As Proposition 8 in California threatens same sex marriage rights, musician Melissa Etheridge looks back on her own struggle to adopt her children with her now wife Tammy.
When my official sample ballot for the November 4th general election arrived I was in the kitchen, where my eldest son was practicing tricks on his yo-yo. As I thumbed through the pamphlet I turned to page 5, state measures. There it was, right between prop 7: The Renewable Energy Generation Initiative Statute, and prop 9:The Criminal Justice System Victims’ Rights Parole Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute:
Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex couples To Marry.
I know my preference of life mate freaks some people out. Maybe it is just their fear of sex or intimacy. Fine, let me stand before my creator and take any consequences there might be to living my life in truth and balance with my spirit.
I called my son over. I said “Read this, tell me what you think”. He, being 9 years old and very proud of his reading skills, read “Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same sex couples to marry.” He looked at me, very matter-of-factly and said, “Wow, that’s lame.”
A rush of memories came over me. What a long strange trip it has been.
I remembered being a new mom in 1997. I followed the long trail of red tape to find a way to adopt my children so they could be covered by health insurance, or so I could see them in the hospital in case of some emergency, along with dozens of other reasons. I was fortunate enough to have the financial resources to find a lawyer that would help me through the heart breaking adoption system. The social worker would come to my house, numerous times, evaluate me, have me fill out all of the forms and then regretfully deny me my right to adopt my children because California law prohibited social workers from adoption approval of same sex couples. Then my lawyer would take my case to a judge that would read the social worker’s words “regretfully deny” and then the judge would say, “overruled, “allowing me to adopt my children within the legal system. I give thanks to these great people who truly believe in equal rights and risked so much for so many families.
There were the dark times, when proposition 22 was put on the ballot in 2000. It was a strange act, more like a true or false question: ”Marriage in the state of California is defined as being between a man and a woman.” Okay…? It passed.
Then I remembered my own wedding in 2003. I had found my true love, Tammy. It was a magical ceremony that started with my children walking with me down the aisle to meet my bride as the two aisles merged into one. I wanted to stand in front of my community of family and friends and declare my promise to be committed to my partner, now my wife, through thick and thin, in sickness and in health, something that would be tested with my breast cancer diagnosis and treatment later that next year. The day before the wedding Grey Davis gave same sex couples domestic partnership rights, one of his last moments as governor and we proudly hung our certificates on our wall. They were limited rights, but doggone it, it was a beginning.
I will never forget the day earlier this year when the news came down the wire that the Supreme Court of CA. had declared same sex marriage legal. We told our children about it and all danced around the room in family glee. I have four children now, my 11-year-old daughter, my 9-year-old son and boy and girl twins, aged two. We knew the only way our rights could be taken away was through a ballot measure and a constitutional amendment revoking the rights of same sex couples.
And now here it is.
Prop 8 is a blatantly hateful, and fearful proposition that I believe the great citizens of California can see through. The proponents of it have run the most fearful of television ads telling the people that if this doesn’t pass they will have to teach about homos to small grade school children. I can’t seem to recall any relationships ever being taught in school and I can’t find anything about that in this proposition. Now, I know my preference of life mate freaks some people out. Maybe it is just their fear of sex or intimacy. I know that they hold up the bible and say that it’s wrong. Fine, let me stand before my creator and take any consequences there might be to living my life in truth and balance with my spirit.
I believe in our democracy. I believe in our constitution. I believe we live in the greatest country in the world. I believe that we are as strong as our weakest link and if we deny any of our citizens the right to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” then we deny it to all of us.
I will be waking up with my children on November 5th and I will be fixing them breakfast as I usually do. I look forward to telling them that prop 8 was defeated. I am sure my son will say, “Good, that was lame.”
Yes, lame indeed.
Alexandra Penney is an artist, best-selling author, former editor-in-chief of Self magazine, and originator, with Evelyn Lauder, of the Pink Ribbon for breast cancer awareness. She had a one-person show at Galerie in Berlin in April and her work was shown at Miami’s Art Basel. She lives in New York, has one treasured son in Los Angeles and more amazing friends than could ever be imagined.
