Monday, October 20, 2008

No on Proposition 8 - "A Letter to My Neighbor"

It started during the Olympics. There I saw the first public ad looking to sway voters for Proposition 8. It is the morning of her wedding, and everything that can go wrong, seems to go wrong. And everyone around her seem to be plotting to keep her away from her intended. Her veil gets ripped, the doors are locked, cars are blocking her way to the ceremony, the flower girl tries to trip her, and when the groom tries to go out towards her, he is held back by his groomsmen. Essentially the ad asked how would you feel if you couldn't marry the one you love?

I thought it a tasteful, somewhat subtle, well done ad. This was August.

I hadn't yet seen any ads supporting Proposition 8. Then, about a month ago, I was driving home after a long day, and I see a soccer mom van with "Yes on Prop 8" sticker. I have to admit, it created a surprisingly strong reaction in me. I wanted to pull her over and ask her how my marriage to my spouse threatens hers? In fact, I did race to catch up to her thinking I might somehow be able to shout it out the window effectively enough to what? To engage her? To make her re-think her position? I don't know.

There's a lot of hype going around about Prop 8 - some valid, some less valid. Certainly there are inflammatory ads about. And I don't dispute that there is potential that gay marriage COULD be taught in our schools - but homosexual relationships are already talked about in schools. This isn't new. And this isn't what the proposition is about, but it's a good scare tactic.

My church supports "equal marriage". My church has recently become an open welcoming and affirming church, and I do believe that the folks there have good hearts and want to do the right thing. I'm not sure everyone is ready for all that comes along with that, though. There is understandable fear.

My pastor put out a "No On Proposition 8" sign at the church which was met with mixed reception. Some felt that "social justice" was one thing, but telling members how to vote, and therefore, indirectly suggesting that those who might not vote the same way, were unwelcome was quite another thing. Elections and the church should be separate - separation of church and state.

The sign was ripped up by one of our parishioners after repeated requests by others to the Pastor to remove it. Unfortunately, the timing was poor, as the sign was ripped up "anonymously" during the same week that our Pastor has been receiving hate phone calls.

I help care for my mother-in-law who lives just up the block from us. She is eighty-six and determined to live in her own home as long as she can. We are determined to help her in this effort. And so, one of us spends the night at her house every night to make sure if she needs something in the night, someone is there.

One morning, when I was leaving my mother-in-law's, I looked across the street and saw a "Yes on Proposition 8" sign. It raised the same visceral reaction in me. My partner suggested she would take it down - although as a former police officer, we both knew she wouldn't really. But certainly the thought crossed both our minds.

I have considered writing a letter to this young family to somehow eloquently explain to them that my commitment to my wife of over nine years is no threat to their marriage. That we ARE their neighbors, their fellow alum (my partner went to the same high school as the woman), that we are good citizens, that we are good people.

How sad is it that I feel like I have to TELL my neighbor that I'm a "good person"?

I felt some measure of relief that I wasn't alone in this strong reaction when I saw a story on the front page of the Local section of the Orange County Register entitled "Prop. 8 signs slashed, stolen" (the text of which is similar to this link found on the web). While my wife and I contained our desire to respond to the neighbor's sign, I smiled a little knowing we weren't alone in feeling that way. I really smiled reading that Bob Warnick from the Yes on Prop 8 campaign reported, "We have communities all over the state, including Orange County, where there will be 200 signs put up and the next day there are less than 10 percent of these left."

After reading that 80% of the "Yes on Prop 8" signs disappeared the next day, I realized I didn't know whether or not our neighbor across from my mother-in-law still had their sign. When I finally remembered to check, it was gone. My wife swears it wasn't her. But, still, I had another internal cheer knowing we weren't the only ones not happy about the sign in their yard.

I had not been present in church when the No on Prop 8 sign was up. I admit, if I had been there, I would have felt a measure of pride and comfort seeing the sign. I listened to a friend of mine, though, explain how it made her feel like the church was telling her how to vote, and even if she did agree with that vote, she didn't feel it was the church's place to tell her how to vote. I sensed in our discussions that she was sensitive to the fact that many of our congregation may not be as progressive as the church has publicly moved, and that this might insult and alienate some of our older members whose hearts might be in the right place, but might not be decided, or may choose to exercise their right to vote "Yes."

I took that at face value when she said it, and not having been very active in church until this past year, didn't know what the proper venue or place the church should hold in politics. I didn't see the harm in the sign, myself, but was willing to accept at face value the explanation given for the concern. While I am open, and do not hide that I am gay, I do not deliberately shove it in people's faces, either. So, while I appreciate when others support me, I do not feel that I need to force them to show their support. I was willing to accept this reasonable desire to separate church from politics.

