And Now, the Honeymoon
Commentary: Four years after my moms exchanged vows in San Francisco, the state of CA finally decided they could get married. This time, I'll give them both away at their wedding.
May 15, 2008
|
|
Most people aren't alive for their parents' wedding day, but I was. The date was February 16, 2004, four days after Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that San Francisco would issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples. My parents had been together for 24 years at that point, so it was natural for them to question the value of a piece of paper when the test of time had already validated their relationship. But when the right to marry presented itself four years ago, they jumped on it.
With their friends Frank and John, my moms drove two hours from their home in Monterey to the majestic steps of San Francisco's city hall. That first day, the line of elated couples waiting to be married wrapped around the building, more couples than city officials had time to handle, and so they came back at 6am the next day and stood in line for 13 hours. Cars drove by honking in support, restaurants brought beverages and food to the waiting masses, strangers dropped off flowers and balloons, and cheers erupted each time a set of newlyweds came through city hall's golden doors. And then, what began as a historic event televised around the world became a wholly personal moment for my family. I listened on the phone from Atlanta as my moms exchanged their vows. (Because we'd had no notice of Mayor Newsom's bold move and because no one knew how long the opportunity would last, I didn't have enough time to fly home for the occasion.)
My moms came to visit me a few weeks later for what they dubbed as their "honeymoon." They were like two teenagers in love for the first time. And let me tell you, they made sure everyone knew it was their honeymoon: They told our waiters, my co-workers, and anyone else who would listen. The official acknowledgment given to them by the city of San Francisco was more meaningful than they or I had ever imagined it would be.
This morning, when the California Supreme Court handed down its decision to overturn a 2000 ballot measure that banned gay marriage, I called my moms to deliver the good news. They were thrilled, and immediately started planning their next wedding ceremony—which they'll need to have, because a court in August 2004 nullified their first marriage. This time, they said, I would be there to give them both away.
For a few hours after the news broke, the Mother Jones' staff was abuzz with comments. Then came an email from one editor: "Great news, but you know this'll get conservatives to the polls if McCain doesn't." It reminded me of when one of my mothers woke up to the Monterey Herald's front page headline just after the 2004 presidential elections: "Gay Marriage Lost Election for Democrats". She was devastated. As if Bush's reelection wasn't bad enough, now she felt betrayed by her party. It's ironic that today's decision comes six months before Californians will vote for a new president, and also on a second gay marriage ban. The initiative, which would amend California's Constitution to disallow same-sex marriage, has received 1.1 million signatures—all but guaranteeing it a spot on November's ballot. The similar 2000 measure, which the court ruled unconstitutional today, was approved by 61% of the popular vote.
Some say gay marriage will again be a wedge issue that galvanizes the conservative base this fall, while others are skeptical that it will have the same traction it did four years ago. Either way, when it comes down to it, equal rights should always trump politics in my book. Today's California Supreme Court decision will be on the books far longer than McCain, Clinton, or Obama will be president. And for my family, one candidate's campaign promises don't come close to matching the promise encapsulated in the court's words: The "right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own—and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family—constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society."
Celia Perry is an assistant editor at Mother Jones
You are truly the product of a wonderful marriage. You have the best of both Marcia and Meg in you, and I am so proud of the important work you are doing at Mother Jones. You are making a big difference in the world, Kiddo, with your writing, but more significantly, just by being YOU!
Lots of love,
Aunt Nancy
I have not had the opportunity to meet you yet, but I know your moms (live around the corner from them) and John and Frank are two of my closest friends. I can truly say that if for no other reasons, and I'm sure there are many, your moms should be most PROUD to have a daughter as articulate as you. GREAT article. Thanks.
This may still help the Rs get people to the polls but their whole claim to moral high ground is broadly discredited. Still the Judges Making Laws tag will give them some leverage
I am celebrating the Ca Supreme Court decision asa major civil rights victory.
I'm a woman married to a man and I will never understand how anyone is threatened by love.
Congratulations and hooray for your family and many others! We are all so proud of you! Your article wonderfully displays your writing talent and your beautiful heart.
Love,
Your sixth grade teacher
I agree with Jodie--I absolutely cannot understand what is so threatening about two people who love each other, whether gay or straight. Love is love, and we always can use more.
My congratulations to Marcia, Meg, John, Frank and all of the other same sex couples that have been recognized more as human beings and less as second class citizens or less.
I celebrated this good news by sending some money to an equal rights group's California chapter to help them in the fight to protect the rights of the few from the prejudice of the many. I thought we had our Constitutions and judicial system to do this but US history proves that it takes hard work, heart, dedication and sacrifice by many good people to win what is supposed to be Constitutionally guarenteed rights.
