OK, here we go: this is just one of the stomach churning stories I alluded to at the start of the last post. Terrance has the full story and links here and here. Briefly: Laurel Hester and her partner of six years, Stacie Andree, registered as domestic partners a year ago, when Hester was diagnosed with lung cancer. Hester now has months to live, and New Jersey law has a loophole of sorts that allows the five assholes pictured above, the Ocean County freeholders board, to decide whether Andree will get Hester's pension when she dies (it will mean the difference between keeping or losing the house they bought together). The board has said no. You can send them email; keep in mind that these scumbags have all the power here, since there's no way to change the law before Hester dies, so forgo the satisfaction of a vicious rant and try to get them to do the right thing. Here's what I sent:

Sirs --

I write to ask you to do the decent thing in respect of Lt Laurel Hester. She has earned that pension, and the right to say to whom it will pass when she dies, with almost a quarter of a century in service to her community. It is simply unjust to deny her that right.

The world is watching. Please show them that American justice has compassion at its core. Please do the right, the fair, the just, the American thing -- and grant Lt Hester's request.

Before I could write that, I had to get this out of my system:

You maggots. You self-righteous, self-satisfied, evil fucking bastards.

Laurel Hester worked her whole life in public service; she's earned that pension and the right to say to whom it will pass on her death, and you have no right to deny her that. You happen to have the opportunity -- the law has made an error, and handed you the opportunity to hurt someone -- and you're falling all over yourselves in your rush to take it.

You contemptible excuses for human beings. If there is a God of eternal torture, as the good Christians tell me, be assured that He is setting aside coals and pincers for you even as you read this.

The spousal unit tells me that Hester may be able to sidestep this whole thing by granting Andree power of attorney. I have the feeling that there's a reason that won't work, or they'd have simply done it and avoided the fuss. Any lawyers reading this? I didn't explain it properly -- spousal unit didn't realise it was an inheritance issue, for which power of attorney is no use.

Fred Phelps is scum, and being barking mad is no excuse. The asshole who picketed Matthew Shepard's funeral now exults in the deaths of US service personnel in Iraq, claiming that it is God's revenge on the US for an attack on Phelps' church and for, I dunno, having not yet rounded up and shot all the icky gays:

Thank God for IEDs killing American soldiers in strange lands every day.
WBC rejoices every time the Lord God in His vengeance kills or maims an American soldier with an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked" (Ps. 58:10).
This nation bombed and raided the Westboro Baptist Church, and now the Holy God that Inhabits Eternity is repaying those heinous acts with His retaliatory wrath; "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Rom. 12:19).
To most effectively cause America to know her abominations ² (Ez. 16:2), WBC will picket the funerals of these Godless, fag army American soldiers when their pieces return home. WBC will also picket their landing spot, in Dover, Delaware early and often.

These miserable excuses for human beings picketed the funerals of Sgts Bryan Opskar and Christopher Taylor, and plan to picket (inter, no doubt, alia) the funeral of Sgt Jason T Palmerton.

There is an up side, though, the brainchild of one Keith Orr, proprietor of the Aut Bar in Ann Arbor, MI. Phelps picketed the bar in February 2001 as part of a protest against the University of Michigan’s annual "queer visibility week" on campus. In response, Orr sent a note to his customer mailing list, asking them to join him in pledging a certain amount of money per minute that Phelps spent at the picket. With only 48 hours' lead time, Orr wound up with pledges totalling more than $100/minute and made $6000 (which was donated to WRAP). The idea, christened Every Minute Counts, has been implemented in Bloomington IN, Plattsburgh NY, Lowell MA, Nashville TN, Seattle WA (use bugmenot) and Madison WI, to name just the first few turned up on Google.

It's also in use against the military funeral picket in Opelika:

If you wish to make a pledge, you can contact Melissa Yoannon at (706)366-0945. To e-mail your information, send it to sgt.taylorfund@hotmail.com.

