginning of the first round of legal same sex marriages.

I leave it to the lawyers among us to pick apart my analysis.

Christmas came early this year

2008-12-16T21:06:00.000-08:00

Christmas is eight days away, where the heck did the month go? I've only done a few bits of shopping, and I don't know when I'll be able to finish. I'm pretty much done, though, so I'm not too worried. I haven't sent a single Christmas card, even though I still have the unopened boxes of cards I bought last year. I love you all, but I'm damn tired right now.

I've got a few things on my wish list, but they're not likely to happen, seeing as they include adding 800 sf to the house, getting a new car, and taking a 17-day Mediterranean cruise. I'd love a GPS for the MINI, and another trip to Ireland, this time with a chance to just wander around. One of those might happen, the rest is on the "when I win the lotto" list.

It's going to be a laid-back Christmas. Funds aren't too tight, but we just spent a good sum on the wedding. So we're doing a couple of biggish presents each, but we're not going all out, not like we have in past years. So no three hour marathon present opening session. The tree isn't even up yet, which must happen this weekend. Hopefully it won't be raining, and I'll even be able to put up lights.

I'm finding that presents aren't too important this year, really. The family presents are sorted, but I've had more fun and taken more meaning from helping others. I took my budget for work-related presents and spent it on Toys for Tots via the MINI Cooper club I'm most active in; I've upped my contribution to the work related charity this year, too. My co-workers have adopted two families that need help to have a nice holiday. One of them is a military family, the other is just a young family struggling to get by. I'm feeling fortunate that I've got a good, steady job. Christmas came a couple of months early this year: getting married was eleventy-seven Christmases all wrapped up into one. With sugar plum fairies and eight lords a leaping.

A few of my favorite things

2008-12-09T22:09:00.001-08:00

No, I'm not a Julie Andrews freak. I mean, I'd probably lose my mind if I met her, but I'm not a total freak. There have been a few things I've fallen for at first site. This pic includes the two I've fallen hardest for. MINIs & my husband (not necessarily in that order).

Taken on our wedding day. That's my sister's MINI. Her husband bought it for her for her birthday a couple of years ago. Nice husband, but her MINI isn't as nice as mine. Even if she feels the same way about hers that I do about mine.

MINIs have taken me to Tennessee:

Vegas:

Ireland:

Twice:

Even over to England for a curry:

But the best place a MINI ever took me:

When I reflect on it, was to my wedding:

It brought new light into my life:

It made me weepy:

It made me want to dance:

Stop and smell the flowers:

Most of all, the best MINI ride I ever took, made me want to stay with Steve until I'm old and gray:

Finding common ground

2008-12-06T11:01:00.000-08:00

I've spent a lot of time listening to the gloom and doom predictions from the other "side" of the gay rights divide, which has pretty much given me a thick skin. It's also enabled me to pick moments to call people on their bullshit. Every time there has been an advance in the gay rights movement, the world was supposed to end. Thirty years ago, Anita Bryant said that homosexuals are coming after the children, they're recruiting in the schools and parks, because they can't reproduce.

This in the face of the simple fact that every last gay & lesbian person on earth is the product of some type of heterosexual intercourse, whether it's from loving parents or a petri dish. Denying that basic truth is the essence of bullshit.

Gays and lesbians are a part of the fabric of this country. We are teachers and firefighters, accountants and lighting technicians. The country didn't end and the sky didn't fall when Proposition 6 failed to pass all these years ago, however much it may have chagrined poor John Briggs. We're thirty years on, and we need to learn from the past. The reason the sky didn't fall was because the rights of all Californians were protected. We, as a state, decided that enough was enough. That "...all men are created equal" meant just that: we couldn't and shouldn't prevent people from exercising their rights, nor should we take away their jobs for living the truth of their lives.

I say this because I'm not wholly optimistic about the chances of Prop 8 being thrown out by the California Supreme Court.

The surest way to radicalize a group is to dangle a right in front of them, only to snatch it away with an attitude of "maybe, if you're good, we won't take any more." That's where I think the opponents of same sex marriage have made a mistake. Increasingly, the campaign to take marriage rights away from gay people is being seen as misguided--if only because of the reaction by gays and lesbians, who are asking themselves "What's next?" The propositions that passed in Florida and Arizona answer that question in a way that ought to frighten us all. One step to the right (or across a state line) and all those hard-won battles are off the table: no marriage rights, no domestic partnership rights, no civil unions and, in some states, no employment rights.

Which is why we need to engage the middle, that mass of people in the center who may not really care about our issues. Because, fundamentally, their issues are our issues: the freedom to create a family, to hold a job, to vote, to be secure in our homes and our cities, to worship as we choose. In return, we ask that our government step in when necessary to promote and protect those freedoms and otherwise get out the way. In January 1941, less than a month after Pearl Harbor was bombed, Franklin Roosevelt defined the Four Freedoms that are essential for our society to thrive: freedom of speech and expression; freedom of worship; freedom from want and freedom from fear. That's all we ask as citizens, whether we're gay or straight. All of us need to wake up and remember those simple facts.

In that January speech, as he began defining the Four Freedoms, our President had these remarkably apt and prescient words to say:

"...For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy.
The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:
Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
Jobs for those that can work.
Security for those who need it.
The ending of special privilege for the few.
The preservation of civil liberties for all."

