Gay Marriage in the Year 100 AD

by Annalee Newitz:

Gay marriage sounds like an ultra-contemporary idea. But almost twenty years ago, a Catholic scholar at Yale shocked the world by publishing a book packed with evidence that same-sex marriages were sanctioned by the early Christian Church during an era commonly called the Dark Ages.

Illustration of Serge and Bacchus, in a same-sex union.

John Boswell (below) was a historian and religious Catholic who dedicated much of his scholarly life to studying the late Roman Empire and early Christian Church. Poring over legal and church documents from this era, he discovered something incredible. There were dozens of records of church ceremonies where two men were joined in unions that used the same rituals as heterosexual marriages. (He found almost no records of lesbian unions, which is probably an artifact of a culture which kept more records about the lives of men generally.)

Bolstered by this evidence, Boswell published a book in 1994, the year before his death from AIDS, called Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. The book comes out next month for the first time in a digital edition. It was an instant lightening rod for controversy, drawing criticism from both the Catholic Church and sex pundit Camille Paglia. Given the Church's present-day views on gay marriage, these detractors argued, Boswell's history seemed like wishful thinking.

But it wasn't. Boswell had actually begun his research back in the 1970s, and published an equally controversial work in 1980 called Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. His Same-Sex Unions book refined and expanded a lot of what he'd learned over a lifetime of research into primary sources in scattered libraries and archives.

How could these marriages have been forgotten by history? One easy answer is that — as Boswell argues — the Church reframed the idea of marriage in the 13th century to be for the purposes of procreation. And this slammed the door on gay marriage. Church scholars and officials worked hard to suppress the history of these marriages in order to justify their new definition.

Of course, history is more complicated than that. Boswell claims that part of the problem is that we define marriage so differently today that it's almost impossible for historians to recognize 1800-year-old gay marriage documents when they see them. Often, these documents refer to uniting "brothers," which at the time would have been a way of describing same-sex partners whose lifestyles were tolerated in Rome. Also, marriages over a millennium ago were not based on procreation, but wealth-sharing. So "marriage" sometimes meant a non-sexual union of two people's or families' wealth. Boswell admits that some of the documents he found may refer simply to non-sexual joining of two men's fortunes — but many also referred to what today we would call gay marriage.

Legal scholar Richard Ante wrote a law journal article explaining that Boswell's book could even be used as evidence for the legality of gay marriage, since it shows evidence that definitions of marriage have changed over time. He describes some of Boswell's evidence of these same-sex rites in the early first millennium:

The burial rite given for Achilles and Patroclus, both men, was the burial rite for a man and his wife. The relationships of Hadrian and Antinous, of Polyeuct and Nearchos, of Perpetua and Felicitas, and of Saints Serge and Bacchus, all bore resemblance to heterosexual marriages of their times. The iconography of Serge and Bacchus was even used in same-sex nuptial ceremonies by the early Christian Church.

The main piece of evidence that these same-sex unions were marriages is that they so closely resembled heterosexual ceremonies. Literary scholar Bruce Holsinger describes Boswell's detailed stories of same-sex ceremonies:

[Boswell] cleverly posits the development of heterosexual and same-sex nuptial offices as a single phenomenon, tracking the growth of the latter from "merely a set of prayers " in the earlier Middle Ages to its flowering as a "full office" by the twelfth century that involved "the burning of candles, the placing of the two parties' hands on the Gospel, the joining of their right hands, the binding of their hands . . . with the priest's stole, an introductory litany crowning, the Lord's Prayer, Communion, a kiss, and sometimes circling around the altar." Boswell devotes a full chapter to comparing these rituals with their heterosexual counterparts, revealing a number of extraordinary similarities between the two; in several appendixes totaling almost 100 pages, he has compiled numerous examples of the documents themselves (including heterosexual matrimony ceremonies and adoption rituals for comparison) to let "readers . . . judge for themselves," as he puts it. (Boswell translates most of the ceremonies, so general readers won't have to worry about brushing up on their Old Church Slavonic.)

Were these same-sex unions in the middle ages the same thing as today's gay marriages? Probably not. People at the time may not have viewed two men forming a union as anything out of the ordinary. Marriage itself meant something different thousands of years ago, and social taboos against homosexuality had not yet solidified. Still, in Boswell's work, we find records of institutions where same-sex couples were honored with the same ceremonies that opposite-sex couples enjoyed. Two men could live as "brothers," sharing wealth, home, and family. And yes, they could love each other, too.

Though Boswell died before his country began to allow similar kinds of unions, he could draw hope from knowing something that most people did not. Even the most fundamental kinds of human relationships change over time. Those who have been banished today may be blessed tomorrow — just as they were over a thousand years ago.

Episcopal Bishop, Right Rev. Sean W. Rowe, Has A Change Of Heart On Anti-LGBT Bigotry & Discrimination

The Right Reverend Sean W. Rowe, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania, recently published an article in the Erie Times-News about the enlightening of attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

While this advancement in Rowe's thinking is welcome, it must be noted that when he was Rector of St. John's Episcopal Church in Franklin, Pa., he was also a member of the Franklin Area School District Board, the same school board that sat in silence, cast a blind-eye, even protected a high school administrator who was well-known in the community for the racist and homophobic ways in which he targeted and abused students.

Rowe has yet to account for his silence, let alone make amends for the suffering that he and his school board colleagues enabled in the Franklin Area School District.

Here is his current "reflection" on the issues:

Welcome LGBT People as Children of God

Right Rev. Sean W. Rowe - Erie Times-News - July 20, 2013:

Last week, Attorney General Kathleen Kane announced that she will not defend the state in a suit that challenges the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage.

Her decision, resulting from the recent Supreme Court decision that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, is just the latest indication that our society's thinking about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their unions is changing rapidly.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage, and more than a quarter of Americans live in those jurisdictions. According to a June ABC News/Washington Post poll, 58 percent of Americans support marriage equality. That number climbs to 70 percent when Americans born after 1980 are surveyed, according to the Pew Research Center.