If you wish to make a flat donation, you can do so by stopping by or sending it to any Charter Bank location. In Opelika, you can call (334)742-0266. The mailing address is:

Charter Bank
114 S. 7th Street
Opelika, AL 36801

Make your donation to the Sgt. Christopher Taylor Fund. There are two accounts, so you need to specify the one for which you wish to donate. One is set up for "wife and kids," and the other is just "kids."

Hat-tip: Julia.

Update Aug08: an anonymous commenter at Objective Justice offers another good idea:

People who want to counteract the Phelps' sickness can also get some big, cardboard wings and step in front of them, like the "Angels" did at Matthew's funeral.

That way the family doesn't have to look at their disgusting, hateful signs.

If that phucker Phelps shows up in Portland, I may just do something like that. Big ol' signs saying "God hates shrimp" maybe.

^1,2see Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10

Via T of The Republic of T, John at AMERICAblog provides a glimpse into the slimy shriveled heart of the anti-gay (marriage) movement (more here, here, here and here, and also coverage at the Blue Lemur). The Washington Post on Friday published a magazine ad supplement put together by "Grace Christian Church"; a viler and more despicable piece of homophobic race-baiting you will be hard pressed to find. John has pdfs linked from this post and a zip file hosted by RawStory is here. Read it; you'll be astonished.

Please take a moment to write to the WaPo ombudsman, Mike Getler; what follows is the letter I sent.

Dear Mr Getler,

I am writing to express my anger and astonishment over the magazine ad supplement "Both Sides Magazine" published by the Washington Post on Friday 11/19/2004. The advertisement is a hateful screed aimed at inciting anti-gay prejudice in the African American community. It relies heavily on unsupported and bigoted opinions presented as facts, on the nonsense masquerading as science peddled by discredited quack Paul Cameron and on deliberate misinterpretation of Martin Luther King Jr's message of hope and justice for all. (An informative look at what MLK actually might have had to say about gay rights, courtesy of his widow Coretta Scott King, can be seen here.)

Gay marriage is clearly a contentious issue in America today, and if reasonable people are to disagree in a constructive manner it is vital that respectable publications should not lend their circulations, to say nothing of their tacit approval, to organisations determined to sow hatred and division by means of deception. If the Post would not -- and I am confident that it would not -- accept a paid advertisement from, say, the KKK claiming that Blacks are inferior to whites, why then did it run a paid attack on gays?

I am anxious to hear how the Post will deal with this issue.

Sincerely, etc.

Update 041123: The Post's response is to shrug and say, "but it was an ad". John's not happy and neither am I. Letter number two:

Dear Mr Getler:

If I understand it correctly, your response to my -- and many others' -- anger over the "BothSides Magazine" issue is to absolve the Post of responsibility on the grounds that they were paid to run that vile piece of race-baiting pseudoscientific hatemongering. I look forward, inter alia, to the Holocaust revisionism, eugenics and white supremacy "advertisements" that will certainly be run in a newspaper which has made clear and public its policy that all money is good money. I do not believe it is any exaggeration to compare such ideologies to a publication which relies on the hateful and discredited sophistries of professional homophobe Paul Cameron and blatantly targets Blacks in an attempt to drive a wedge between two minority groups. Having accepted "Both Sides Magazine", I do not see how the Post can turn down David Duke or David Irving.

I'm sure you know what happens, Mr Getler, when one lies down with dogs.

Sincerely, etc.

A Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment is expected in early July, and the Human Rights Campaign is providing a quick, easy way for you (that is, US residents) to contact your representative(s) on this issue.

This is the letter I sent (the first paragraph is part of the form):

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose any amendment that would write discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans into the Constitution.

The FMA is an attempt to lend to naked bigotry the force of law. It is wrong, and vile, and I write to assure you that extraordinary circumstances will be required before I will support in any way any public figure who does not oppose it. I seldom make this statement in contacting my political representatives, as I am a meliorist by nature and experience and do not believe in delivering ultimata, or burning bridges. This is a time for exceptions, though, and I am making one. I would greatly appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

Seriously, it takes all of five minutes to send a letter; if you can do this and you don't, I hope your asshole catches fire. Via Republic of T.