Think about these words, and let the people around you know that FDR was was right: taking away basic rights diminishes all of our freedoms. Engage the left, the middle, the right. Talk to your neighbors, your co-workers, your friends. Take the Bill of Rights out of your back pocket and read it. Share what it means to you, discuss how Proposition 8 flies in the face of the equity and fairness inherent in our Constitution. One by one, we can create a radical middle that believes in the inherent equality of all, that works to ensure that no one's rights are taken away on the whim of a bare majority or of the privileged few.

Welcome to the world

2008-12-04T20:25:00.001-08:00

Keely Margaret, 12/03/08.

She's Molly's younger sister.

Congrats, Ray & Tracy. I think she's a keeper.

Aaaaaaaaw

2008-12-03T09:27:00.001-08:00

Nick and Bailey.

I'm going to be an uncle again

2008-11-29T21:39:00.000-08:00

By the time you read this, I will most likely be an uncle again. If my sister-in-law can keep from going too much further past her due date, that is. Depending on how you count, I'll be an uncle for the 13th or 15th time. Another niece or nephew number will be coming along in June. This is happy news, delivered twice, without having to listen to the bubble-headed blonde chattering aimlessly on Channel 7.

Combine that news with the ongoing marriage debates over on the political forum, and I find myself wondering why I haven't become a father. For other than the obvious reason, that is. Maybe it's my biological clock ticking away, setting off alarms before I get too old to deal with a toddler. Or the thought of dealing with a teenager when I'm in my sixties. I'm in my forties, and I've begun to think that I would be a good father, and that Steven would be an ever better one. His patience is much greater than mine, for one thing.

I tell myself we could adopt, or find a surrogate. So my mind bounces off of the logistics. We'd have to move to a larger house. How would a child fit into our life? How would we cope with raising a child, while caring for a parent who's mind has begun an inexorable slide in senescence? Am I greedy in wanting a healthy child, rather than a more readily adoptable special needs child? Either way, could we afford to raise a child on just my income? Would it be one commitment too many?

Is it unreasonable to want to hear my son say "I love you, Daddy" or to sit in a doctor's office as he receives his first shots? Is is selfish to want to experience a daughter's unconditional love, or to want to dance with her at her wedding?

But then it might be wishful thinking. I don't know if it's marriage that's made me consider the possibility. But I'm beginning to think that the moment has passed, that it's too late to provide grandchild number sixteen.

Which is a shame, because I'd be a good father.

Happy Thanksgiving

2008-11-27T06:33:00.000-08:00

The holidays are upon us. For the next month, we'll all be in a frenzy getting ready for Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, etc. We're talking about putting up the tree this weekend, which is at least two weeks early for us. It's early Thanksgiving day as I write, and it's pouring down rain. The turkey is in the final stages of defrosting, and I need to go in and get started on the stuffing.

Before I do that, I guess I need to talk about what I'm thankful for. I'm thankful for the friends and family that have supported us in our "lifestyle choice" over the years. I'm even more thankful that they realize it's not a lifestyle, but a life.

I'm thankful I've got a job that I love. It can be frustrating and overwhelming at times. At times it sends me home, eager to shut down. My co-workers make it worth all the effort and stress. There's an undeniable satisfaction that comes from meeting the day to day challenges of the work day.

I'm thankful for my family, the whole disputatious lot of 'em. The conflicts and frustrations of family life are leavened by an underlying love and caring that always comes through in the best and worst of times. Getting past hurt feelings and anger is easier when you realize that. The lows that are hit when you're right in the middle of a situation may be lower, but the highs are even higher. Six weeks ago, when I married Steve, we hit one of those highs, and it was glorious.

Having been through fights, deaths, births and reconciliations, it came down to knowing that one of us was getting married. It wasn't about being on our best behavior or our worst. It was about being a family, and knowing that one of us was taking an important step forward in life. In the big things, and the little, there's a comfort in knowing that your family will be there for you. Not out of a sense of obligation, but with an innate understanding that love, in whatever form, is simply that: love.

I'm thankful for my parents. I wouldn't be the man I am today if it weren't for them. They're coming up on 49 years of marriage and have set an example of how love endures if you leave yourself open to it. It's not a surrender or a vulnerability, rather it's an openness to experiencing the world with the person whose happiness is essential to your own. They instilled in me an understanding of what's right and good in the world, and a willingness to work towards that. By giving me roots, they've given me the ability to fly.

In these difficult times of real and imagined strife, change and economic stress, I'm thankful for being married. Steve is my rock and my anchor, and has been for the 20-odd years we've been together. His roots have been grafted upon the roots my parents gave me, and have grown to surround them, but not supplant them. We've built a life with and around each other, and have welcomed in anyone who is willing to share it with us. He gives me the room to reach for my wildest dreams, and a place to rest my wings after marathon flights of fancy. I can only hope I do the same for him.

Bringing Steve's mother into our home and into our family has been a blessing, the magnitude of which I can't begin to describe. After 18 or so years of a cross-country relationship, Neva is physically here for Steve, as he is for her. The emotional bonds between a mother and her son have been strengthened and have grown to encompass her other son. These bonds strengthen us and prepare us for the journey ahead. Inevitably, she will one day leave us behind. Her mind and intellect may go before her body does, but her love will be with us until we follow in her footsteps.