Civil marriage and religious marriage are distinct institutions, but our attitudes toward one influence our thinking about the other. So for many people of faith, these headlines about civil same-sex marriage equality require us to look at sacred traditions and texts with fresh eyes.

Many of us remember when issues of human sexuality were off-limits for discussion in our congregations. And sadly, far too many of us are familiar with the discrimination, fear and violence that LGBT people have suffered while people of faith turned a blind eye or, worse yet, acted as perpetrators.

Today it is possible for us to view same-sex relationships differently. Across our communities, we see the goodness and holiness of same-sex couples in committed, lifelong relationships. Same-sex couples and their families are blessings to their communities, their churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, and to their neighbors and friends. Just like opposite-sex couples, their love for one another draws them more clearly into fidelity and service to the world and allows all of us who know them to see the boundless love of God more clearly.

We can also see that our civic life benefits when same-sex couples have the dignity and legal protection that opposite-sex couples have always enjoyed. Same-sex couples, just like their opposite-sex friends and neighbors, work hard, raise children, volunteer for good causes and pay taxes. Erie would be poorer without its LGBT residents, and we need to stand against discrimination that makes their lives less safe or secure.

For too long, same-sex couples have had to live without the acknowledgment -- from their civic communities or religious congregations -- that they are both productive citizens and signs of the goodness of God's creation and love for the world. Now the growing civil acceptance of marriage equality can help people of faith to tear the scales from our eyes, testify to what we see, and fully welcome LGBT people as children of God and sisters and brothers in faith.

Reflections is a column by religious leaders in the region. The Right Rev. Sean W. Rowe is bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Northwestern Pennsylvania, 145 W. Sixth St.

The Future of Same-Sex Marriage

The New York Times Editorial - July 14, 2013:

As historic and welcome as we found the Supreme Court’s two recent decisions on same-sex marriage, they served to emphasize the lingering inequality for millions of gay and lesbian Americans who do not live in the 13 states that enforce the right of all adult Americans to marry the person of their choosing.

In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, is standing by his 2012 veto of a measure to allow gay couples to marry and is refusing to free Republican legislators to follow their conscience on an override vote. Mr. Christie is imposing a large ideological tax on thousands of couples and their families whose interests he is supposed to protect. He is depriving them of federal benefits, which their tax payments help underwrite.

Certainly, the Supreme Court propelled the nation toward greater equality in late June with two 5-to-4 rulings that restored same-sex marriage in California and struck down the central provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, the dreadful 1996 law that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples married in states that permit it.

The Defense of Marriage Act ruling struck a blow against injustice, but it also accentuated the unfairness to same-sex couples who would like to get married but live in states that do not permit it and therefore cannot take the same advantage of more than 1,000 federal benefits available to other couples (unless they get married in one of the states where same-sex marriage is legal). By disposing of the California case on narrow procedural grounds, the Supreme Court avoided the necessary reckoning about the fundamental violation of equal protection created by state laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. It perpetuated a mean and irrational patchwork in which duly wed couples may not be considered married when they cross state borders.

•

Eliminating that unfair system will require a multipronged effort — to add more states to the list of 13 that permit same-sex marriage and to challenge remaining state laws that violate the standards of equal protection as the Defense of Marriage Act did. Last Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a challenge to a Pennsylvania law that allows marriage only between a man and a woman and rejects other states’ marriage equality laws.

Brought on behalf of 23 plaintiffs, the lawsuit is among the first of an expected wave of new cases around the country that could eventually return the issue to the Supreme Court. These suits aim to build on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act, including his insight that the federal government’s refusal to recognize some marriages denied married same-sex couples a “status of immense import” and deprived children of “the integrity and closeness of their own family.”

The same can be said of denying gay couples the right to marry in the first place, a cause that is also the object of lobbying and organizing efforts to achieve more victories in state legislatures and at the ballot box. In just the past year, six states legalized same-sex marriage though the political process. Legislatures are being pressed in three other states that are likely to follow suit: New Jersey, Hawaii and Illinois. In Oregon, an effort to reverse a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage through a November 2014 ballot measure is under way. Challenges to similar bans in Nevada, Colorado and Ohio could be in store for November 2016.

The opposition is not sitting still. Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, a Republican, has urged the Legislature to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage so it can be put before voters next year. Given the rapidly expanding acceptance of same-sex marriage, we hope that getting Indiana voters to approve the shabby measure will prove harder than Mr. Pence thinks.

•

In Washington, the Obama administration is moving with commendable diligence and speed to extend benefits like health care, life insurance and immigration rights to gay and lesbian married couples. We took special satisfaction from the memo sent out by the chief administrative officer of the Republican-led House informing all 435 representatives and their staff members in all 50 states that they have 60 days to enroll their same-sex spouses for benefits like vision, dental and long-term care insurance and survivors’ annuities.

House Republicans spent millions of taxpayer dollars on private lawyers’ fees to defend the Defense of Marriage Act’s indefensible discrimination when the Obama administration decided it would no longer do so.

Even now, though, there is a serious risk that legally married individuals will lose out on valuable Social Security and veterans’ benefits because language in the applicable statutes seems to determine whether couples are married based on where they live rather than where their marriage was celebrated.

The Justice Department should be exploring every legal route around that, but there should be no need for straining. A newly reintroduced bill would fulfill the letter and spirit of the Defense of Marriage Act ruling by ensuring that the elderly, veterans who risked their lives for their country and others are not excluded from federal benefits even if they live in states where their marriages are not recognized.

Two Lesbian Moms Raised a Baby in Nevada, and This is What Happened

Nevada is the most recent state to take steps towards legalizing gay marriage. On Thursday, the state assembly passed a resolution that would keep gay marriage on the table in future legislative discussions. The tally was 27 – 14, the latter of which were all Republicans. While the process of legalization will still require another vote of the assembly and a ballot voted on by the residents of Nevada, this represents an important turning point for the state, which prohibited same-sex marriage by popular vote in 2002.

