March Against Violence

Last weekend at the St. Louis nightclub the Complex, three young men were approached by four men from another bar who called them "f-----s" and then attacked them because they're gay.

Also last weekend, a woman who uses a wheelchair was raped and robbed by two men near a gas station in Ladue.

In response to these vicious crimes, local activists in the LGBT community have organized a candlelight vigil, march and rally to be held Friday, Dec. 4, at 7 p.m. along Manchester Ave. Speakers at the rally will include Sen. McCaskill, the Mayor's office, Rep. Clay, the NAACP and others.

(Read more at the St. Louis Activist Hub.)

Rally at the St. Louis Cathedral Basilica

Catholic Action Network, the Holy Families Committee, and Show Me No Hate are organizing a rally to be held at the steps of the St. Louis Cathedral Basilica on Sunday, November 29.

(Read more at the St. Louis Activist Hub.)

"Day of Decision" Rally

The California Supreme Court has announced that it will be ruling on the legal challenge to Proposition 8 this Tuesday, May 26. Supporters of marriage equality will rally across the nation regardless of the decision.

Ed Reggi of Show Me No Hate is organizing a rally in St. Louis to be held at City Hall on Tuesday evening from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. From the Show Me No Hate blog:

A pro-Equality court decision would help fortify our community against what could be difficult years of economic strain and scapegoating.

A[n] anti-Equality court decision would likely fuel the heightened level of violence already recorded against the LGBTQ community across our nation. It will embolden more bigotry and homophobia.

If the court overturns Prop 8, we will all be celebrating. If the court upholds the proposition, we will all unite in protest. "We must pack our City Hall to stand in solidarity with California and the world," Reggi said. Please join us downtown on Tuesday evening as we stand united for equality!