This one's for you, my husband. One day we'll look back on all of this and leave it behind, knowing that we've built something that lasted our lifetimes and maybe even beyond. We'll have shared moments of overarching joy and moments of deepest sorrow. We'll have shared that particular grace that comes from knowing we did it together.

I'm grateful that my brothers stood beside us as we wed, and that our nieces and nephews preceded us down the aisle, too. My sisters, our parents and our extended families, their friends and ours did so much to make our wedding day special. They succeeded beyond their wildest imaginings. Most precious of all, they exceeded our dreams.

Happy Thanksgiving, Steve. Know that I love you, most of all.

National spokesgay for the Colbert Report

2008-11-21T23:28:00.000-08:00

Click the title. It's completely hysterical and completely un-PC

What marriage is

2008-11-20T20:16:00.000-08:00

The arguments back and forth about the meaning of marriage struck a chord in me. They've inspired the following.

This one's going to wander about a bit, as I try to express where I'm coming from--logic, legality, awe, respect, honor, gratitude and grace come into it. And that just begins to describe the profundity of the moment when I realized that I was married. It's going to get emotional, too. I cry. Deal with it. You've seen the wedding pictures. That's me, in all my weepy glory.

People are right when they say it's about the word or, rather, the meaning behind the word marriage. There is something so deeply and profoundly meaningful about the word marriage that gay couples have been striving and struggling towards if for years.

It's not just a societal norm, or cultural acceptance, or legal recognition, nor is it merely the status of being married. The legitimization inherent in the institution of marriage includes all of those things and more. Steve & I have considered ourselves "married" for most of the past 20 plus years. Having our status in those quotes for most of our time together has meant one thing: we aren't fully a part of all that is important to us. Our families. Our society. Our culture.

It's the same culture and society every citizen and resident of this country lives in. I'm from a Chicago Catholic family (as evidenced by my 6 siblings) transplanted to Northern California. Steve's family background is Pentecostal & upstate Pennsylvania German. We have an idiot brother-in-law, the troubled sister back east, the nieces and nephews we treasure beyond reason. We pay our bills, vote, pay our property taxes. But society still considers our relationship as something less. Less than other committed relationships, less likely to succeed, less likely to last.

It isn't always overt, and is usually more subtle. It can be something as simple as saying to your employer, "I have to leave, my partner is in the hospital" and being questioned about it. Rather than simply being told "Go" like the woman in your office who came in two weeks ago and said "My husband just got taken to the hospital." Your commitment to your partner is being questioned, even if your employer doesn't realize it. Suddenly, you're second class, your relationship doesn't have the same value as another.

Or you can be in the emergency room. Your partner is outside the entry, you know he's there, but you can't have him next to you, because the nurse doesn't think it's important. Worse yet, it becomes clear she doesn't think same sex couples should be allowed in her emergency room. You're terrified and alone, and you let the nurse know that's your domestic partner, and by law he's entitled to be there, by your side. The law says so. And she doesn't care. It's another 20 or 40 minutes before he's finally there next to you, let in by a different, more sympathetic nurse. And when you complain, you're told there's nothing that can be done. That your terror and pain are meaningless beside the prejudice of one woman, who should have known better. You don't even get an apology, not the first time it happens, nor the second.

So when you're next in the hospital, you fill out the paperwork, the powers of attorney, the designation of your "partner" as your care-giver--that piece of paper that exists specifically for those who don't have family around, that would normally be allowed by your side 24/7 without having to say anything except, "That's my husband." or "That's my wife." And you realize the power and the societal depth of meaning behind the word "marriage."

You don't just want it, you need it. You realize deep in your gut that separate isn't equal.

You see how profound the institution is. It's the one word that opens doors, and, at the same time, precisely describes the commitment you have for your partner. He's your husband. No quotes. No snickers. He's the rock you've built your life upon. The one person who's happiness is essential to your own.

That one word, marriage, moves mountains, hearts, and even nurses. In a myriad of ways, you see that it's an equalizer.

You hear of a court decision, and as you read it, tears fall down your face, unbidden. And you let out a cry from deep in your soul, so deep you don't know where that sound came from. You've never heard it before, it's a sound of joy, and sorrow that it's taken so long, and celebration, and the release of a pain, a burden you didn't know you were carrying.

The day comes that you go to the County Clerk's office to take out the marriage license, and you're choked up. You can't breathe, and it's wonderful. A hall is rented, a caterer and a DJ hired. And when you walk down the aisle, you shake. And when your partner takes your hand, your hand trembles. The minister says "Who gives these men to be married to each other?" And you hear your parents' voices, ringing with more pride and joy than you've ever heard, damn near singing "WE DO!" Your hand shakes, as you grip the ring in your right hand, and say "with this ring, I thee wed." And you see a single tear, sliding out of the corner of your stoic, Taurus, husband's eye. So you reach up, and wipe it away. Because that's what you do when you're married.

You hold your husbands hand and comfort him. You share the moments that touch the center of your life together. You go to him. You go with him. To the hospital in Texas, where they treat you as a couple, even (or especially) after you've gone all Shirley McClain on the (male) nurse's ass: "Give him more painkillers!"