The passing of this resolution was helped in no small part by the testimony of high school senior, Riley Roberts, who spoke about his childhood being raised by lesbian mothers. His touching speech was peppered with tears, anger, and even laughter, but above all, Roberts repeated that his life was “amazing” because of his “two loving parents.” His childhood was no different than any of his friends, and he had all the opportunities, love, and stability that any other family could provide. Most of all, Roberts stressed that marriage equality wasn’t a matter of tolerating supposedly deviant behavior, but of agreeing to provide the “rights, freedoms, and ability to be full and equal citizens of the United States of America” to everyone in the country.

In the words of Roberts himself, “What issue? I see no issue.”

Watch the full video of his testimony below:

Obama Urges Supreme Court To Overturn California Same-Sex Marriage Ban

By Robert Barnes for the Washington Post - February 28


The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Thursday that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, a position that could also cast doubt on prohibitions in other states.

The administration did not endorse a constitutional right to marry that would apply nationwide. But its friend-of-the-court brief, a bold declaration of the administration’s interest in gay rights, said the court should review laws banning same-sex marriage under “heightened scrutiny.”

The administration’s entry for the first time into the legal battle over Proposition 8 — a voter initiative that amended the California Constitution in 2008 to limit marriage to a man and a woman — also carried great symbolic value for those advancing the cause of marriage equality.

The Obama administration did not have to file a brief in the California case but said the question of how the court reviews laws that “target gay and lesbian people for discriminatory treatment” is of great interest to the government.

In California’s case, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. wrote, the state offers same-sex couples domestic partnerships but withholds marriage.

“California’s extension of all of the substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8,” the brief says. “It indicates that Proposition 8’s withholding of the designation of marriage is not based on an interest in promoting responsible procreation and child-rearing — petitioners’ central claimed justification for the initiative — but instead on impermissible prejudice.”

The government’s brief noted that seven other states have similar domestic-partnership laws: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. But it did not call for the court to overturn those laws.

In some ways, the brief marks a compromise between threatening the prohibitions on same-sex marriage that the vast majority of states have enacted and nudging along the number of states that allow such unions.

The administration has been under pressure from gay rights groups and others to enter the Proposition 8 case, especially after President Obama’s inaugural address, in which he said, “If we are truly created equal, than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, called the brief “a powerful statement that Proposition 8 cannot be squared with the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded.”

“It is an unprecedented call to action by our government that it is time to recognize gay and lesbian Americans as full and equal citizens under the law,” he said.

Thomas Peters, communications director of the National Organization for Marriage and a supporter of Proposition 8, said his group “expects the Supreme Court to exonerate the votes of over 7 million Californians to protect marriage.”

“The President is clearly fulfilling a campaign promise to wealthy gay marriage donors,” Peters said in a statement. “There is no right to redefine marriage in our Constitution.”

The Supreme Court at the end of the month will consider two cases concerning same-sex marriage.

One addresses the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in those states where such unions are legal. The administration for two years has said that is unconstitutional, and a string of lower-court decisions have agreed.

The other is Proposition 8, which was passed by voters after the California Supreme Court recognized a right for same-sex unions under the state constitution. More than 18,000 couples were wed in the meantime.

A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit struck down the amendment.

While the DOMA case concerns couples who are already married, the Proposition 8 case offers the Supreme Court a chance to examine whether there is a constitutional right to marriage that cannot be denied by the states. But, as the administration’s brief indicated, there are more limited ways the court could rule.

Currently, the District, Maryland and eight other states allow same-sex marriages, while nearly all the rest forbid it.

Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is an evolving one, he has said. Although he opposed Proposition 8, he has never said he thought that the same-sex marriage issue should be decided nationally.

“I continue to believe,” he told ABC News last year when announcing his support of same-sex unions, “that this is an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.”

Those who are defending Proposition 8 say the state’s acceptance of domestic partnerships proves that voters were motivated by a desire to protect traditional marriage, not to discriminate against homosexuals.

But the administration said that domestic partnerships prove just the opposite. California has “recognized that same-sex couples form deeply committed relationships that bear the hallmarks of their neighbors’ opposite-sex marriages; they establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death,” the brief stated.

It said a reluctance to change the “traditional” definition of marriage is not a defense.

“Marriage has changed in certain significant ways over time — such as the demise of coverture and the elimination of racial restrictions on marital partners — that could have been characterized as traditional or fundamental to the institution,” Verrilli wrote.

A purported interest in responsible procreation and child-rearing cannot justify Proposition 8, the brief stated, because California confers “full rights of parenting and child-rearing on same-sex couples.”

And the administration said the court should not agree with an argument that it must respect “the will of the people” to amend the state’s constitution and to overturn the California Supreme Court’s decision allowing same-sex marriage.

“Promoting democratic self-
governance and accountability is a laudable governmental interest, but it is not one that justify a law that would otherwise violate the constitution,” Verrilli wrote.

In such cases, he said, the judiciary plays a special role in protecting minorities.

The administration’s brief is added to dozens that outside groups have filed in the same-sex marriage cases. Briefs have been submitted by states that allow such unions and those that forbid them; religious groups on both sides of the issue; Republicans who support same-sex marriage and conservatives who say it undermines a traditional way of life.

Labor unions and hundreds of major corporations weighed in on the side of same-sex marriage, for instance.

The AFL-CIO said its gay workers are economically harmed by laws that do not allow them to marry.

“These economic injuries are readily quantifiable in terms of the dollars gay and lesbian workers are forced to spend on higher costs and taxes, in the denials of access to publicly and privately provided benefits, and in the refusals of entry into and in the deportations out of the U.S.,” the union brief said. “These harms further extend into the physical workplace, where gay and lesbian workers often confront and navigate biases about their sexual orientation and the comparative worth of their personal relationships.”

The businesses, which included such giants as Microsoft and Nike and small businesses such as a winery in California, said restrictions against same-sex marriage create extra work for them — over insurance coverage and taxes, for instance — and force them to categorize workers differently.

“It puts us, as employers, to unnecessary cost and administrative complexity, and regardless of our business or professional judgment forces us to treat one class of our lawfully married employees differently than another, when our success depends upon the welfare and morale of all employees,” the brief stated.

Another is signed by more than 100 prominent Republicans, including Clint Eastwood and seven former governors, among them 2012 presidential candidate Jon Huntsman (although only a small number currently hold public office).