And then I was reading the Orange County Register's article. The Rev. Paul Telstrom, who has spoken at our church and is a magnanimous speaker, spoke about how there was a "'No on 8' sign in front of his church, the Irvine United Congregational Church on Alton Parkway". And I thought, "Hmm... his congregation doesn't object to the sign being put up, maybe we shouldn't be objecting?" And inside, I cheered when I read, "He said he's had three of his signs stolen and two others slashed. 'Anyone who takes our sign can be sure there will be a new one out there the next day,' he said." Next Sunday, I may wander down to Irvine UCC for services.

Last night I was speaking with my same friend, and she relayed to me the news regarding the Pastor receiving hate phone calls. I had a hint of this from an earlier message from another congregant, so while I was unhappy to hear, I was not surprised to have this confirmed. I can't recall now exactly how the conversation proceeded. I think I have blocked it out. I know that I mentioned how Irvine UCC DID have signs up. But at some point quite quickly after she mentioned the phone calls, I had an emotional red flag that went up high and loud, and I tried to stop my friend from going on. I told her that this was going to have to be one of those areas that we would have to agree to disagree, and while many of those areas, I'm still happy to discuss and even play devil's advocate, this was one where we should not say anything more. I knew that we should end that topic right then before it was too late. It wasn't even a conscious response - it was just this visceral immediate reaction. She hadn't said anything homophobic to me, yet. And perhaps somewhere I was just prescient enough to see it coming, and I valued our friendship and didn't want to risk it coming out (if you'll pardon the pun).

Unfortunately, there are few things that I won't discuss with her, or probe with her even if I don't have a strong opinion on them. Normally, that isn't unfortunate. But because we have developed a friendship where we can discuss things that might otherwise be left undiscussed, she didn't hear me. I don't blame her. It was an unusual thing for me to say in our conversations.

And then she finally made clear what it was that she is feeling. Fear. To be clear, I do respect that fear is a natural response. Certainly I feel fear at many different points as I go about my life. She is afraid that the church will be burned. She is afraid that the children will be harmed. She is afraid that by standing out on a limb, we (the church and its members) will become targets. I can't blame her. I can't say that if I were in her position, I might not feel the same way in a similar situation. I hope that I wouldn't. I hope I would be stronger, and braver, but I can't say with certainty that I would necessarily LITERALLY put my neck out on the limb for someone else's cause.

There IS a difference, I know, between not being [fill in the blank -phobic] and also being willing to risk being hurt for someone else's rights. There's the "I'm not making it worse" stance, and then there's the "I'm going to work to improve it" stance.

I don't generally require people to be vocal in support of me if it isn't something they don't feel comfortable with doing on their own. I respect, generally, folks' comfort zones.

I've been trying to analyze and pick apart what upset me most from the few comments she managed to get out until I finally convinced her that we shouldn't speak about the topic and managed to change the subject.

Well, I think one of the problems is that while we often, as humans, try to rationalize fear, it is usually this irrational beast. So, when one starts to throw out "reasons" for fear, and those reasons seem far-fetched, it is hard not to react to the reasons - or lack of reason. I'm a rational creature - it's why I went to law school.

Church burning. Well, yes, it could happen. And I may very well underestimate how far some folks might go. But I haven't heard about a lot of church burnings, lately. And a lot of the really homophobic stuff that happens, we do hear about. Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. But, and this goes with the next reason below, fear for our children, these incidents while horrific, still do NOT happen every day. Thank God.

I cannot imagine what it is like to send a child to high school after an incident like Columbine, and the other tragic school shootings. I have friends who are VA Tech alum who were shell shocked hearing what happened. And I can imagine it would be difficult to return to campus after that happened. And as a parent, I would certainly do everything I could to ensure that the campus I send my children to is safe. I strongly believe in that kind of reaction. But to stop sending our children to school because of a random act of violence elsewhere seems like an extreme reaction.

And her response felt to me to be that extreme.

Perhaps I am naive. I have been fortunate that even though I have been "out" since high school, and was visibly "out" on campus in college, and have never hid my sexuality, that no-one has ever perpetrated violence on me.

WAIT - did I really just write that? That I'm fortunate that no one has gay-bashed me? That doesn't sound right. Why should I be "fortunate"? Why should it be "special"? Why shouldn't it simply be accepted that no-one would be violent towards me for being myself? Not "good" or "bad" but just what one should expect?