Because your "husband" is in pain, and the only thing you want is for it to be eased. For the pain to end.

Years later, when you swear to love, honor and cherish him, you understand that it's the small moments that make it worth it. When he makes you German food, and won't let you in the kitchen until it's done. Or you go with him to see his favorite group down at Humphrey's by the Bay, that silly Australian group that sings those sappy songs about being lost in love. And you have a terrific time, simply because he does. Those are the moments that remove the scare quotes. He's your husband. No quotes. No snickers.

You know it's worth it, then and there, when you say "I do." Every minute of the last 20 years that has gone into this moment. The joys, and sorrows, deaths, births, surgeries, those flat broke evenings when you created a meal out of 1/2 a pound of hamburger and a can of tomato soup. The hours he's spent waiting for you to put down the damn book. The comfort you've felt just knowing that he's there, by your side or in the next room.

You realize, deep in your gut, separate is not equal.

Judges preside as ministers and lawyers fight over whether you should be "granted" the right to marry. You want to take the good book and the marriage code and the god-damned constitution and shove them all right down their throats.

Something so basic, profound, and essential as marriage isn't granted. Or earned.

It just is.

You earn the right to stay married, but that's between you and your husband. It's no one else's damned business. It's not the concern of the Liberty Counsel, or the Catholic Church, or some half-educated fundraiser from Colorado Springs. The only rights granted are between Steven and myself. He grants me the right to be idealistic and to be foolishly enamored of a small British car. I grant him the right to tell me to bring home a gallon of milk, and to be cynical about just about anything except our love for each other.

That's what marriage is.

I (hope you) saw the news today

2008-11-15T20:48:00.000-08:00

Today was an interesting day. Steve & I went down to the Join the Impact rally this afternoon. Some 25,000 marchers participated in the San Diego portion of a nationwide protest against the passage of Proposition 8. Early reports indicate that nearly 1,000,000 people participated in similar rallies in 300 cities nationwide.

Lots of speakers, lots of cheerful people in the audience, all determined to reverse the changes made to the California constitution on Nov. 4th.
Gloria Allred to spoke to finish off the day. Ms. Allred was one of the attorneys who argued before the California Supreme Court for the overturn of Proposition 22. We even got our picture taken with her. Unfortunately, all my pics & videos from earlier in the day got eaten by my camera. Call it technical difficulties (or, more likely, operator error).

Most of the speakers today focused on moving forward in a peaceful, non-violent way, asking the protesters to change the tone of the protests: stop the finger pointing, race-baiting and anti-religious demonization. We're asked, instead, to focus on the larger issue: re-establishing equal marriage rights for all Californians and, eventually, making sure that those rights are available for all Americans. I tend to agree with that POV, but I must say that I'm pretty much over the Shakespearean protestations of innocence being put out by the LDS and Catholic churches. If you play in the political arena, you can expect people to disagree with you. And if you try to take away people's rights, you can expect a fairly strong reaction. The church ladies know this, and I think they protest too much.

The day ended on a bizarre note. Steve & I took his mom out to our favorite cheap spaghetti place tonight (and proceeded to have penne, lasagna & rigatoni instead). On the way back to the car, we witnessed a drive-by hate crime. Three young white guys--in a late model BMW 3 series sedan--pulled up and egged a black man, right in front of us, yelling something along the lines of "Take that you f***ing n****r". They then sped off. All this poor guy was doing was taking a break from his bike ride home his second job by sitting at a bus stop. And along came three spoiled young scions of the East County aristocracy, may they wrap their car around a telephone pole. The sheriff came, in only 25 minutes. If only my piss poor vision wasn't, I'd have been able to get the license plate number, and there might be a different end to this story. The little bastards might think they've gotten away with it, but I'm watching--even if they didn't make the news today.

Special Comment

2008-11-13T20:53:00.000-08:00

Keith Olberman gets it.

Text below.

SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
msnbc.com

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."

Putting an end to the pity party

2008-11-09T11:48:00.000-08:00

Just as I'm all set to go on feeling bitter... someone I know as an online acquaintance turns out to be a true friend. Earlier this morning, over on the political site, I was all set to go off on a trogdolyte who had come on board to gloat over the passage of Prop 8. On that thread, I pulled back from attacking the troll, apologized for being bitchy and went about my business.

I just took another look at that thread, in hopes of being able to post a rational reply, when I found this:

Jim, it's infuriating, but we're winning. This will be overturned. Of course, please do continue to go on about it, and I'm right there with you. I just want you to not feel so hurt anymore. You can see the fear in their eyes. It's 1962, and the Civil Rights Act is coming, and not all the sheriff's dogs can stop it. And you get to know that in advance.

Note to self: memorize the above, and refer to it every time I'm face-to-face with an idiot. At the very least, it'll help in preparing a measured response.

Every once in a while, you come across a random act of kindness that just touches you, and helps restore your optimism & belief in the basic goodness of people.

Thank you, Ricky, for putting an end to this episode of the pity party. (and perhaps a few of the future ones, too.)

And then I calmed down a little (more political stuff)

2008-11-09T10:10:00.001-08:00

And a post from yesterday, at that same political site. I was replying to a person who was using the quote below as evidence that "blacks" were responsible for the passage of Prop 8.