Remember Todd, of free wedding portrait fame? Well, the pics are ready. When he talks about "fixing" some of the artefacts produced by his antique camera, I think "feature, not bug" -- see for yourself in the two shots I swiped (note: those are about three-fold smaller than the negatives; the prints will be gorgeous at any size). Go see the rest, and remember Todd when you need some photography done.

(via b!X) Governor Ted Kulongoski has asked the State Attorney General Hardy Myers for an opinion on the legality of same sex marriage in Oregon. Myers has released a list of the questions on which he will focus and provided a comment form through which residents can provide feedback. My letter to the Attorney General is below.

Update: today's Oregonian reports that Myers will not finalize his opinion until tomorrow at the earliest -- so get writing!

Dear Attorney General Myers:

thank you for this opportunity to comment on such a vital issue. I am not a lawyer, and so cannot speak to the legal complexities before you. At the bottom of all of the argument over same sex marriage, however, lies what I believe to be a simple question: do we want America to be a country in which gays and lesbians are officially second class citizens?

For that is exactly what we will be accepting, if we deny gay and lesbian citizens the right to marry. Civil unions and domestic partnership registries and all the other "separate but equal" paraphernalia are merely another way of saying "these people are different in the eyes of the law". Even if civil unions offered the exact same privileges and immunities as marriage -- which they do not -- such provisions amount to nothing short of apartheid. Forcing same-sex couples to formalize their commitment by a separate process will no more constitute equal treatment than separate schools constituted equal treatment for African-Americans in the middle of the last century.

I have heard, as I am sure you have, a great many arguments against same sex marriage. Many of these are identical to arguments that were put forth against racial integration or inter-racial marriage, and the most honest of them amount to no more than reflexive rejection of change; many are a thin disguise for prejudice.

Marriage is what society decides it is; the institution has a history of change, after all, since women are no longer chattels and inter-racial marriage is commonplace. Children do not define marriage -- for instance, my wife and I have, and will have, no children. In any case, several decades' worth of research has found no inkling of a reason why gay couples should not adopt (see, for example, the references listed below). There is no theological barrier to same sex marriage, because no scripture gives a definitive answer and for every clerical opponent of gay marriage there is another, often of the same denomination, who has performed such marriages him- or herself. The much-bruited idea that same sex marriage will somehow make heterosexual marriage "less meaningful" is simply ridiculous. No marriage, be the couple gay or heterosexual, has any means of impact on the value or quality of any other marriage. As for the institution, I dare say it will only benefit from an influx of many thousands of couples and families eager to join, celebrate and consecrate it.

I write, then, to ask you to keep justice foremost in your thoughts as you wrestle with the law. As it was in earlier civil rights debates, so it is now the role of the courts to see clearly which way lies justice, and to light that way for the people they serve.

sincerely,

Bill.

----
References on children in gay families:

from the American Academy of Pediatrics:
PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 (link)
PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 341-344 (link)

Anderssen, N et al. Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology Volume 43 Issue 4 Page 335 September 2002 (link)

Allen M, Burrell N. Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: meta-analysis of existing research. J Homosex. 1996; vol 32 number 2 pp. 19-35 (link)

Patterson CJ. Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Dev. 1992 vol 63 number 5 pp. 1025-42.

Hunfeld JA, et al. Child development and quality of parenting in lesbian families: no psychosocial indications for a-priori withholding of infertility treatment. A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2002 vol 8 number 6 pp. 579-90.

Mark Morford wants to know what to do with all those tubs of margarine if the promised gay apocalypse doesn't come:

I have been waiting patiently.

I have been staring with great anticipation out the window of my flat here in the heart of San Francisco, sighing heavily, waiting for the riots and the plagues and the screaming monkeys and the blistering rain of inescapable hellfire. I have my camera all ready and everything.

There has been nothing.

Really, go read it. And then subscribe to the Morning Fix. Mistah Morford, he funny.

Pictures from yesterday's marriage-license-fest are available here. They have not been adjusted much, so considerable sharpening and colour/contrast correction is possible on some of them.

A few quick favourites, processed a little more carefully:

That last is a plug, by the way: if you want any photography done, Todd Brown (on the left) is your man.