My mother - God bless her - over fifteen years ago asked me my opinion about a custom made bumper sticker she was thinking of having made. She drove a Volvo station wagon in the Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C. At the time, before Lawrence v. Texas, it was illegal to engage in "homosexual activity" in Virginia. Essentially, it was illegal to be gay in Virginia. (Let's not forget that the key Supreme Court case that finally said it was unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage was against the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is not the first state to rush to protect the rights of all of its citizens). She wanted to get a bumper sticker that said, "Proud Parent of a Dyke" but she was unsure if it was okay to use the word "dyke" and didn't want to be offensive. I assured her that as long as it was in the same sentence with "proud" that she'd be pretty safe in not offending those of us who might otherwise have a reason to be offended.

And sure enough, my mother got the bumper sticker and put it on her car and drove it for years. She had many honks and thumbs up and positive reactions. To the best of my knowledge, she was never rear-ended, the bumper sticker was never vandalized, she wasn't fired from her job and I am not aware of any negative response she had to it.

Generally, I have felt that visibility is the best way to make progress. The more people see that the things they are afraid of don't actually happen because of x, y, or z, the more we as a society make progress towards understanding that we are all human, and letting go of our irrational fears. I have never been in the closet because I wouldn't know how to be. It isn't the first thing I tell people, either. But eventually, I talk about my wife and use "she" and people figure it out. Or now, I talk about this aspect of my practice, and people figure it out. I do not have it tattooed on my forehead. Perhaps the folks across the street do not realize that the nice women they have met whose mother lives across the street from them are a couple. That we have been together nearly ten years, have a stable, healthy, supportive relationship. That we are good neighbors - all of our immediate neighbors love us, and celebrate our relationship - even the staunch Catholic who without knowing us might have felt differently. We are good people.

I find it ironic that the biggest anti-gay stereotype is this idea of promiscious bed-hopping folks who can't maintain a relationship. And yet, here we ask for this legal recognition of our relationships and our commitment to each other for life. The exact opposite of the stereotype. Maybe that's what folks are scared of... that once they realize that we really are just like them, that they won't have any other bogeymen they can pull out to stereotype us?

I can't promise that all gay marriages will last. We are human. But it isn't like heterosexuals in the last fifty years hold some admirable record for sustaining long-lasting relationships. I don't need to quote the divorce statistics. We're human - just like everyone else. We're going to make the same mistakes. But we deserve the same opportunities. That is what this is about.

I wrote over five years ago that the solution to this issue was to create a civil union and for anyone to receive the legal benefits and protections now afforded to those who are "married," they would have to enter a civil union. Those married to date would be "grandfathered" into the civil union, but leave marriage - and all of the "traditional" emotional baggage folks feel about it - to the church. What most people get upset about is some religious "traditional" ritual and believe that marriage is sacred between a man and a woman. Well, I do believe that my marriage is sacred, and that it is blessed by God. But I also respect that others may not have the same religious beliefs I do. But that shouldn't change whether or not the person I choose to share my life with should get my social security check if I die or become disabled. God and religious beliefs as to what is and isn't sacred has nothing to do with the courthouse or the county recorder's office. Keep marriage religious, and keep civil unions civil. I think we would have avoided a lot of the turmoil that we are in.

But Chief Justice Ronald George made clear that we had not done that. What we had done here in California was create a separate but equal framework with registered domestic partnership. If ALL folks were required to be registered domestic partners to receive the benefits and protections (and the responsibilities) then the decision the California Supreme Court rendered this past spring would have been different. Apples and oranges, I guess.

But I more than digress. I do not want to live my life in fear. And every time I decide not to do something out of fear that someone might hurt me, I give them and their fear power. I choose not to do that. There have been a few key moments in my life when I have had encountered situations where others have counseled me to take the "safe" route, and not speak out against someone else's actions that were wrong. And while I don't remember the times I chose the "safe" route (or if there were any), I do remember the times I took courage to take action, and that everyone's worst fears did NOT transpire. And that by speaking up, I was able to make a difference, and more importantly, I helped create an atmosphere where others could feel safe to speak out against something that was wrong. I did not give fear power.

So, while I am understanding of fear, and I try to respect other's comfort boundaries, I admit that I was disappointed to learn of my friend's fear, and her unwillingness, then, to risk being publicly in support of something that might not be popular. Me. I keep being reminded of the poem (in its many variations) inscribed at the U. S. Holocaust Museum (source: Wikipedia):
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
When I met my wife, I had a rainbow flag cowboy boot on my car. I was living in Los Angeles County, then - on the "safer" side of the "Orange Curtain" and she lived in and was raised in Orange County. And, as I mentioned, she had been a police officer. The bumper sticker didn't make her comfortable. She didn't think I needed to advertise. I just liked country-western dancing, and thought it was a great sticker. But I cared about her, I didn't want her to feel uncomfortable, and I wasn't generally, a big fan of bumper stickers, so I removed it.