CNN is reporting that seventy percent of blacks voted for this amendment.
Without the black vote this amendment would not have passed.
Whites were slightly leaning towards it, while asians and latinos were split.

Shannikka at Daily Kos has something interesting to say on this:

Analysis of Black Vote Results on Prop 8

Bottom line, based on the writer's analysis of the number of registered black voters in Californa, even if ALL of those black voters had voted "yes" on 8, Prop 8 would have won by 80,000 votes.

I don't know about the accuracy of the population counts, or the validity of the analysis of the numbers (I leave that to the statisticians amongst us), but if these numbers are in anyway valid, I suggest that the "the blacks are responsible" argument should be dropped.

Even if the numbers are completely off, the fact remains that the vast majority of voters who voted against Prop 8 were white.

Draw whatever conclusions you will from that.

As to the "unfairness" of targeting the LDS Church, I submit that providing 50% to 70% percent of the funding of Yes on 8 removes the "un" from the equation. Especially in light of the (from a Catholic perspective, I don't know what else to call it) pastoral letter published by the LDS hierarchy back in June, which strongly encouraged Mormons to donate & be active in the fight against Prop 8. The out of proportion effect (in comparison to their actual numbers) of the Mormon participation in the Yes on 8 campaign feeds right into my previous statements re: accepting the consequences of entering the political arena.

Specifically, if a Church (or anyone, for that matter) enters into a political discourse, they must be prepared to accept the consequences of someone disagreeing with them. Which explains why there are demonstrations going on in front of Mormon temples across the state. Yes, I'm angry at the Mormons who voted for Prop 8--but I'm also angry at EVERYONE who voted for it. From my perspective, it's not a religious issue, but a fundamental rights issue. ALL of us are affected, one way or another.

Ultimately, I don't think any one group was responsible for the passage of Prop 8. I believe the No on 8 campaign dropped the ball--for example, by failing to show that, hey, married gay couples aren't all that scary. (I simplify). Catholics, blacks, Hispanics, Mormons, Asians, Evangelicals of various stripes, Whites and, yes, gays and lesbians, all share that responsibility. Proceed from there, without bias or bigotry.

RANT MODE - ON (in which I get political)

2008-11-09T09:30:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday night, I published the following on a political site I in which I participate. By Wednesday morning, I'd calmed down (a bit), and was able to write the Still Married post. This morning, I find myself leaning towards the angry & bitter again. Per my husband, it seems that someone in the San Diego media has unfortunately put a microphone in front of Rev. Jim Garlow, one of the San Diego lumpen-preacher-tariat. Evidently, Rev. Garlow has made it clear that he intends to go after the 18,000 marriages that took place between June and November--and he's looking for volunteers to help him. Which leads to the following:

RANT MODE : ON

This one is killing me. A San Diego spokesman for Prop 8 just started talking on our local NBC station about going after the marriages that have already been performed.

I'm ****-ing sick of this ****.

Protect marriage from what? A group of people desperate to HONOR the traditions we come from, despite the prejudice and discrimination we've received for decades. Hell, yes, I'm bitter. Only 30% of the vote is in--and already my marriage is being threatened.

I guess 3 1/2 weeks of full citizenship is all I could have counted on.

Don't tell me it isn't bigotry. That's not the perspective I've got, now that same sons of bitches that want to ban future gay marriages are telling me that next, it's my turn.

All I ask is consistency. For 30 odd years, the mantra I've heard from the right & the religious has been gays are evil, promiscuous & unable to sustain a relationship.

I'm 20 years into my relationship, god-dammit. And now, after 3 1/2 weeks of finally, finally being married, some slimy son of a bitch, self righteous & self serving pig wants to take it away from me. Well **** you. And **** you LDS Church, **** you Focus on the Family and **** you Knights of Columbus. Salt Lake City, Colorado Springs & New York have no ****ing business trying to change California law.

And **** our damned governor & President elect. One of 'em had a ****ing responsibility to do something more than making a statement of support 5 months ago, the other had an opportunity to help set an example of change for the nation, and both of them chose expediency over civil rights.

Thanks, guys, way to lead your state & set an example for your nation.

I'm holding the onto slimmest of hopes that the numbers change over night. Take a look at my blog. Read the ceremony, it's posted right there. Then tell me where I'm wrong on this.

If you think I'm going too far with the above: I challenge you to explain how telling approximately 10% of the people in California that they are to become permanently second class citizens is fair, equitable or, for that matter, constitutional. Then explain how it's fair, equitable or, for that matter, constitutional to go after the legally acquired rights of the 18,000 same sex couples who've gotten married in the last 4 1/2 months. Tell me how it's not religious bigotry & fear run amok.

Look in the ****-ing mirror and tell me.

RANT MODE: OFF

I'm off off to bed, where I hope I can sleep. Maybe in the morning I'll feel like apologizing. Then, again, maybe not.

The passage of Prop 8 is not about restoring or preserving the meaning of marriage. It's about destroying the possibility of marriage for loving couples, and, according to the spokesman I heard tonight, it's also about going after marriages that have meaning--and denigrating them; denying the validity of the relationships that underly those marriages & diminishing the most basic, fundamental civil rights of the people involved.

