Here are some links for you:
All about same-sex marriage (including where to be married and gay)
The Economist says we should marry.
Outlaws we like:
Multnomah County Commissioners
Ruby's take on the issue, as explained in a complaint letter to our local NPR affiliate:
Dear KUOW,
We've heard time and again how NPR has succumbed to pressure from the Bush Administration to cleanse the airwaves of "liberal" ideology. Despite this presumption, KUOW has remained #2 of my pre-programmed stations on my car radio, and I listen several times a week. Until today.
I was dismayed by a promo I heard, which I think was a national promo from NPR. It was concerning the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, and the show was to be a debate on the topic. I was very interested, being a member of our local LGBT community, and one who happens to be marrying my partner this August in a ceremony that will be completely unrecognized by my government. I would have listened to the program, had the promo been written in what I believe to be a fair and just manner.
The phrase I particularly object to is the phrase, "the merits and the politics" of the amendment, which were to be discussed during the future show. First, I don't believe this amendment has any merit whatsoever, and I am very far from alone in this belief among your listenership. It is codifying discrimination into our constitution. Nobody else in our country is discriminated against in the document, no matter how much the Republicans hate them. Why should we alone be second-class citizens? Why should we be the target of the only amendment created to restrict citizens' rights?
Secondly, the juxtaposition of the two nouns, "merits" and "politics" contrasts them, as if they represent either side of the debate. On one side we have merits. On the other, politics. This reinforces the mistaken idea that the LGBT community is contaminating the left with its identity politics. We are not. We are simply responding to discrimination and hatred on the part of this administration. Sure, we'd like to marry, but it was never so important as when it was threatened to be taken away forever.
I don't speak for all of my community when I say this is what inspired me to become a gay marriage activist, but I know many of us felt that other problems we faced were more important: an eternal war for oil, immigration abuses, human rights violations committed by our government, racist responses to natural disasters, and election fraud, to name a few. We know this is a divisive tactic meant to hurt the democrats in mid-term elections, but we are compelled to respond, loudly and urgently. First we lose the right to marry. Maybe next the right to vote. Perhaps the whole country would feel safer if we were confined to gay ghettos and punished with felony charges for our unchristian acts of sodomy. It sounds alarmist. It is far from impossible.
Here's some politics for you: on the evening of August 26, I will marry my partner, Ami, whether or not this amendment passes. More than 100 people will join us in support of our love and our commitment, which need no rubber stamp to validate them. However, I will not automatically be eligible for any rights as Ami's wife. I will not inherit her property. I can be compelled to testify against her in court. I receive no exemption from estate taxes if she pays a lawyer to bequeath her property to me. I will have to fight to visit her in the hospital, as I will not be "family." Should we be lucky enough to make it to a ripe old age, few nursing homes will let us live together as partners. The list goes on.
Luckily we both work for organizations that support our status as full-fledged citizens and offer benefits to our partners. Beyond salary and benefits, this is something we weigh when we consider employment opportunities. Luckily we live in a community where the world doesn't stop if we hold hands in public. Luckily we have the support of progressive organizations, companies and media.
Or do we?
Ruby Kane
Seattle, WA
Endquote.