They tell the court that supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples is consistent with a “commitment to limited government and individual freedom.”

“Many of the signatories to this brief previously did not support civil marriage for same-sex couples,” the brief stated. But after states offered such unions, they said, they have “reexamined the evidence and their own positions and have concluded that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason for denying same-sex couples the same recognition in law that is available to opposite-sex couples.”

On the other side, a coalition of African American pastors told the court it should not draw comparisons to its 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state bans on interracial marriage.

“The ruling in Loving was not revolutionary the way striking down the traditional male-female definition would be in the present case,” the brief stated. “The anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia were at war with the core purposes of marriage — especially the fostering of responsible procreation and child rearing by biological parents.”

And 19 states, including Virginia, urged the court to overturn the 9th Circuit’s opinion, which it said overrode the will of California voters.

“The result is not merely vitiation of California’s co-equal sovereignty without a clear constitutional warrant,” the brief said. “It is disintegration of perhaps the most fundamental and revered cultural institution of American life: marriage as we know it.”

Small Town Same-Sex Wedding Story Causes Stir, Newspaper Owner Responds

from the HRC Blog:

A small-town Mississippi newspaper has been blasted with angry messages since running a front-page story on what the newspaper believed to be the first same-sex wedding in the county.

The February 7th edition of The Laurel Leader-Call featured Jessica Powell and Crystal Craven, both of Laurel, who were celebrating their loving commitment to each other in the face of Craven’s diagnosis with Stage 4 brain cancer.

After receiving “a deluge of hate calls, letters, e-mails, Facebook posts, soundoffs and random cross stares,” the newspaper’s owner Jim Cegielski decided to respond to the reaction in an admirable op-ed titled, “Doing our job”.

Cegielski defended the choice to feature the story, writing “whether you like it or not, the first known gay wedding to take place in Jones County is still historic.”

He also responded to those who complained that their children had been exposed to the existence of LGBT people:

We have stories about child molesters, murders and all kinds of vicious, barbaric acts of evil committed by heinous criminals on our front page and yet we never receive a call from anyone saying 'I don't need my children reading this.' Never. Ever. However, a story about two women exchanging marriage vows and we get swamped with people worried about their children.

Read the original article and Cegielski’s full response here.

The Lowest Form of Hatred - The Self-Righteousness of the Religious Mob

Wendell Berry Expounds On Gay Marriage

A Kentucky farmer, essayist, writer and activist, sometimes described as a modern-day Thoreau, criticizes theological strategies used to marginalize gays.

By Bob Allen, ABP News:

Christian opponents to same-sex marriage want the government to treat homosexuals as a special category of persons subject to discrimination, similar to the way that African-Americans and women were categorized in the past, cultural and economic critic Wendell Berry told Baptist ministers in Kentucky on January 11.

Berry, a prolific author of books, poems and essays who won the National Humanities Medal in 2010 and was 2012 Jefferson lecturer for the National Endowment for the Humanities, offered “a sort of general declaration” on the subject of gay marriage at a “Following the Call of the Church in Times Like These” conference at Georgetown College. Berry said he chose to comment publicly to elaborate on what little he has said about the topic in the past.

“I must say that it’s a little wonderful to me that in 40-odd years of taking stands on controversial issues, and at great length sometimes, the two times that I think I’ve stirred up the most passionate opposition has been with a tiny little essay on computers (his 1987 essay “Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer” published in Harper’s led some to accuse him of being anti-technology) and half a dozen or a dozen sentences on gay marriage,” Berry said.

Berry said he could recall only twice before when he commented publicly on the issue, in a single paragraph in a collection of essays published in 2005 and in an interview with the National Review in 2012.

“My argument, much abbreviated both times, was the sexual practices of consenting adults ought not to be subjected to the government’s approval or disapproval, and that domestic partnerships in which people who live together and devote their lives to one another ought to receive the spousal rights, protections and privileges the government allows to heterosexual couples,” Berry said.

Berry said liberals and conservatives have invented “a politics of sexuality” that establishes marriage as a “right” to be granted or withheld by whichever side prevails. He said both viewpoints contravene principles of democracy that rights are self-evident and inalienable and not determined and granted or withheld by the government.

“Christians of a certain disposition have found several ways to categorize homosexuals as different as themselves, who are in the category of heterosexual and therefore normal and therefore good,” Berry said. What is unclear, he said, is why they single out homosexuality as a perversion.

“The Bible, as I pointed out to the writers of National Review, has a lot more to say against fornication and adultery than against homosexuality,” he said. “If one accepts the 24th and 104th Psalms as scriptural norms, then surface mining and other forms of earth destruction are perversions. If we take the Gospels seriously, how can we not see industrial warfare -- with its inevitable massacre of innocents -- as a most shocking perversion? By the standard of all scriptures, neglect of the poor, of widows and orphans, of the sick, the homeless, the insane, is an abominable perversion.”

“Jesus talked of hating your neighbor as tantamount to hating God, and yet some Christians hate their neighbors by policy and are busy hunting biblical justifications for doing so,” he said. “Are they not perverts in the fullest and fairest sense of that term? And yet none of these offenses -- not all of them together -- has made as much political/religious noise as homosexual marriage.”

Another argument used, Berry said, is that homosexuality is “unnatural.”

“If it can be argued that homosexual marriage is not reproductive and is therefore unnatural and should be forbidden on that account, must we not argue that childless marriages are unnatural and should be annulled?” he asked.

“One may find the sexual practices of homosexuals to be unattractive or displeasing and therefore unnatural, but anything that can be done in that line by homosexuals can be done and is done by heterosexuals,” Berry continued. “Do we need a legal remedy for this? Would conservative Christians like a small government bureau to inspect, approve and certify their sexual behavior? Would they like a colorful tattoo verifying government approval on the rumps of lawfully copulating parties? We have the technology, after all, to monitor everybody’s sexual behavior, but so far as I can see so eager an interest in other people’s private intimacy is either prurient or totalitarian or both.”