When I pointed out to her that the neighbor had put a "Yes on Prop 8" sign on her lawn, my wife - who is quite content with our relationship being "invisible" to the world at large as it is none of their business - immediately responded that she'd get "No on Prop 8" signs and put them on her mother's lawn, and four on our lawn, and that each of OUR immediate neighbors would surely put them on their lawns and support us. Even our conservative Catholic neighbor.

I ordered them today.

This morning I noticed the sign is back in my neighbors' lawn. I am going take a copy of this posting and place it in their mailbox. I encourage others who feel similarly, and who come across similar neighbors, to do the same. Maybe your neighbors are reacting in fear - maybe they didn't know you are there, and that you, too, are good people. Maybe they won't hear it when we tell them. But we at least owe it to them to tell them, and then let them decide whether constitutionalizing discrimination is really what they want to support. Because I imagine they really are good people, too.

And, oh yes, I think I will be going to Irvine UCC's services this Sunday! Hope to see you there!

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Vice Presidential Debate on Same Sex Marriage (Part II)

Or: Is there a difference between "same-sex benefits" and gay marriage?

It was interesting to watch the way the Vice Presidential candidates danced on Thursday regarding the issue of same-sex "benefits" and "gay marriage".

First, let's look at the term "benefit". From dictionary.reference.com we find the following definitions of "benefit".

1. something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
2. a payment or gift, as one made to help someone or given by a benefit socieity, insurance company, or public agency
. . .
4. Archaic. an act of kindness; good deed; benefaction.


We should be cautious of the word "benefit" because it seems to suggest that same-sex couples are being given something "extra" which is a great concern of those who are concerned that we would be giving same-sex couples an "advantage" over opposite-sex couples.

Now I will admit, that some of what I, personally, am looking for is a "benefit" even as defined above - i.e., a "payment [from] a public agency". I married my partner earlier this year. If I die first, I want her to receive my social security benefits. But given that I have paid 12% of my salary up to the annual cap every year into it, it is not too much to expect.

But as the federal law stands, spouse, and marriage, continue to be defined as one man and one woman, and many of the federal "benefits" are provided to married couples only.

Biden states the following:

Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.

It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

There are probably areas in the country that still do not automatically grant visitation rights in a hospital, but there are contracts we can put into place that can help assure such visitation. Joint ownership of property is merely a contract. Yes, there has been discrimination in the past to renting or selling to same-sex couples. There may still be, but federally, at least, there are provisions to protect against such discrimination. I'm not sure what he thinks he's giving us with life insurance policies? Again, this is a contractual obligation and the owner of the policy determines who the beneficiary will be.

I'm not sure what Biden thinks he is providing. It sounds good, until you look carefully at it. What we're missing, at this point, is the federal recognition and same treatment for federal purposes from social security to tax treatment.

As a same-sex couple, married legally in California, we are about to create a legal tax nightmare. I have some thoughts as to how it might be resolved based upon historical treatment of such tax issues, but there is no guarantee, and there is nothing in place to dictate how this situation should be handled.

Here's an illustration of the concern I see: Two people fall in love and get married. One continues to work while the other decides to stay home and raise their children. In California, all money earned during the marriage is community property and each spouse has equal right of management over this money. Should they dissolve the marriage, typically the courts will split the community property 50/50 between the spouses. Should one of the spouses die before the other without a will in place, the State automatically presumes all of the community property belongs to the surviving spouse.

If the couple is heterosexual, there is no need to keep elaborate accounting of who earned what dollar. The federal government provides a marital gift and estate tax exemption that allows spouses to give unlimited gifts to each other. And given the definition of community property - as was determined through the courts in the first half of the 20th century, community property is not a "gift". Because of that difference between community property and non-community property states - that created an advantage to those in community property states - the federal government enacted the exemption for married couples. States that had traditionally not been community property states were switching over so as to give their residents the same advantage. But this was creating tremendous confusion, and after the marital exemption was in place, those states reverted back to being non-community property states.

It's hard to explain those concepts in easy-to-understand terms. But if a couple earns and saves $10 million in their lifetime, when the first spouse dies, there are no tax consequences to the surviving spouse if they are an opposite-sex couple. However, if they are a same-sex couple, and it is the earning partner who passes, the federal government could choose to look into the accounting of income and determine that all of the money is passing (transferring) to the remaining spouse, and then tax that transfer according to the tax rate then in effect.