Coming! I plan to upload thumbnails and medium sized files this evening.

What's this all about? Spousal unit and I took half of yesterday off work and pestered couples for pictures as they lined up to get marriage licenses as per the last entry. We did this because pictures are important: they put a human face on the issue, and seem to be making a positive difference to public attitudes. If I took your picture yesterday, it will be here sometime tonight, and you can email me for a high-res copy any time. (We also made a couple of coffee runs, and with a little luck the spousal unit's phone calls will have resulted in a more organised coffee service for the crowd today.)

In the meantime, worldwide pablo is collecting links to blogs with pictures of Portland's gay marriages. So far blue hole and strangechord/smugmug have stepped up, and the former also links to picture posts by zoe trope. Elsewhere, lizbet has rounded up local reaction and other news, and b!X has more good coverage.

Finally, I want to apologise to Portland mayor Vera Katz for my earlier comment in light of her eloquent statement on gay marriage.

Update: spousal unit reports that D-Dish is indeed providing coffee and pastries, and links to more pics.

Today's Oregonian headline: County will license gay nuptials. County counsel Agnes Sowle provided county commissioners Lisa Naito and Serena Cruz with a written opinion that Multnomah Co's legal definition of marriage ".. does not state specifically that the contract may only be entered into between partners of the opposite sex", and that "refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples denies them the privileges and immunities granted to heterosexual couples", the latter being exactly the violation of the state constitution that I posited earlier. Via the spousal unit, b!X has more news and background.

Update: because appearances matter, and soundbites pass for journalism: go here and vote (link to the poll is to the right of the wedding photo, towards the top left of the page).

Tolerance.org has been following the gay marriage debate, and links (scroll down) to further coverage and activism by the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD.

HRC offers excellent background on the issue, the arguments and the politics, including a clickable map of relevant US State laws and statistics. Right now, you can join me (and, at time of writing, 326683 others) in signing the Million for Marriage petition (it will sign you up for an email newsletter, which is annoying but you can unsub). If the media are your thing, GLAAD is keeping an eye on them and offers a variety of ways to take action.

Update: Natalie Davis would like you to sign the Million for Marriage petition, too. Really, go do it.

Portland Communique continues to cover the local angle, and quotes this OPB story in which "County Counsel Agnes Sowle says any day now a same sex couple could ask for a marriage license in Portland, just like in San Francisco". So it's "cousel", not "council"! I'm a tool. b!X also points to gay marriage polls by KPTV, KATU and Basic Rights Oregon (whose homepage is still useless); go vote, because media polls can have a real effect on public perceptions. There was a KGW poll but it's disappeared; I did find this story on the flowers.

In the good news department, Mayor Jason West of New Paltz, NY will marry a small number of same sex couples today. Said Mayor West:

The people who would forbid gays from marrying in this country are those who would have made Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus.

On a lighter note, George Wallace is a dab hand with a double dactyl; here's the first of a series of six entitled Epithalamion:

I

Hymen, Hymenaeus!
Gay men and lesbians
Flock to the City Hall,
Follow their bliss,

Purchase their licenses,
Swear to their permanence,
Pose for the camera crews
Sharing a kiss.

Update -- poll results:

KPTV: "Do you think gay marriage should be unconstitutional?"

yes 54%
no 42%
not sure 4%
n = not specified

KATU: "Do you agree with President Bush's stance on gay marriage?"

yes 63%
no 37%
n = 2608

Basic Rights Oregon: "Do you support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage rights?"

yes 4%
no 86%
not sure 9%
n = 337

KGW (using "previous results" link): " Do you support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?"

yes 50%
no 49%
not sure 2%
n = 5626

KGW earlier poll: "Should gay marriage be legal?"

yes 52%
no 47%
not sure 1%
n = 9771

Update: Atrios wants you to torture Lou via his CNN poll: "What offends you most?"