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Steve Emerson is Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and author of 5 books and countless articles on terrorism. His most recent book is Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
David Blum, former editor-in-chief of The Village Voice and of The New York Press, teaches at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. In 1992 he published Flash In The Pan: The Life and Death of an American Restaurant. Tick...Tick...Tick...: The Long Life & Turbulent Times of 60 Minutes followed in 2004.
Mansfield Frazier is a native Clevelander and former newspaper editor. A published author, he served as a contributing editor of the Cleveland Tab Newsmagazine, the editor of the Cleveland Call & Post, and managing editor of CityNews, and urban-focused weekly, before changing over to Internet journalism. His regular column can currently be seen on CoolCleveland.com. An avid gardener, he resides in the Hough neighborhood of Cleveland with his wife Brenda and their two dogs, Gypsy and Ginger.
An Academy Award-winning and Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter.
Marriage is about creating a family with the one you love.
There is no valid reason NOT to allow gay couples to marry.
This is about civil rights, and it's unfortunate - in this country - how religion has become an enemy of those rights.
"Fine, let me stand before my creator and take any consequences there might be to living my life in truth and balance with my spirit."
-Very well said Melissa; good luck on November 5th, I'll be thinking of you and yours.
I am sitting here crying my eyes out. That was beautifully written. Thank you, Melissa for putting a human face and family picture on this issue.
As a new reader of "The Daily Beast", A Gay Man & A Huge Fan Of Melissa Etheridge, I was drawn immediately to this article. I am in support of same sex marriage, unions & commitments- How anyone chooses to live together or define their relationship is their own business. That said, I have felt for a very long time that supporters of "Marriage Equality" have gone done the wrong path in trying to achieve this "New" equal right. Instead of having the state recognize a same sex marriage, we should fight to have the state NOT recognize ANY marriage that takes place in a Church. Synagogue, Mosque or any other religious house. We have separation between Church & State, correct?? This is how to have Marriage Equality! Every couple wishing to get married (Gay & Straight) should have to get married in their local courthouse; this should be the only union recognized by the state! Whatever any couple should do in a house of worship should not be seen as a legal marriage!!! The Supreme Court would have to support this or admit that the court is run by religion!
Call me crazy, but it's simple logic to me.
When you ask pro 8 people how gay marriage will affect their lives, you never get a straight (no pun intended) answer. Will it change your marriage? Will it make you gay? Of course the answer is no. To change the state constitution for something that takes away a groups rights, rather than gives rights, is so wrong.
I vote we let 9 year olds make the important decisions, at least they know right from wrong. What would happen if we all let go of our fears? If we released our hidden attitudes and not so hidden judgements on another persons spirit? There truly is much more at stake that 'just vote yes or no to proposition 8.'
It is clear that Melissa does not know what marriage is. She and those that think like her have narrowed their thinking so much they can not fathom what the fight is about. It is not their fault entirely. For years now the rest of us have neglected marriage and allowed it to degrade. Marriage has never been love or sex. But soon marriage will no longer be at all. Just look at the confusion over the titles for each party. Melissa's "wife"? What does that make Melissa? She is not a husband. So they have just decided to remove the part about husband and wife. How did their choice become a right? Do I get to marry my dog now? Again it all comes from not knowing what marriage really is.
There is no confusion about marriage as a committed familial relationship. Nor is there confusion about titles. Melissa and her wife have it right. Same sex marriage is about stability and commitment - it adds to the gravitas of marriage and does not degrade it in any way. God made us this way and loves us.
The comment about marrying one's pet shows where the writer is coming from - a place of ignorance and bigotry.
There is absolutely no legal, moral, ethical, intellectual, or practical reason to oppose same-sex marriage. Allowing two consenting adults to marry one another does not at all affect anyone who has a personal or theological objection to homosexuality. It does not affect any religious institution in the slightest, as none is compelled to perform a same-sex marriage.