I've edited the above a little, for clarity.

Hold me tight

2008-11-07T13:20:00.001-08:00

Hold me tight
Originally uploaded by jimskater

There are more photos in my flickr gallery

Still married

2008-11-05T19:56:00.000-08:00

We lost last night. By 500,000 votes of well over 10,000,000 cast. Multiple lawsuits have been filed, in an attempt to throw out Prop 8 . We'll see if they work. There is precedent, but it's rarely invoked. The logic behind throwing out Prop 8 is there, but I don't know if the justices are there yet.

Meanwhile, I know this much: I am married. To the man of my dreams.

I have his love and support, and the love and support of my family and friends.

That's what matters.

The anger and bitterness will pass.

And I'll still be married.

Yes on 8 supporters will try, and may succeed in, revoking my marriage, along with nearly 16,000 others. It'll be heartless and soulless.

And I'll still be married, in my heart and soul.

It may be 20 years before my nieces and nephews can, if necessary, take advantage of truly bias free marriage laws in California. It may take 40 years for the rest of the nation to catch up to where California was 2 days ago.

But I'll still be married.

Because I vowed to love, honor and cherish, til death do us part. I meant it on October 12th. I mean it today, tomorrow, and for all the tomorrows Steven and I have left on this earth together. And, if we're lucky, beyond then.

I don't know what the future will bring, but I know this: we're still married.

VOTE NO ON 8

2008-11-04T13:30:00.000-08:00

What are you doing looking here, today of all days?

Get out and vote No on Prop 8.

Thank you.

Quickie: Falling back

2008-11-02T19:31:00.000-08:00

I hate falling back. Yeah, we were supposed to get an extra hour of sleep last night. Me, I woke up at my usual time. Except, by the clock, it was an hour earlier. At 4:30 am, I'm not pretty. Not when I stay up that late, and especially not when I wake up that early.

There will be no photographic evidence. Trust me, you don't want to see it.

Dance, Dance, Dance

2008-11-02T06:28:00.000-08:00

Video from the reception.

Dancing the night away

Two

Something a little less traditional

Halloweenies, I have a question for you

2008-10-31T21:44:00.000-07:00

Every year, the hordes descend upon our neighborhood. We live in the flats, with houses that are located right up close to the street. So veritable van loads of children, dressed up in their Halloween finery, tromp up our driveway. Multitudes of Batmen & Cinderellas, mini-Freddie Kreugers, and legions of petite little fairies. You'd think it was the Castro.

But it's not. We're in El Cajon. James Dobson of Focus on the Family got his start here at Shadow Mountain Church, not much more than three miles or so from our house.

For the most part, El Cajon is a conservative, family-oriented community, so every year we go through a dozen or more big bags of candy. M&M's, Snickers, Milky Way, Crunch Bars, and Smarties. This year, for the first time, we handed out Snyders mini-pretzels along with the candy. They proved to be especially popular with the six to seven year old kids. It makes me wonder if enabling the salt / sugar cycle should be a crime.

I love to get the kids yelling:

Kid(s), mumbling: trick or treat

Me: I can't hear you.

Kid(s): Trick or Treat.

Me: I still can't hear you.

Kid(s): TRICK OR TREAT!

Me: That's more like it!

Then I hand out two or three pieces of candy to each smiling child. Most, if not all, laugh & even say "Thank you"--which is one of the benefits of being in a family-oriented community.

This year, though, we've got extra candy laying around the house--four bags of it. That's four more than we usually have left. Most years, I have to run out to the store to buy a couple of extra bags. This year, however, Steven, his mom, & I actually watched groups of kids being led past our house. Several times we heard "Let's go to the next house." I hope it's not the two "No on 8" signs in the yard, which would be too bad for the kids: the neighbors on both sides of us weren't home tonight.

Unfortunately, East County San Diego is a hotbed of support for Prop 8. The Caster Family is based in El Cajon. Funded by their A-1 Storage franchises, the Caster Family Enterprises and their Family Discipleship Ministries, they are some of the largest private donors to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Which leads to my question for the Halloweenies that walked past the house without stopping:

If you walked past the house because of your beliefs, what are you doing out celebrating a pagan holiday?

I'm just asking.

On the other hand, more than once, we heard people comment:

"Look, they have 'No on 8' signs in their yard! Cool."

So there may be hope for at least some of the kids.

Sometimes, it's all good

2008-10-29T21:57:00.000-07:00

I've been a little busy this week. Last night I was at the Vince Gill concert (that man can sing!), Monday & tonight, I was at the No on Prop 8 San Diego headquarters, doing data entry re: volunteer scheduling for the few remaining days until the election. I was entering sign up sheets & noticed that the last 1/2 of the night I was entering faith-based volunteers.

It reminded me that not all religious folk are for Prop 8. The entries I made included volunteers from the Metropolitan Community, Methodist, Unitarian, and Episcopal churches. Thank God for them. In a weird way, they, and the volunteers I worked with tonight are restoring my faith in the common decency of everyday Californians. The Yes On 8 campaign has been pretty ugly what with exploitation of children that's been going on and the blackmail attempts. It wasn't a gay exclusive crowd, either: there were all sorts of people there--gay, straight, black, hispanic, white, kids, grandparents--all of them concerned for the future of California. All of them convinced that Prop 8 is wrong and unfair. I take comfort in knowing that there are people out there that get it.