Howard Stern 5%
Corporate pornography 11%
Government standards of decency 26%
Gay marriage 12%
Opposition to gay marriage 45%
n = 12134

On the left, fifteen-year-old Hazel Bryan screams unthinking hatred at Elizabeth Eckford during the racial integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. Five years later, Bryan sought out Eckford to apologize, and in 1997 they were photographed together again (right) and have since become friends. Commenter Naomi brought this story up in the comments on this post by John Scalzi; for which my thanks. Pictures from this CNN story, photo credit Will Counts.

(This has a particular resonance for me, as I too have had to resect prejudices that were grafted onto me while I wasn't paying attention. Anaesthetic is contraindicated for that operation, and there is something of the zeal of the convert in my interest in social justice; and that's all I have to say about that.)

If you've been reading Rafe Colburn's blog for long, you surely have the same impression that I do, of a reasonable, thoughtful and well intentioned individual. So when Rafe says this:

You know, my views on the gay marriage issue have really polarized over the past few weeks. I've never been opposed to gay marriage, but I also didn't feel particularly zealous about opening the option of marriage to gay people either. I have thought it's a right they should have for a long time, but I was OK with civil unions as an alternative, because I was focused on the legal rights that married couples have. Then a few things happened. My views started changing when the Massachusetts Supreme Court said that legislation providing separate but equal civil unions would not suffice to meet their requirements, because separate but equal usually isn't. I found that argument persuasive.

What really changed my attitude, though, was the marriage licenses being granted in San Francisco. Most people have seen the pictures of jubilant couples who are getting married after decades of waiting in vain. After seeing those couples, I'm ready to grant the right to marry nationwide, right now. Getting married was the best decision I ever made, period. Seeing other people joyfully getting married reminds me of how much joy marriage has brought to my life. I no longer have the energy to see the issue in a politically safe manner -- we need to grant this right to same sex couples in every state immediately.

it makes me think: firstly, that the flowers were a good idea; and secondly, that an avalanche of gay marriages is an even better idea. Spousal unit and I are perfectly happy if the flowers we sent did nothing but brighten a random couple's wedding day, but I can't help but think that the flower sending "campaign" contributed to the visibility and feel-good-factor of the San Fran weddings. Rafe's comment makes me believe more than ever that those weddings are important, and that A MILLION GAY MARRIAGES IN THE NEXT MONTH (ahem, sorry) could swing public opinion so far, and create so nearly accompli a fait that begrudging bastards like Bush will not be able to enshrine their grubby prejudices in law (or worse, the constitution). Happy wedding pictures everywhere, and then married gay couples are your neighbours, doctors, teachers, colleagues -- and the world doesn't end, no one riots, and nobody's hetero marriage is altered one whit. Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

So I thought I'd have a dig around in the Oregon constitution and law. In neither 2003 nor 2002 were the relevant statutes altered in any way that concerns my question, and the 2001 version reads:

106.010 Marriage as civil contract; age of parties. Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solemnized in accordance with ORS 106.150.

Spousal unit pointed out that the wording does not rule out same sex marriage by defining it as a contract between one male and one female. Furthermore, the restrictive interpretation of that statute would seem to me to contravene the State constitution; to wit, Article 1 section 20:

Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.—

As per my earlier entry, I called the Multnomah Co Marriage License Section this morning. My question -- "Will Multnomah Co grant a marriage license to a same sex couple?" has been passed on to the County Council, and they -- whoever they are, I can't find any mention of them on the homepage -- will phone me back. They'd better not take too long, or I'm going to start pestering the judges who authorise marriages.

There hasn't been much in the local media on this issue, but Ashbel Green at the Oregonian has filed two stories, the first of which contains a good brief history of gay marriage legal issues in the US and these encouraging observations:

Of any state, though, Oregon is perhaps the most likely to recognize gay and lesbian marriages, and extend the myriad health, tax and other benefits that go with them, several observers and scholars agree.

Although Oregon law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, the state is one of 12 that did not adopt a law prohibiting recognition of gay marriages from other states.

And perhaps more significantly, Oregon is just one of three states where the courts have recognized the rights of gays and lesbians to be treated equally.

The other two are Vermont, which, through its civil union law, extends all marital benefits to gay and lesbian couples, and Massachusetts.