“The oddest of the strategies to condemn and isolate homosexuals is to propose that homosexual marriage is opposed to and a threat to heterosexual marriage, as if the marriage market is about to be cornered and monopolized by homosexuals,” Berry said. “If this is not industrial capitalist paranoia, it at least follows the pattern of industrial capitalist competitiveness. We must destroy the competition. If somebody else wants what you’ve got, from money to marriage, you must not hesitate to use the government – small of course – to keep them from getting it.”

Berry said “so-called traditional marriage” is “for sure suffering a statistical failure, but this is not the result of a homosexual plot.”

“Heterosexual marriage does not need defending,” Berry said. “It only needs to be practiced, which is pretty hard to do just now.”

“But the difficulty is not assigned to any group of scapegoats,” he said. “It is rooted mainly in the values and priorities of our industrial capitalist system in which every one of us is complicit.”

“If I were one of a homosexual couple -- the same as I am one of a heterosexual couple -- I would place my faith and hope in the mercy of Christ, not in the judgment of Christians,” Berry said. “When I consider the hostility of political churches to homosexuality and homosexual marriage, I do so remembering the history of Christian war, torture, terror, slavery and annihilation against Jews, Muslims, black Africans, American Indians and others. And more of the same by Catholics against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics, Catholics against Catholics, Protestants against Protestants, as if by law requiring the love of God to be balanced by hatred of some neighbor for the sin of being unlike some divinely preferred us. If we are a Christian nation -- as some say we are, using the adjective with conventional looseness -- then this Christian blood thirst continues wherever we find an officially identifiable evil, and to the immense enrichment of our Christian industries of war.”

“Condemnation by category is the lowest form of hatred, for it is cold-hearted and abstract, lacking even the courage of a personal hatred,” Berry said. “Categorical condemnation is the hatred of the mob. It makes cowards brave. And there is nothing more fearful than a religious mob, a mob overflowing with righteousness – as at the crucifixion and before and since. This can happen only after we have made a categorical refusal to kindness: to heretics, foreigners, enemies or any other group different from ourselves.”

“Perhaps the most dangerous temptation to Christianity is to get itself officialized in some version by a government, following pretty exactly the pattern the chief priest and his crowd at the trial of Jesus,” Berry said. “For want of a Pilate of their own, some Christians would accept a Constantine or whomever might be the current incarnation of Caesar.”

Cardinal George, Same-Sex Marriage and the Law of Nature

by Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago:

With the Illinois legislature poised to consider a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, Chicago's Cardinal Francis George officially entered the political fray by issuing a letter that urges Catholics to urge their representatives to oppose the legislation. The core of George's argument was straightforward: "Civil laws that establish 'same-sex marriage' create a legal fiction," he wrote, because the "State has no power to create something that nature tells us is impossible."

Really? "Impossible"? Where, exactly, does "nature" tell us that? Does "nature" speak directly to Cardinal George? More likely, George got his information from Saint Thomas Aquinas, who communed with "nature" 750 years ago. In his prodigious Summa Theologica, Thomas largely rewrote much of Christian moral theology and provided a rationale in "nature" for the notion that same-sex sex is contemptible in the sight of God.

Thomas posited that God had instituted the order of nature by which everything was fittingly directed to its proper end; that God had created "natural" coitus for the sole purpose of procreation; that man should not contravene the order of nature; and that man therefore should not engage in any sexual act that is not directed to procreation.

Thomas defined luxuria as the sin of excess in sexual pleasures. There is no sin in sexual things as such, he explained, as long as they are undertaken for the proper purpose (reproduction) and in the proper manner (sexual intercourse in the missionary position).

Thomas divided luxuria into six separate acts: simple fornication, adultery, incest, deflowering a virgin, rape, and vice against nature. Although the first five are mortal sins, they are not as serious as the vice against nature, because they involve "natural" coitus (ejaculating into a vagina). Sins against nature are more serious, because they are an affront to God.

Thomas identified four sins against nature: (1) masturbation, (2) sex with a person of the opposite sex other than in the "natural" manner (i.e., with the man on top), (3) sex with someone of the same sex, and (4) bestiality.

Central to Thomas's classification system was the concept of "unnatural" acts. For Thomas, the key determinant was whether the act was intended to result in procreation. His definition of "natural" was premised on an assumption about the purpose of the genitals, and he inferred this purpose from the behavior of animals.

There are several interesting gaps in this reasoning. First, the declaration of purpose is arbitrary. There is no reason why the purpose of the genitals might not also be to give pleasure for pleasure's sake. It is not a mortal sin for a man to walk on his hands, even though that is not their "purpose."

Second, the definition of "natural" is strained. As Saint Jerome observed, sexual desire is "innate" in humans, and to remain chaste requires one to "act against nature." The term "natural," in other words, is plastic.

Third, Thomas's assumption about animal behavior was erroneous. Some animals masturbate, most do not use the missionary position, few are monogamous, and some, like the hyena, the hare, and the weasel, engage in same-sex behavior (facts that were well-known at the time).

Fourth, it is surprising that Thomas would declare animal behavior the model for human behavior, particularly because "unnatural" acts were condemned as brutish and animalistic. Moreover, in every other context Christian theologians, Thomas included, emphasized that man is not like the animals.

Finally, Thomas's scheme left unanswered some awkward questions. For example, may a woman who is past menopause have sex?

The plain and simple fact is that reasoning about what is "natural" is deeply vulnerable to distortion by one's own personal values and preferences. Cardinal George insists that same-sex marriage is incompatible with "nature." One might just as easily say the same about celibacy. There is such a thing as right and wrong, but invocations of what "nature" commands is no way to get there.

If Cardinal George wants to invoke the law of "nature," then perhaps he should invoke Jesus: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31). This precept, which is found in one form or another is virtually every religious and ethical tradition, is a pretty good law of "nature." Apply that one to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Republicans Helped Same-Sex Marriage Win At The Polls

AND THE SAME WILL BE TRUE IN THE QUEST FOR DIGNITY, RESPECT, AND EQUALITY FOR LGBT PEOPLE IN VENANGO COUNTY ... EVENTUALLY ...