Anyone who compares two loving adults marrying one another to bestiality, as a prior commentor did, or to child rape, is so unspeakably hateful, stupid, and vile, that I am incapable of forming any coherent response. It bespeaks such ignorance, bigotry, fear, hatred, and evil, that I am left dumb in its presence.
"There is absolutely no legal, moral, ethical, intellectual, or practical reason to oppose same-sex marriage." There is not? So why is there a fight over it?
"bestiality" I wonder where you're thought are. I thought this was all about love not sex. Are you now saying it all comes down to sex instead?
My reference was to the act of changing what marriage is. If we start changing it where do we stop? And why would we limit it? If ten loving committed adults want to marry would that be acceptable? And why? Following the real intent of my comment I ask why would marriage be limited to two adults? I love my car as well but again it is not allowed. Why? Marriage is not a loving committed relationship. It is because America has changed marriage already into a loving committed relationship that there is any question at all for same sex marriage. In fact the idea that there is no religious reason is absurd. Marriage is a religious institution established in law for the betterment of the nation. It would be more accurate for the same sex advocates to request the renaming of marriage to a civil or social contract to make it more what they are asking for.
I read people's comments regarding what marriage really is, and feel compelled to point out the Dictionary definition of marriage is not as black and white in description as some believe. My dictionary reference defines marriage as "a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." As to the person asking permission to marry his/her dog.....? I find that more troubling in itself.
Marriage has always simply been the solidification of two households. I've no idea why people who oppose this don't know the history of marriage, but this is an entirely logical step.
mike1jeremie, a dog has no legal rights, and you know that. That counter is sheer idiocy. Your protestations are so vague and watery that I can scarcely tell what you actually oppose.
mike1jeremie:
You attack her for "not knowing what marriage is," but then you fail to define it yourself. Folks like you make this inane argument that allowing same sex couples to marry somehow degrades the sanctity of marriage, or that it will somehow open the gates for all sorts of unspeakable acts; as if somehow there is an equivalence to marrying one's own sex to marrying an animal.
The core questions in this argument for me come down to question of what is the role of government? To control an individual's moral choices, or to simply act as mediator between parties with differing interests? I have always felt that the core principle of democracy is that the government is to only restrict your rights when they impinge on the rights of another citizen; therefore, the question must be asked, how does someone else getting married to someone of the same sex impinge on your rights? You can say that it degrades the moral fabric of society, but that clearly is not a basis for making something illegal. Any number of things that some people feel are immoral remain lawful. Do those who oppose gay marriage also propose to make adultery illegal, an act that is expressly forbidden by the ten commandments and is clear and real danger to the sanctity of marriage. I have yet to see anyone standing on the steps of the supreme court demanding that we add a constitutional amendment banning adultery, yet it ruins marriages and families every day.
Face reality; you are personally uncomfortable with same sex couples and want to prohibit their rights to make you feel more at ease with the world you live in. This is the same line of illogical bigotry that persuaded our politicians to allow segregation and intolerance for almost a century; I certainly hope our country will come to enlightenment more rapidly on this issue.
I oppose making legal changes for the sake of personal choice. I oppose two adults claiming their relationship is equal to another just because they want it to be. There are and where real and valid reasons to establish marriage in our laws the way we have. I oppose the "changing" of marriage. Marriage is husband and wife until death. My problem is that marriage has already been changed. The same sex issue is just another nail in the coffin. We have no marriage in America anymore. All of the symbology that made up marriage has been striped away.
I also appose making these changes with out fully asking why on all related issues. You answered the why to the dog and the car but what about the ten adults? Oh and don't go telling the animal rights activists that dogs do not have human rights. They are already trying to get gorillas human rights and when they do it will just add to this issue.
Eloquently & intelligently put, Aaronthethird. I wouldn't even try to say it better myself.