"We are ripe," said George Eighmey, a former Oregon legislator and chairman of the state's Gay and Lesbian Law Association. "Oregon is definitely at the eye of the hurricane when it comes to this particular issue."

Boo, hiss! Scratch Sandoval County thanks to New Mexico's backwards asshole Attorney General:

The Sandoval County clerk's office granted licenses to 26 same-sex couples before New Mexico attorney general Patricia Madrid issued a late afternoon opinion saying the licenses were "invalid under state law."

The clerk's office stopped issuing licenses and told newly wed couples their licenses were invalid.

Full story here, thanks to PDP at Alas, a blog for the link.

That's not how Atrios reads the New Mexico law, by the way. Atrios also provides a reference for that New York opinion I mentioned: Lawrence C Moss, a Manhattan lawyer and chairman of the Reform Caucus of the New York State Democratic Committee in the NY Daily News.

In local news: I didn't know that Kip's Short Pier is in Portland OR; he sent mail to mayor Vera Katz and got a spineless cop-out (that's my opinion there, Kip is more gracious) in reply.

Digital prozac: the original LJ thread is full of responses from people who sent flowers, people who received flowers, and more. For the record, the name of the guy whose idea started it all is Greg Scanlan; let history remember him with favour. Speaking of names and history books, someone in the thread commented that Gavin Newsom is getting hate mail, so you might want to send him a note of thanks (I just did).

Speaking further of history books, I don't think it diminishes Mayor Newsom's achievement to point out that he is standing on the shoulders not of giants but of hundreds of unsung heroes in the long struggle for glbt rights. Pericat provided a link a while ago on the backstory of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, which I meant to feature at the time but forgot. I lack the background to do it, but now would be a good time for someone to write a short summary, aimed at the general public, of the history of "the other civil rights movement".

P.S. the new category is about folk, not just glbt issues!

Amid speculation that Chicago might follow San Francisco's lead, Sandoval County in New Mexico steps up. I read a comment somewhere to the effect that New York admits no legal impediments to the marriage of true minds either.

Obtaining a Marriage License in Multnomah County doesn't appear to be regulated according to sex. I can't seem to find a County Clerk, but the director of the Department of Business & Community Services, which issues marriage licences, is Cecilia Johnson (503-988-5880; cecilia.johnson@co.multnomah.or.us) and the Marriage License Section phone number is 503-988-3027. Hmm.

Update: I called the MLS number and got Ms Johnson's answering machine. Stay tuned for further developments.

Update the second: spousal unit writes to tell me that b!X is covering it. Four ballot initiatives have been filed that seek to prevent Oregon from recognising same-sex marriages performed in other states, all by the same three contemptible scumbags. B!X has the details.

I wish I'd thought of this:

Today a coworker of mine had a thought to send flowers to a random couple waiting in line at SF city hall.

He called a florist and they agreed to do it. He told them to deliver to any couple -- it didn't matter who -- standing in line to get married, with his blessing. The card will read simply "With love, from Minneapolis, Minnesota."

Instead, I read about it on Boing Boing, opened up my email client to write to the spousal unit and say "let's do this!", only to find that she'd already done it. Aw. *snif* I'm all teary again.

In case anyone else is thinking of doing this, it might be a good idea to spread the love among the local florists, too:

Flowers By The Bay (a Rainbow Pride business; start here, but they might be overwhelmed pretty soon)

Delicate Daisy House of Flowers

Amy Kee Floral Design

Directories of local florists: Yellow Pages, Yahoo! , Online Flowers Network, Locate-a-flower-shop.com, Florist Locators. Go on, you know you wanna.

Update: if your funds are limited, perhaps you'd like to have more lasting impact. Powazek is selling a poster ("Justly Married", heh) and donating the funds to Don't Amend, who sell neat stuff themselves (and accept donations, of course). The ACLU is also fighting the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Update the second (thanks again to Boing Boing): if you want to chip in but can't afford a bouquet on your own, Darren is collecting PayPal donations for bulk buys. At the time of writing he's up to nearly $1000.