By Walter Olson for the Washington Post:

After years of defeats, same-sex-marriage advocates scored a remarkable 4-0 sweep of state ballot contests on Nov. 6. One major reason: This year, significant numbers of Republicans voted their way. That should give pause to a GOP establishment that has alienated many younger voters and independents with its stance on the issue and now faces the prospect of dissent among its core constituents as well.

The evidence comes straight from a close study of the election returns in Maryland, Maine and Minnesota. (Washington state, with its unique system of mail voting, has been slower to report its results in detail. I’ve based my analysis on the other three states that had same-sex-marriage contests.)

Let’s break it down.

The Maryland ballot referendum, Question 6, essentially asked voters to confirm or reject a new law allowing same-sex marriage. In 11 of the 18 counties that Mitt Romney carried, Question 6 fared better than President Obama, a sign that GOP voters had crossed over in support. While the phenomenon could be seen everywhere from farm towns to blue-collar inner suburbs, the biggest swings tended to come in affluent bedroom communities. At one precinct in Hunt Valley, north of Baltimore, with 2,116 votes cast, there was a 28 percentage-point swing, leading to a landslide for Romney and the ballot question: Obama drew a paltry 37 percent, but Question 6 carried the precinct with a whopping 65 percent.

The margins weren’t as large in other precincts, but swings of 10, 15 and 20 points were common. (I should mention that I volunteered on my own time for the Question 6 effort, working especially among libertarians and conservatives on its behalf.)

In Minnesota, where voters were asked to ban same-sex marriage through a state constitutional amendment, precinct returns show that suburban Republicans broke from their party in droves to defeat the ban. According to the Pioneer Press of St. Paul, 47 towns around the Twin Cities area voted for Romney while opposing the measure, known as Amendment One. Exurban Scott County, the state’s fastest growing, narrowly turned down Amendment One, even as it gave Romney a comfortable 56.5 percent of its vote.

To be sure, rural parts of Minnesota saw ticket-splitting the other way, with some Democratic-leaning areas backing the marriage ban. But within commuting distance of the Twin Cities, the defections from the Republican line were deep and unmistakable. Romney won easily in such lakeside Hennepin County towns as Orono, Deephaven and Shorewood. Conventional wisdom would have them voting for the marriage ban as well — but they rejected Amendment One by 60 percent or more, an outcome that suggests a significant change in demographics and attitudes from even a decade ago.

In the large and politically competitive middle-class suburb of Eagan, Minn., home to former GOP governor Tim Pawlenty, Romney wound up losing by nine points, about the same as his statewide margin. That was close, though, compared with the results for Amendment One, which Eagan voters buried by a 22-point margin.

One quick way to look for towns where Republicans were especially likely to approve same-sex marriage is to consult the state-by-state Yahoo.com “Best Places to Live” series, which highlights communities with high incomes, high education levels and low rates of property crime. The list of “Best Places to Live in Minnesota” is dominated by outlying Twin Cities suburbs, most of which tilt strongly GOP: Sixteen of the 20 supported Romney — six of them by 60 percent or more. But only one town among the 20 voted to ban same-sex marriage, and by an anemic 50.28 percent (had nine voters there switched sides, the outcome would have been different).

Maine voters were asked to legalize same-sex marriage through a referendum that lost narrowly in 2009. This time it won, with 53 percent of the vote. Again, Republicans helped secure the victory.

Maine, unlike Maryland and Minnesota, has a shortage of classic Republican bedroom suburbs; most of the suburbs of its only sizable city, Portland, lean Democratic. Consider, however, the five towns atop Yahoo’s “Best Places to Live in Maine” list. The Bangor suburb of Hampden voted both for Romney and for freedom to marry. The other four towns, all Portland suburbs — Cumberland, Falmouth, Yarmouth and Cape Elizabeth — went for Obama by votes ranging from 53 to 63 percent, and then in each case registered a further 10- to 13-point swing toward same-sex marriage.

Fox News sponsored exit polls in each of the three states; of self-described Republicans, between 21 percent and 25 percent said they were breaking from the party’s official position in their vote. The pollsters asked voters which was closer to their own view: “Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals” or “Government should do more to solve problems.” Of voters who said government is doing too much — prime prospects for anyone trying to assemble a majority Republican coalition — 34 percent to 38 percent sided with same-sex marriage advocates.

So where next for the Republican Party on this issue? Despite the GOP’s historic identification with individual liberty and with getting the government’s nose out of citizens’ business, no one expects it to endorse same-sex marriage anytime soon. But one plausible path would be a GOP call for leaving the issue to the states, with New York going one way, for instance, and Texas another. That would probably capture a consensus among a broad range of active Republicans, fit reasonably well with the party’s other ideological stands and still distinguish its position from the Democratic Party’s support for same-sex marriage in its 2012 platform.

The GOP has left itself little room to maneuver. When some in the Romney campaign took an interest in the “leave it to the states” position this fall, they discovered that the candidate, like several of his former rivals for the nomination, had already signed a pledge circulated by the National Organization for Marriage committing him to support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Although many national polls now show support for marriage equality, the national Republican platform continues to endorse the same deeply out-of-touch proposal.

If and when the party’s leadership changes its mind, a whole lot of suburban Republicans will be murmuring under their breath, “About time.”

Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of “Schools for Misrule.”

Pa. Blacks Shift Quickly in Favor of Marriage Equality

It's becoming increasingly difficult for extremist groups, like the Venango County-based American Family Association of Pennsylvania, to use race as a wedge to divide communities, as it has cynically done for so, so long ...

From Public Policy Polling - May 23, 2012:

Raleigh, N.C. – President Obama’s announcement that he supports same-sex marriage is rapidly shifting the opinions of black voters around the country; PPP has found this already in North Carolina and nationally. Nearly all of the slight movement in Pennsylvania toward acceptance of same-sex marriage since PPP last polled on the issue in November is with black voters. Whereas only 36% of all Pennsylvanians thought gay marriage should be legal and 52% illegal last fall, now that is a 39-48 spread. That is because African Americans have moved from being against it by a strong margin (34-52) to being split, 42-41 for it.