I take even more comfort knowing I have the support of a loving family as Steven & I set out on our married life together. Take a look at the pictures--the wedding party officially included both of my brothers and two each of my nieces and nephews (my youngest niece was an unofficial member of the party.) I've lost count of the number of kids my siblings have generated, but there's two more on the way--one is due next month, and just today, I found out there's another due in June. This time next year, I think the count will be 15. I have hope for their futures, and pray that all of them will be free to marry the spouse of their dreams, just like their uncles did. By voting No on Prop 8 next Tuesday, you'll help ensure that choice.

Wedding Pictures

2008-10-26T15:43:00.000-07:00

If I did it right, click the title & you'll be able to see our wedding pictures

October 12 2008

2008-10-26T15:06:00.001-07:00

I met my husband 20 years ago, and we finally got married two weeks ago. As I write, it's almost 2 weeks to the minute. I was going to start this blog several months ago, but it got away from me. I wanted to comment on living as a couple, and as a family. I wanted to get all political, but it became so personal. I've realized these past few months just how much marriage mattered to me, and to my (now) husband. So I'll start with the ceremony. Maybe later I can go back in time & give you a little history.

50 or so guests are gathered in Foster City, alongside a lagoon...

Welcoming

Welcome Steven, welcome Jim and welcome everyone. Thank you for being here today to share in the joy and celebration of this special occasion. I join with Jim and Steven in acknowledging all of you for traveling from various destinations to be with them as they commit to their marriage vows. You’ve come from Pennsylvania, Chicago, Seattle, LA, San Diego and various parts of the bay area. Your presence today adds meaning and respect to our wedding ceremony.

Introduction

Ecclesiastes tells us: “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven."

Now is a time for a wedding.

Friends, we have been invited here today to share in the celebration of the marriage of Steven and Jim. We come together, not to mark the start of a relationship but to recognize a bond that already exists. Steven and Jim chose one another twenty years ago, and stand before you to affirm their commitment to each other in a way they had never dreamed possible. This marriage is one expression of the many varieties of love.

There is the love of a parent for a child, and of that child for his brothers and sisters. It is a love that flows forward and back between generations, flowing out and back again as a son grows and chooses a partner for life. We are here today to witness the small and profound miracle of two people greeting each other, for the first time, as a married couple. They have asked you to join them not only in their public declaration of love, but to share their joy as they legalize their commitment to each other.

Personal History

People come together in a variety of unexpected ways involving synchronicity, timing, good luck and in today’s case, noticing each other while socializing with friends in San Mateo So at this time, I’d like to share a little of the coming together of Steven and Jim and the qualities of their love story as I’ve learned about it during our preparations.

They met over 20 years ago and had their first date at an El Salvadoran restaurant on May 23^rd, 1988. Jim was attracted to Steven’s good looks-his blond hair and sparkling eyes. He was excited to learn that Steven was also a smart, caring and empathic man.

In getting to know Steven, Jim has found him to be loving, honest, supportive, direct and forgiving. With Steven in his life, he’s found balance and stability, comfort and security. He is proud of the way Steven thinks things through in a methodical way. He is persistent and thorough.

Steven makes him feel loved with tender looks and a subtle smile that conveys his deeper feelings and trust. He knew they would be life partners when they first met. Just being next to Steven convinced him there was such a thing as love at first sight.

Steven was also attracted to Jim’s good looks and his enthusiasm for life. He’s found him to be honorable, loving, emotional, loyal and silly. He gives family issues a priority and has always been a support for Steven with health as well as personal concerns.

Jim has encouraged him to relax, have fun, let his hair down a bit and to be more accepting of things the way they are. He realized they would be life partners after Jim mistakenly confused the time he was to pick him up at the airport. Jim’s regret and apology touched him and in Steven’s words, “I haven’t been able to shake him ever since.”

Jim makes him feel special by expressing his love openly and often. He was proud of Jim, not your committed gardener, for creating a circular planting area in their front yard and filling it with lovely flowers because of the joy he knew it would bring to Steven.

They have much in common. They are both intelligent, enjoy books and travel. They love and value their families and are dedicated to spending time together.

And they have a few differences. One of them tends to see things in black and white; the others finds the gray area. One of them loves plants, the other cars. One of them is reactive to people and situations; the other sits back, observes and then thinks things through. One of them is more dramatic, the other more reserved. One of them can be a procrastinator, the other focuses on details. One of them is a self-described neat freak; the other can be oblivious to his surroundings while reading or working on the computer.

May all of your differences present opportunities for personal growth and acceptance. Continue to incorporate into your marriage the gifts and values received from your individual families including self-respect, honesty, integrity, hard work, respect for friendships and treating people well.

Jim and Steven, after 20 years together you know each other very well. You also know that marriage will not always be smooth sailing and all of the moments won't be exciting or romantic. Sometimes worries and anxieties will be overwhelming. But together, two hearts that accept each other, commit to being good listeners, are patient in communicating with each other, will continue to find comfort in one other.