Cross-posted to St. Louis Activist Hub

"Marriage Is Love" Revisited, or "We just saved a bundle on car insurance!"

~~~ See end of post for important update! ~~~

Yesterday, I attended the Marriage Equality Town Hall Talk at Central Reform Congregation. Two of my closest friends went with me. My friends enjoyed the talk and found it informative and thought-provoking.

Over dinner afterward, we chatted about marriage equality. One of my friends told me that the talk was really good. She said she learned some things that she hadn't known before. She even said that if she were to attend a marriage equality rally, the sign she'd make would say something like, "I can get married; why can't they?" That was thrilling, because back in November, she hadn't seemed interested enough in the issue to want to attend a rally in protest of Proposition 8.

At the talk, we heard from some of the couples who traveled to Iowa on May 1st how life has or hasn't changed since they got legally married there.

Many said the day was bittersweet. It wasn't how they had imagined getting married. They had wanted a normal wedding with all of their family and friends present. Some had hesitated before deciding that boarding the bus was the right thing to do.

But most were surprised by how meaningful the day turned out to be. They didn't encounter any protesters, and the people of Iowa City were welcoming. The bus and the church in which they tied the knot were full of love and support that day.

And they returned home to some unexpected benefits of marriage. For one thing, getting married in Iowa entitled the couples to a legal name change for the $35 cost of the marriage license -- and the name changes cannot be contested in the state of Missouri. Other same-sex couples have spent thousands of dollars getting their names changed without a marriage license.

Ed Reggi spoke of how the businesses with which he holds accounts wanted to change his account status to "married." Because of their new married status, Ed and his husband Scott Emanuel were able to save hundreds of dollars a year on their car insurance. I now think that the newlywed couple ought to star in a GEICO commercial:

"The state of Missouri won't recognize our out-of-state marriage license. But there's good news!"

"What's that?"

"We just saved a bunch of money on car insurance!"

During a question-and-answer session, I asked if it's true that it's a misdemeanor to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony in Missouri. Rabbi Susan Talve confirmed that it's a misdemeanor in this state "to solemnize a marriage without a marriage license." Religious leaders are representatives of the state when they conduct wedding ceremonies. The government grants them the right to officiate, to create a legal marriage along with the spiritual union. By default, all same-sex weddings in Missouri are performed without a marriage license. In 2004, Missourians passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Rabbi Talve has never actually been cited for officiating a same-sex wedding, and she has done so numerous times. "Let them try!" she quipped. But technically, she doesn't have the legal right to marry same-sex couples, even though her religion fully supports such couples' right to marry. She spoke of the sadness that accompanies her joy when conducting same-sex wedding ceremonies. She wants to be able to make the marriages legal, and she can't. This is the heart of why legalizing same-sex marriage is a matter of religious freedom.

Another person asked how a separate-but-equal right to civil unions for same-sex couples would be different than the right to civil marriage. Reggi summarized what he has heard from lawyer friends: The word "marriage" is written into law on so many different levels that creating an entirely new institution would pose no end of legal challenges. Even if civil unions were legally equivalent to civil marriages, problems might arise when, for example, couples with a civil union license crossed state lines.

This argument also applies to the idea of the government getting out of the marriage business: If civil marriages were replaced by civil unions, then opposite-sex couples wishing to form a civil union would most likely run into the same legal hassles. And all because certain people don't want to share the sacred word "marriage" with committed, loving same-sex couples whose unions are just as sacred as theirs.

One member of one of the couples compared the opposition to same-sex marriage with the opposition to interracial marriage by a previous generation. "It's the same discrimination all over again," she said. Her parents are an interracial couple.


Next up in the fight for marriage equality is the Prop 8 Day of Decision. The California Supreme Court has only until June 3rd to rule on the challenge to Proposition 8. The ruling will be on either a Monday or a Thursday. Supporters of marriage equality need to be ready to rally, regardless of the decision!


IMPORTANT UPDATE 5/22/09: Today the California Supreme Court announced that it will rule on Prop 8 this Tuesday, May 26, at 10 a.m. Pacific time (12 noon Central). Ed Reggi is planning a rally in St. Louis for Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. Please add him as a friend on Facebook and be ready to protest or celebrate!


Cross-posted to St. Louis Activist Hub

Prop 8 Protest Memories

One week ago today I was at my local Prop 8 protest rally.

The Join the Impact Show Me No H8 protest last Saturday was amazing, with a diverse group of eloquent speakers, and an enthusiastic, cheering crowd. Turnout was great in spite of the weather; I am proud of my fellow St. Louisans for coming out and braving the cold. Many thanks to the speakers, the organizers, and everyone who attended. It was truly touching standing with all of you, in one protest of many across the nation, against hate and in support of love.

There were a number of clever signs, and I took pictures of many of them. One of my favorites was the one that read, "WTF?" (spelled out). Also amusing was the "God hates shrimp" sign, reminiscent of a skit I saw at a Charis concert the other year.

Another sign read, "Justice does not mean Just Us"; I liked that one as well. I also particularly admired signs quoting John Lennon and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Fear and hatred cloud our judgment" (Lennon) and "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (King). Then there was the child holding up the sign she'd made that read simply, "Love is love."

At least one of the signs read, "Honk for equality," and many cars did so as they drove by. It was priceless when a Lumiere Place bus drove by with the words, "Whatever turns you on" written across its side.

Of course, one of the best things about any LGBTQ event is the presence of rainbows, and we had plenty of those. There was no absence of color outside the Old Courthouse that day -- young and old; black and white; gay, straight and more, we were united for equality.


Linked photos are from Aaron X's Moon Shadows photo journal.

Marriage Is Love

Below is the text of President-Elect Obama’s response to a question from the Human Rights Campaign regarding same-sex marriage. The questionnaire in its entirety with Obama’s answers is available at www.barackobama.com.

I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. I think the President should do all he or she can to advance strong families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President’s role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.

Now, here is an altered version of the same text. I have changed some of the original words to illustrate a point.

I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all couples – interracial or not – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

However, I do not support interracial marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between two people of the same race. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage or a bill like the Defense of White Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. I think the President should do all he or she can to advance strong families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President’s role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.

The altered version would sound pretty preposterous coming from the child of an interracial marriage. Of course, it's pretty preposterous on its own. But laws against interracial marriage were still in place in several states as recently as 1967.

Granted, it is entirely possible that Obama's lack of support for legal same-sex marriage is at least partially due to the current political climate. Vocally supporting gay marriage would most likely have hurt Obama's chances for election. The wording in his response to the HRC's question about same-sex marriage was likely purposefully mitigating, in order to appeal to both sides of the issue. Appealing to both sides of an issue is what politicians do best.

According to the questionnaire, Obama would oppose legislation that would eliminate states' rights to decide on their own whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. His personal, religiously-motivated belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he is in favor of granting same-sex couples a separate-but-equal institution that would give them the same legal rights as marriage—just don't call it marriage, 'cause that word is sacred. He supports strong families, but some families have to stand in one line, and other families get to stand in the other line (the one that everyone wants to stand in).

Making comparisons between the struggle for gay rights and the struggle for civil rights for black Americans is dangerous territory, of course, because the iniquities committed against blacks in this country have been, overall, much more egregious and pervasive. However, civil marriage is a civil right, and it's not the same thing as religious marriage. No religion will ever be forced to perform marriages that it believes are wrong. But if straight people have the right to civil marriages, then gay people ought to have the right to them, too. Otherwise, we should get rid of the term "marriage" in terms of government-recognized unions altogether and have everyone stand in the line for a civil union license.

Religious marriage of same-sex couples can be and is performed by religious denominations that support it. The government has granted pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. the right to create a civil marriage at the same time that they create a religious marriage. However, religious leaders who would like to create a civil same-sex marriage at the same time as the religious one are unable to do so. Conservative religious beliefs dictate government policy on this issue. That seems a little like the establishment of a state religion. Thus, same-sex marriage can be viewed as a freedom of religion issue as well as a civil rights issue. How can we pass a Constitutional amendment that eliminates a First Amendment right without also repealing the First Amendment?

Not every church is going to sanction same-sex marriage, and not everyone wants a church-sanctioned marriage, anyway. Not everyone even wants to be married. The right in question is the right to civil marriage for those couples who desire it. Same-sex couples should have the same civil rights as opposite-sex couples. That means either a) giving same-sex couples the right to legally marry, or b) eliminating the word "marriage" from legal licenses and giving all couples the right to civil unions that are legally equivalent to today's civil marriages.

A lot of the argument on this issue is over semantics. Religious conservatives believe that the word "marriage" is sacred and they don't want to change the traditional definition to include same-sex unions. Committed, loving same-sex couples want to call their unions "marriages" and have those marriages be recognized by the law. Civil unions that confer the same legal rights as civil marriages are a step in the right direction. But ultimately, the government ought to pick one term and use it for all legally-recognized committed unions. Using two different terms for two different groups of people perpetuates inequality.

Separate is not equal.

The author invites her readers to join her at the St. Louis protest against California’s Proposition 8 this Saturday, November 15 at 12 noon downtown at the Old Courthouse. More information about the protest can be found at www.showmenohate.blogspot.com. Information on simultaneous protests in other cities nationwide is available at www.jointheimpact.wetpaint.com.