An example that might affect more couples. Let's say the couple buy a car. Or a house. And pay for it out of community property assets. Is the earning party giving a "gift" of the value to the other partner? If so, in theory, it could be taxed by the federal government for any value above the annual exemption in effect.

I believe that because of the community property characterization, it is not a transfer, and it should not be taxed. But I do not run the IRS, and I cannot guarantee how they might characterize it when presented with the opportunity.

But I digress.

Back to the VP debates. While I am disappointed (although not surprised) by Palin's beliefs, I admire her courage to go straight to the issue of gay marriage. The elephant that was being danced around, and continued to be danced around in this portion of the debate.

Her first questionable word was the word "tolerant." Referring, again, to dictionary.reference.com, here are some of the definitions for the word "tolerance"

1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
. . .
4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance


The definition seems more reasonable than I was expecting, but I think I reacted to the "permissive" nature of the word. I don't think these issues should require anyone's "permission" , but sadly that belief doesn't reflect reality. Apparently, I need permission to love my wife. And permission to be treated as anyone else who makes vows for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health.

But I do respect her courage to state upfront and clearly her position. At least at first.

After being clear about not supporting gay marriage, Gwen Ifill turned around and asked Biden directly his position on the matter. See the exchange below:

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

IFILL: Is that what your said?

PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

Biden did state he did not support gay marriage, and that was disappointing. Also, he attempts to simplify the matter by trying to distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage by ignoring that civil marriage does provide certain status within civil laws. It is not clear whether he might support a federal domestic partnership law that would provide civilly the same benefits whether one is "married" or "domestically partnered".

Long before California did gain the right to marry, I have always thought politically, that the best plan - the one which would cause the least angst among all parties, is to have marriage be a religious distinction, and to create a civil union that ALL couples would be required to enter to receive civil benefits, and to grandfather in those who had been "married" prior to that point. Separate church from state. Hmm... I think I've heard that somewhere before.

Biden then tried to pin Palin down, as you see above, to suggest that she supports that there "should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple." Ifill asked Palin if that was what she said, and she stumbled and clarified ONLY that she did not support gay marriage.

The only thing Palin seemed to support was hospital visitation and private contracts. (Congratulations to Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski - unfortunately about twenty-five years too late for you! (see my post below on May 24th entitled "Disability / Health-Care Issues / Death - Fun Stuff!")).

I am glad that everyone can agree today to allow hospital visitation, but even so, this creates some complications, nonetheless. How do hospitals determine who can visit and who cannot? What boundaries do they set up? This could create civil nightmares for intensive care units who have to find some way to distinguish between a gay married couple and two heterosexuals who are dating. What must they show to prove their relationship is significant enough to provide visitaiton rights and who might not be able to visit? Part of the issue, that is being ignored, is that families were deciding who could or could not visit, and how does this protect against that since there seem to be no criteria for A can visit but B cannot.

But it does make a good sound-bite, and it does make them seem compassionate. This is something, in theory, everyone can agree on, and so we don't need to give marriage to those gay people. (Well, everyone except those families who are dealing with their child or sibling who is gay and they want to prevent the partner from visiting.. )

In theory, what was said, particularly by Biden who at least referenced "no civil rights distinction" (although it was in the form of a question to Palin rather than a resounding expression of his belief) sounds right. In practice, we'll have to see.

Vice Presidential Debate on Same Sex Marriage (Part I)

The following message will provide some commentary regarding the Vice Presidential Debates and the message each gave regarding same sex marriage. Find below the text excerpted from the transcript found on the New York Times website:

IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.

It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?

PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead.

But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.

But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.

But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.

But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

IFILL: Is that what your said?

PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

New Adventures of Old Christine

On the season premiere of the New Adventures of Old Christine, Barb divorces her husband Pete and finds that she might be deported back to the Bahamas because she was never an American citizen. She had arrived in the country on a student visa and then married Pete and stayed in the country because of their marriage.

Christine is heartbroken at the prospect of losing her best friend, and so she proposes to her. After all as she is reminded, gay marriage is legal in California.

Cute episode which even features an interracial kiss between two women.

Legally, of course, this is a sitcom - and so there are many issues raised that don't quite reflect the law. I will refrain from pointing them all out. However, unfortunately, even if they were to get married here in California, it would not solve Barb's citizenship issue. Immigration is governed by federal law, and federal law only recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. And as such, federal law would not recognize the marriage between Barb and Christine for purposes of immigration.

It is wonderful that California has provided an opportunity for same-sex partners to marry. But unfortunately, the reality is that it still is not equal for all. This only reinforces why estate planning is important for same-sex couples to undertake, even if they do get married here in California.