God loves all of it's creations even when they are not heterosexual.
Again, I respect the rights of the gay community to express their sexuality freely, but I do not and will never lose sight of the ideal and principle of matrimony...I will never relax my view that gay marriage erodes that ideal and blurs the line of what is truly balanced psychologically, physically, and genetically...ultimately the key to our future as a species. We may just as well protect the right to cannibalism between consenting adults! If both consent freely, what is wrong with it? If it doesn't trample on anyone else's rights, what is wrong with it? This is the same logic used to protect gay marriage. At it's core, a ban against gay marriage is to protect the basic and fundamental element of a society - the genetically, physically, and psychologically balanced family nucleus. Again, gays have every right to live together and engage in whatever sexual activity they desire together - but it MUST NOT be protected in the same manner as a balanced family nucleus - by marriage. It MUST NOT be permited for a gay couple to raise a child either. It is not fair for the child...it deprives that child of it's biological right to a male father and a female mother. It deprives the child of the balanced perspective only offered by a balanced home environment. There is a greater risk of depriving society of another balanced element capable of passing a well-lit and balanced torch to the next generation.
I couldn't have said it better my self.
Thank You,
Bill
Hugs,
Laura
Also, you assume that the father will provide a "male influence" and the mother a "female" influence. It's time to acknowledge that all humans have "traditional" male and female traits: males can be emotional and nurturing when the situation warrants, females can be aggressive and assertive when it's needed. And males are no longer the sole breadwinner, so man's role in the family has changed considerably over the years.
If you're referring to fathering children as a male/female couple's reason for marriage, admittedly something that same-gender couples can't accomplish through sex with each other, the times have changed in another instance. There are plenty of orphaned or abandoned children in this country and the world who need parents of any type, as long as they are loving, caring, supportive people. And with artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood, it IS possible for same gender couples to have their own genetic offspring.
As for comparing gay marriage and cannibalism, not only is that hateful but just plain wrong. Not the same situation at all, and the comparison (whether tongue-in-cheek or not) shows your ignorance.
Congratulations to all who have found a loving, supportive companion through life! Best wishes to each and every one of you!
You've missed my points.
1. I do not dispute the fact that there are indeed many broken homes. That many men (and women) do not do live up to their obligation as parents. That the ideal is not the reality. However, the ideal should always be protected as the true and original "source" of society. This ideal should recieve protection and a status above and beyond all else.
2. I am well aware of the fact that at times men can be nurturing and women can be assertive. I understand that (sadly) many families today are comprised of two working parents, and as such, the man is no longer the sole bread winner. Unfortunately for the children, there are less stay-at-home parents...a travesty by any means.
3. Just as you admit, it is not possible for two people of the same sex to reproduce naturally. I am aware of artificial insemination, but I abhore it. Those who are not able to procreate naturally should either adopt or not have children. Forcing a pregnancy with artificial insemination and fertility treatments just carries genetic inadequacy to another generation...another generation with problems due to bad genetic info. I fully accept the small but existant possibility that I may be infertile. In which case I'll either not have children or I'll adopt. It's something that I preach, but am prepared to practice too.
4. As far as adoption goes, that's a rough one. I don't pretend to have all the answers, and that's a difficult dilema to deal with. I agree that having a homosexual parent (or parents) would indeed be better than none at all, but I still can't get past the principle of diluding an ideal. I can't make my mind up on this one just yet.
5. Regarding my "hateful" comments - try reading my words more carefully. I plainly state a comparison of the LOGIC behind supporting cannibalism and supporting gay marriage. I am anti-gay marriage, but not anti-gay. I am and will always do my utmost to be respectful of all people, gay or not. I am not even remotely comparing homosexuality with cannibalism...just the logic behind the support.
I too congratulate everyone who's found a loving, caring, faithful, and nuturing companion. However, the sanctity of marriage should be reserved for an ideal. It is sad that so many important ideals are being diluted with the pretense of "equality". A gay marriage will never equal a heterosexual marriage. It shouldn't need to. It is a seperate and distictive dynamic. I don't feel a need to be "equal" to everyone else on earth! I am quite happy being different, at times better, and at times worse than others. I celebrate my uniqueness. As long as there exists a basic respect, difference must be recognized, accepted, and even celebrated. But don't tell me that the marriage between to gay people is "equal" to my marriage to my wife. I will never accept that. An apple will never be an orange, and vice-versa. Accept it.
ty
I wonder if my grandmother and I can get married in California? We are both adults and love each other.