Language is Powerful

I heard a great interview the other week (look for "gay marriage redux") by Julie Goodridge, one of the lead plaintiffs of the historic MA ruling. Great interview, please listen.

But I have one thing to say to everyone. Language is powerful.

It's not gay marriage. That was a term decided on by the right wing efforts to paint equal access as a 'special right.'

It's not. It's about marriage equality. It's about two people being able to get a marriage license. You can't limit it to only white people, you can't limit it to only same racial background and you can't limit it based on the gender of the two people applying.

Period.

Every time we say "gay marriage?" think "partial birth abortion," another term created (and not even remotely true) to influence those on the edge of the discussion.

It's about a legal institution- marriage- and access to it.

It's about equality because as we all know, separate is never equal.

Ah, there goes that language again. Words creating a powerful image.

Shut The Hell Up

If I hear "Marriage is between one man and one woman" one more time from Obama's mouth- or any Democrats mouth- I'm going to scream. Last night, while being questioned on California's decision, Obama just had to say it. One man, one woman.

How is this change? Leadership? Hope?

Or do only straight people get to hope?

As historical as having an African-American man run for the highest office in this nation is, it is not the only history being made today. The fact that the second state in this country- and a fairly BIG state- has laid claim to the belief that SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL is just as historically significant.

Imagine that. Two states. More to follow. You can call Massachusetts a fluke but you simply can't ignore California, now can you?

I am sick of people telling me I should be more concerned with other issues- as if I'm not. Please. I can hold more than one thought in my head at a time. I care about the war. I care deeply that we get a democrat in office- McCain is a nightmare. The list goes on and on.

AND I WANT EQUALITY.

AND I WANT IT NOW.

You know, someone should mention to Senator Obama he could simply say, Marriage is for the states to decide. I'm running for a federal office.

Then shut the hell up. Next issue.

A Few Clarifications

What a day yesterday was, with the ruling, the excitement before and after. There was a lot to digest with everyone claiming information- like CNN saying marriage equality was defeated- so I would like to clarify a couple points that I was briefed on today.

One is, yes, without question, out of state folks can go to California and get married. I am certain the addition of the largest state in the nation to the marriage equality issue the silly little 1913 Law in MA will go away fairly quietly in the night.

Second, a better opinion could not have been written. Every ridiculous, bogus retort about why marriage should stay a heterosexual privilege was responded to and completely dismissed. In fact, it declared there is a "fundamental right to marry."

This, folks, is huge.

Third, this is a California state law issue. It cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Period. No question. It's not a gray area it is clear cut, nope, not going to happen, no.

Fourth, there is no stay on this decision, as there was on the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts. And while there is a reality of probably a 30 day period of preparing for the change, people will be getting married BEFORE the very likely ballot question in November.

Fifth- there is a ballot initiative to amend the constitution of California to ban "gay" marriage. It looks fairly certain that there will be enough signatures to be up for a vote in November.

Sixth, it's not gay marriage. It's marriage equality. I wish everyone would stop calling it gay marriage. That was a tool of the right to make it into some kind of special privilege. It's not. It's about equal access to the same rights.

What an amazing, historic day. I keep saying that, over and over again.

And lastly, I hope everyone can take a minute tomorrow on the fourth anniversary of the Goodridge decision to say thanks to the seven plaintiff couples who made history, who fought against many in our community who said it was the wrong thing at the wrong time and should never be done.

The team at GLAD knew it was time. We owe them our deepest appreciation.

Along with David Wilson and Robert Compton, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, Richard Linnell and Gary Chalmers, Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, Gina Smith and Heidi Norton, Ed Balmelli and Michael Horgan and of course, Julie and Hillary Goodridge.

California Supreme Court Declares, “YES TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY!”

Today the State’s supreme court decided the issue of who can get married in California. The answer is, everyone. Gay or straight, marriage is a right and there is no second-class status in their state.

I’m a proud resident of Massachusetts and I will never forget the day the court ruled in favor of the Goodridge Plaintiffs. I raised my fists up to the sky and felt powerful in a way that I had never felt before. I was equal. Discriminating against my right to marriage was unconstitutional. It was not acceptable in the eyes of the law.

As a lesbian, I have never felt protected by the law. When we went through the process of second parent adoption in Massachusetts for our three boys, each time I had a lump in my throat. The laws were created to keep people like me away.

No more.

California has taken the next step in the fight for equality. Without question. There are many more to take before LGBT people are seen as equals in the law, equals in this country on both state and federal levels.

And there will be backlash, threats of the end of the world. Funny thing is, we’re still all alive and breathing in Massachusetts. Heterosexuals are still getting married- and divorced- at the same rate as always. The biggest difference is a lot of kids, like mine, have their families protected.

Rights guaranteed.

Because it’s not about “gay marriage.” It’s about equal access to a legal institution that has been created to ensure committed couples are protected. It ensures the children of that couple are protected under the law. There have been thousands of legal precedents based on the institution of marriage that simply cannot be replicated by a new term, or new legal definition.

And no one is going to force any religious institution to embrace is because in our country, we have a separation of church and state. I know it doesn’t seem like we do, but in fact, that is required by our constitution.

Congratulations, California. Welcome to the increasing number of states that refuse to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

It feels good, doesn’t it?