“We’ve now found in both North Carolina and Pennsylvania that black voters have moved more toward support of gay marriage in the wake of Barack Obama’s announcement,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “The media’s been asking the wrong question- the big issue isn’t how Obama’s stance will affect his reelection hopes. It’s how Obama’s stance will move public opinion on gay marriage.”

Tom Smith has not done much for his public profile since beating a host of unknowns in the Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary almost a month ago. Now 45% of voters have an opinion on him, up from 25% in March. But whereas voters were split previously—12% favorable and 13% unfavorable—now they are decidedly negative, 16- 29. Because of that, freshman Sen. Bob Casey is able to survive his continuously tepid approval numbers (39% approve, 38% disapprove) to post a lead over Smith quite similar to that before the primary. He led 49-31 then, and 49-33 now.

There has been very little movement among Democrats, Republicans, or independents. But the silver lining for Smith is that if he improves upon his 59% of the GOP vote and brings it more towards Casey’s 76% of his own party, he is bound to tighten the race. But he will also have to cut into Casey’s nearly 20-point lead with independents.

Democrats have slight edges in three other statewide races, but with even more undecided than in the Senate contest. Kathleen Kane leads David Freed for Attorney General, 42- 33, and the Democrats in the Treasurer and Auditor General races have identical 35-34 edges over their GOP opponents.

PPP surveyed 671 Pennsylvania voters from May 17th to 20th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.8%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews.

Pennsylvania's Got Some Work To Do!

Bob Barr, the Architect of the Defense of Marriage Act, Again Calls for its Repeal

by Michael Jones for Change.org:


When Bob Barr was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he became famous for quite a few things. Conservative as they come, Barr was an adamant supporter of impeaching President Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He also once tried to get the Pentagon to ban Wicca in the military, and made controversial statements about how he couldn't take people with "cult hairstyles" seriously in meetings.

But despite these more bombastic and colorful moments of his Congressional career, Barr was also critically involved with major pieces of legislation. One of his biggest "accomplishments," much to the dismay of the LGBT community, was authoring a piece of legislation known as the Defense of Marriage Act, known by most as DOMA. Barr wrote DOMA in 1996, fearing that state courts might make moves to legalize same-sex marriage, and he didn't want other states or the federal government to have to recognize those laws.

As we all know, DOMA passed with flying colors. And 14 years later, it's still on the books, preventing same-sex couples from hundreds of benefits that heterosexual-married couples take for granted. The fact that gay couples can't sponsor their binational partner for legal immigration status? It's because of DOMA. The fact that gay couples can't inherit social security benefits or share health insurance if one of them works for the federal government? It's because of DOMA. The fact that a legally-married gay couple in Massachusetts can travel to Florida (or any of the other 40+ states that do not recognize marriage equality) and be treated like a second class citizen? Yup, that's DOMA's fault, too.

All of this should be enough to get a picture of Bob Barr's mug placed on every gay person's dartboard around the country. Except now, Barr admits that he was wrong to write DOMA, and is urging Congress to repeal the Act, which he says failed miserably and actually ends up violating core parts of the Constitution.

Huh. Anyone know that song, "I Wish That I Knew What I Know Now When I Was Younger?" If only Bob Barr had been privy to this song in 1996.

As Pam's House Blend notes in some awesome coverage of a November 12 symposium entitled "Legal, Secular, and Religious Perspectives on Marriage Equality/Marriage Protection/Same-Sex Marriage" at St. John's University School of Law in New York City, Barr once again called DOMA flawed legislation.

"Here we had a piece of federal legislation that said for federal law purposes only...this is what marriage means, reflecting the vast majority of Members of Congress representing the vast majority of people in the country at the time in 1996. A lawful union of one man and one woman. Yet what happened is rather than simply provide a shield for purposes of distributing federal moneys pursuant to that definition, the Defense of Marriage Act over the intervening years has been used as a club to force states not to adopt any definition of marriage other than the one that is supposed to apply just for federal law purposes," Barr said.

DOMA as a brutal club. Sounds like an apt analogy.

Barr continued by saying that he thinks LGBT Americans ought to have the legal right to marry. As Tony Varona reported for Pam's House Blend, Barr said that marriage equality was a "fundamental freedom."

"Speaking in favor of the right of same-sex couples to marry, Barr said that marriage equality 'is an issue of individual liberty,'" Varona reports. "He observed that 'back in the 1850s' marriage 'was considered for what it truly is -- a personal relationship, a contract between two individuals.' It was, according to Barr, only 'after the regulatory state began to take hold that government realized that [the regulation of marriage] was another way to control people.'"

So what's it say when the author of a particular piece of legislation says that it should be thrown out with the garbage? Seems like it says that it's time for DOMA to go.

The Narrow-Mindedness of Diane Gramley and the AFA of PA Once Again Bring Shame To Venango County

Rep. Josephs Objects to AFA of Pa.'s Homophobic Statements


HARRISBURG, Feb. 12 – State Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Phila., is going on record against the homophobic and ignorant statements recently made by Diane Gramley (pictured) of the American Family Association of Pa. in response to "Freedom to Marry Week," a week long slate of events in the state Capitol organized by groups and individuals in support of same-sex marriage.


Josephs, a longtime supporter of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered rights, including the freedom to marry if they so choose, participated in a news conference in support of legislation to permit same-sex marriage held during the week's events.

After the news conference, AFA of Pa. issued a news release calling same-sex marriage the "destruction of the foundation of a successful society."

Josephs said she felt she could not let its bias go unanswered.

"The organization offers no proof beyond the assertion of its president, Diane Gramley, that same-sex marriage is destructive of society or of opposite-sex marriages," Josephs answered.

The group's view also claims that those who engage in homosexual acts account for the majority of AIDS cases, that it is a gay disease.


"I am offended on my own behalf and on the behalf of those who suffer from HIV or AIDS, or have lost loved ones to that scourge. HIV is a horrible disease that impacts people worldwide. It does not discriminate. Gramley's statement is inflammatory and not worthy of serious discussion," Josephs added.

"All people are worthy and contribute to our society, including those who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. We should welcome and value all families, and support efforts to make this state a place where everybody will want to live, work and visit, not treat a select group as second-class citizens.