First off!!! People want to associate their religion with this issue. Look, my friend, if YOUR religion says YOU cannot be with a member of the same sex, then good for you if you are gay and suffer for your god. However, (and YOU really need to understand this!) no one has to follow your religion. I have the freedom to believe what I wish in this country. SO GET YOUR RELIGION OUT OF MY LIFE!!!!! kabish?
Second, Americans in general are, by nature, facists. Especially the GOP kind of Americans. "If it's not like me or thinks like me, it's bad." Hence, we are blessed in this nation with such jewels as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc..... Grow up America! And break from the bonds of facism placed on you by your friends and family.
Lastly, I always "knew" about oppression. And I always opposed it. But I never really "felt" it until Mitt Romney ran for president. You see, I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints....Mormons to lay people. And of course, I am always teased by co-workers and such. But I never felt the hatred and disdain of people I didn't even know until Mitt ran. WOW!! Just to let you know....it doesn't feel good!
And now I see Melissa standing up for what she believes in....what she LOVES!!!! .......................hmmm............
I do believe this is what a true American hero looks like!
To stand up, and fight, and be that target of hate.....for what?
LOVE that's what!!!!
Stay strong girl!!!
To start it isn't required that anyone enter into a same sex union. It is a matter of choice. Some evidence suggests that the choice is the result of genetics and as such is no more controlable than eye color.
I would think that any reading of the constitution would make it clear that the majority cannot legislate discrimination against the minority.
Try to remember that your religion is nothing more than your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion; you are not entitled to impose your opinion on anyone.
@mike1jeremy:
Because there is a fight over same-sex marriage does not necessarily mean it falls under one of the categories of "legal, moral, ethical, intellectual, or practical" reasons. You yourself sited a religious reason, which is the underlying reason for the majority of the opposition.
The separation of church and state necessarily makes marriage a legal, non-religious institution when applied to state government. Because of this, denying same sex couples the right to marry is discriminatory and completely unconstitutional. Your comparison between same sex marriage and marrying a car or an animal is a red herring. If you want to make that a valid argument, explain how an animal or an inanimate object can have political agency or give consent.
You can't make any argument you like into a "slippery slope" claim. I'm sorry, but the legal logics behind the legalization for same sex marriage do not work outside of humanity. The state is not forcing churches to perform ceremonies, it is only giving out licenses with civil rights attached, the same rights most of us enjoy. I would advise you to worry less about same sex marriage and more about the sky-high divorce rate.
As for polygamy, i don't really have an issue with it but there are serious legal challenges to overcome when you have multiple vying for martial privileges that conflict between the multiple partners.
Marriage as an institution has undergone many changes in its history. Historically speaking, the most common form of marriage is one man and as many wives as he can afford. It was a business merger, a transfer of ownership of the woman from her father to her husband, and a way to legitimize (what a horrific concept) children.
Marriage in America has moved away from these traditions. Husbands don't own their wives anymore. Men are responsible for the children they bring into the world whether they're "legitimate" or not. Fertility technology has changed who can physically bear children. Marrying someone from a different religion or race is no longer a crime. Culture changes. Society changes. The make-up of the family unit changes. If marriage is going to continue to serve a purpose, it has to change, too.
The only reason to maintain a static definition of marriage is believing that it is defined by an equally changeless God. That's a perfectly fine reason for a church to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. It's no reason at all to limit the legal definition.
PS: The "marry a dog" argument is almost too stupid to acknowledge. We're obviously talking about consenting adults. Dogs, chairs, children, and all the other ridiculous slippery slope scenarios cannot give informed consent. Consider the slippery slope argument thoroughly refuted.
mike1jeremie, if you really opposed changing marriage, you had better be fighting for the right of a man to own as many wives as he can afford. If it weren't for a changing definition, that is what marriage would still be.
The fact that the definition of marriage has changed is a GOOD thing. It just needs to change a little bit more in order to meet the needs of society. Marriage exists to serve us, not the other way around.