I know we all share the joy and enthusiasm of your special union. It’s both personal and historical. You’ve committed to this public statement of your love and the State Supreme Court has ruled it legal. May you go forward with pride, conviction and courage and may other committed partnerships follow in your footsteps. Continue trusting in each other and in your relationship for you are at the threshold of an important moment in time. I’ll paraphrase some thoughts on threshold by the Irish poet, John O’Donohue.

A threshold is not a simple boundary; it is a frontier that divides two different territories, rhythms and atmospheres.. Indeed, it is a lovely testimony to the fullness and integrity of an experience or a stage of life, a real frontier that cannot be crossed without the heart being passionately engaged and woken up.

To acknowledge and cross a new threshold is always a challenge, but it is also an invitation and a promise. Whatever comes, life will remain faithful to us, blessing us always with visible signs of invisible grace. We merely need to trust.

Statement of Intent

At this time I ask the parents of Steven and Jim to stand. Out of the love your sons have for you, they have asked that you participate in today’s ceremony. Therefore I ask: Do you at this most significant juncture in the lives of your children recommit to their good? Do you pledge to stand beside them as they begin this new phase of their life together? Do you promise to support them and offer help to them in decisions that both accord with and oppose your judgments. To engage them not only as your children but as your friends? To do everything in your power to encourage and exhort them to remain faithful to each other? If so, please respond “I do.”

I would at this time ask for the assembly to stand and join in the declaration of intent. Friends and loved ones of Steven and James, you are also asked to participate in today’s ceremony. Do you at this time commit yourselves to the loving support, nurture and encouragement of this couple? Do you promise to hold them accountable to the vows they will make before you? To remind them of their commitment to each other and assist them as far as it is possible in maintaining a pure and growing relationship? To model before them and thereby encourage them in a healthy and wholesome marriage relationship? To stand beside them as they fulfill these vows throughout their lifetime together? If so, please respond by saying “I do.”

Song

We now invite Jim’s niece Caitlin to come forward to sing “The Wedding Song (There is Love)” Caitlin will be accompanied by Jim’s brother Ray.

Blessing of the Hands

Steven & James, please take each other’s hands and know that these are the hands of your best friend, strong and full of love for you, that are holding yours on your wedding day, as you promise to love each other today, tomorrow, and forever.

These are the hands that worked alongside yours, as together you built your future.

These are the hands that passionately love you and have cherished you through the years, and with the slightest touch, comfort you like no other.

These are the hands that hold you when fear or grief fills your mind.

These are the hands that have countless times wiped the tears from your eyes; tears of sorrow, and tears of joy.

These are the hands that will tenderly hold yours.

These are the hands that help hold your family as one.

These are the hands that have given you strength when you needed it.

And lastly, these are the hands that even when wrinkled and aged, will still be reaching for yours, still giving you the same unspoken tenderness with just a touch.

Vows:

Officiant: Who gives these men to be married to each other?

Parents respond: “We do.”

Steven and James have shared their lives for 20 years now. In this season of change, they have chosen to exchange traditional vows, in recognition that their joining together arises from not just from their shared history, but from their families and friends, and the generations that have come before them.

I, Steven Clair, take thee, James Michael, to be my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto do I give thee my pledge.

I, James Michael, take thee, Steven Clair, to be my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto do I give thee my pledge.

Exchange of Rings

Wedding rings serve as a fitting symbol of the vows you have just spoken. They are the outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible reality—the love that binds your hearts together. Of all the parallels that could be drawn, perhaps these are the most compelling:

1) As these rings are of the finest of earth’s materials, so your love is rich in its godly composition and spiritual value

2) These rings have no beginning or no end, so they symbolize the perfection of the love for which you will strive in your marriage relationship, that also knows no end. Purity and eternity must characterize the love you have for one another and the union into which you are now entering.

Steven, please place the ring on James’ finger and repeat after me:

James, I give you this ring in token of our marriage vows. From this moment forward, may it ever be a symbol of the unbroken bond of my love for you, given to you eternally. With this ring, I thee wed.

James, please place the ring on Steven’s finger and repeat after me:

Steven, I give you this ring in token of our marriage vows. From this moment forward, may it ever be a symbol of the unbroken bond of my love for you, given to you eternally. With this ring, I thee wed.

Closing Reading

For our closing reading, Jim and Steven have chosen:

To Love is Not to Possess
by James Kavanaugh

To love is not to possess,
To own or imprison,
Nor to lose one's self in another.
Love is to join and separate,
To walk alone and together,
To find a laughing freedom
That lonely isolation does not permit.
It is finally to be able
To be who we really are
No longer clinging in childish dependency
Nor docilely living separate lives in silence,
It is to be perfectly one's self
And perfectly joined in permanent commitment
To another--and to one's inner self.
Love only endures when it moves like waves,
Receding and returning gently or passionately,
Or moving lovingly like the tide
In the moon's own predictable harmony,
Because finally, despite a child's scars
Or an adult's deepest wounds,
They are openly free to be
Who they really are--and always secretly were,
In the very core of their being
Where true and lasting love can alone abide.

Pronouncement

By the authority vested in me by the State of California and a minister of the universal life, but most of all because of the vows made in the presence of these witnesses, I now pronounce you husband and husband. Please welcome one another into the estate of marriage with a kiss.

Presentation

Friends and family, I present to you: Steven & James