"I take the narrow-minded viewpoints expressed by AFA seriously in that it only further cements my resolve to fight for equal rights for all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation."

Surprising Data on Same-Sex Marriage

There was lots of chatter in the religion-politics blogosphere this week about blogger Mark Silk's examination of data showing that the more Catholic a state's population, the more likely its residents are to support same-sex marriage.


By combining a new study that ranks states according to public support for same-sex marriage and civil unions with the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, Silk finds that six of the eight states where 50 percent or more of the public supports same-sex marriage are the states with the highest proportion of Catholics.

"In other words, support for same-sex marriage is directly related to the proportion of Catholics in a given state. Way to go, bishops!" said Silk, who directs the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College.

Good News: Sen. Daylin Leach to Introduce Bill Providing For Full, Equal Marriage Rights to Pennsylvania's Same-Sex Couples

Take Action Below: It's Time Venango County Joins the Movement for Fairness and Equality for All.

HARRISBURG, May 27, 2009 – Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Delaware/Montgomery, today announced plans to introduce a bill that would offer full and equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania. Under the new legislation, Pennsylvania would also recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.

Leach noted that after the recent passing of same-sex marriage legislation in New Hampshire and Maine, and the rapidly expanding list of states considering the approval of same-sex marriage, it is time for Pennsylvania to act.

“In the past few weeks, several states have legalized same-sex marriage, and many will soon follow suit,” Leach said. “There has never been a more propitious time for Pennsylvania to embrace equality and enshrine the civil right of all Pennsylvanians to marry.”

While the bill would not require religious institutions to perform any marriage ceremonies or recognize any marriages that they do not wish to sanction, Leach said his legislation would dissolve all of the barriers to building families that gay and lesbian couples currently face, both at the state and federal level.

“The alternative to legalizing same-sex marriage is retaining our current, archaic protocol which treats an entire group of citizens as second-class,” Leach said. “This protocol denies the reality of same-sex families, many of whom have children. It provides no vehicle by which society can encourage gay couples to do what it encourages straight couples to do: namely to form permanent, monogamous and committed life-long partnerships.”

Leach’s bill is currently circulating for co-sponsorship.

Please contact our local State Senator Mary Jo White to let her know we support this bill and expect her to become a co-sponsor.

Capitol Address
286 Capitol Building, Senate Box 203041
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Phone: 717-787-8724
TTYD: 800-364-1581
Fax: 717-772-1589
Email: mwhite@pasen.gov

District Address
1140 Liberty Street
Franklin, PA 16323-1140
Phone: 814-432-4345

It's Valentine's Day: Turn Up The Heat!

Despite the discomfort the question is certain to engender, I think it's time to ask it. Persistently and repeatedly.

By Julie Enszer, AlterNet

It's a question I never asked any of my friends or family members even as I was attending weddings and buying gifts (an occurrence more common about 10 years ago when I was in my twenties, but let's not worry about the passage of time.) Now, I wonder, what would have happened if I asked that question? And what will happen if I ask it now?


I never asked the question because it's a confrontational proposition. It immediately points out to people, particularly people planning to get married, that there is a basic disparity in the United States today between gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples. The question also immediately implicates heterosexual people, even heterosexual people who see themselves as allies to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, as having and using heterosexual privilege. Asking it, even innocently, is bringing to light the power differentials at work in the United States today, and drawing lines between who has power and who doesn't.

Despite the discomfort the question is certain to engender, I think it's time to ask it. Persistently and repeatedly. It's my Valentine's Day challenge. I'm asking the question, not only of my friends and family, but more broadly of everyone.

If you are homosexual, I'm asking you to ask everyone you know, "Would you not get married because I can't get married?"


It may be a difficult question to pose at first, but the possibilities that it offers you -- and me -- are enormous. I don't think we can win the right to marry until we have much greater support from heterosexual allies, and we can't get that support until we start asking the questions and expecting answers of trust, support and affirmation.

If you are heterosexual, I'm asking you: Would you not get married because I can't get married?

I'd like to know your answer. It seems like a basic proposition of fairness. I can't get married, so you shouldn't either, but you can because your marriage, to an opposite-sex person, is sanctioned by the state and by our country. That's unfair.

How do we address this lack of disparity, this injustice? Well, certainly we can write letters, demonstrate in public, talk to elected officials, the usual strategies for social change in our democracy. I know many of you have been doing just that, and it's helping.

There is a sea change happening of people who understand the significance of marriage for gay and lesbian couples, but it's time that we turned up the heat. It's time that we put our lives on the line. Us queers have our lives on the line everyday -- we can't be married. We pay the price for it literally and figuratively. We live with the consequences of our inability to marry. Now we need our straight allies to join us and not marry until we can.

That's why I'm asking you today, would you not get married until I can get married? I live in Maryland; we're a relatively progressive state -- it's not like I'm asking you to hold out for Mississippi or Alabama or Alaska (though at times I thought Gov. Sarah Palin was going to bring Alaska closer to queer equality that I ever imagined possible). I'm asking you to not get married until I can, legally, in my home state of Maryland.

When will that be? I don't know; I'm asking you to gamble with me. Or if you won't do it for me, chose another close friend of yours who is queer. Your Aunt Laura, your Uncle Jeremiah, your college roommate, the person who cuts your hair, your mentor, your cousin, your best friend's daughter. Any queer person will do, and by all means, if it makes your commitment easier, choose someone you know and care about.

It's actually not about me, it's about the principle. It's about fairness; if I have to wait for people to vote, either in the legislature or at the ballot box, on my right to marry, you can wait, too. It's about allies in this struggle.

If your answer is yes, thank you. Now please turn around and ask the question of others: "Would you not get married until gay and lesbian couples can get married?"

Perhaps through this simple question we'll incite a revolution -- either hasten marriage for gay and lesbian couples, or through our collective resistance render any sort of marriage meaningless. There are many potential outcomes.

It all begins with a simple question: Would you not get married until I can get married?

Let's ask it and talk about the answers.

Julie R. Enszer is a writer and poet living in University Park, Md. You can read more of her work at www.JulieREnszer.com.