Today’s letter - you have been terminated!

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

Today was a great day. The State Supreme Court overruled you to say that same-sex couples must be given the “respect and dignity” of marriage because the constitutional protections for race and gender also apply to sexual orientation.

The Los Angeles Times quoted me saying “I think this is the beginning of the end of ostracism, bullying, and all the things that used to make people feel less human than others.”

The Los Angeles Times also quoted you – in the paragraph after me, ha ha - saying that you “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.” Thank you for that. Thank you thank you thank you. But it is a little late for you to be surrendering your authority over my relationships, after that authority was removed.

Because of the Domestic Partnership legislation that you signed and the Federal “Defense of Marriage Act,” my family is honestly not directly affected by this decision at a legal level. But people don’t get married for the rights: they get married for the social acceptance. This decision – and your support of it – sends the clear message that ALL California couples are welcome to commit to marriage and fully participate in our economy and our society.

The real victory is not for us, it is for every struggling teen who thinks they are different, by bringing them the comfort that there is a way to live their life without celibacy or suicide, and their government – and Governor – will support them.

Today was a great day because the State Supreme Court said “freedom means freedom for EVERYBODY,” and my Governor will (finally) fight to make sure that happens.

No longer Yours,

Today’s letter - it’s a small world

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

With the recent disasters in Myanmar and Sichuan province, we are reminded that we are a large and diverse world.

The traditional, conservative South Pacific island paradise of Tahiti has a social custom that we might think is strange: parents will raise their eldest son as a girl. This is a great honor for both the parents and the child, because the “Mahu,” as they are called, have the most enviable characteristics of both the male and female.

“I am proud of being a Mahu because in Polynesia we belong and we are recognized in this society,” says Coco, a Mahu. “We belong in everyday life.”

Who has the authority to decide if and whom these people should marry in California? Is it you, Governor? Is it society? Or should it be the people who want to get married?

In California, you have made it your job to decide who can marry whom. Now that is a weird custom.

Yours,

Today’s letter - squandering a 158-year tradition

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

I’ve written to you before about the struggle I’ve been having with explaining the special ban on same-sex marriages to my kids, and especially how the Opponents of Equality come to California to throw money, time and mindshare at preventing certain people they have never met, who cause absolutely no harm, from making the fundamental decision of who they marry.

What does one say? “There are some people who hate your daddies so much that they come from across the country to keep them from getting married?” Or perhaps “There are some people who don’t want to share. Remember what we learned about sharing?” Clearly, neither truth would be responsible parenting.

After a 158 year tradition of liberty and tolerance ensconced in the California Constitution, it sure would be a shame to lose that all in a heated moment of intolerance.

Dan Hawes, an organizer with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, explains “There is a real sense of hope and possibility here because of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling. The fact that [hard-won freedom] could be taken away in five months is really painful for people who want to marry.”

Please, for my kids and all Californians, give us some moral guidance. Explain to the people that the only right thing to do is to uphold our Constitution that says that nobody should be picked out and treated differently because of what they think or what they believe. That is a tradition of neighborly love, not neighborly hate. That is something I can explain to my kids.

Yours,

Today’s letter - sad peoplehaters

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

I have a sad tale to share with you from my mail bag, sad because it shows a glimpse of the worst of people. A “foamer” (a.k.a. a rabid irrational Opponent of Equality) wrote to me about my explanation of how Ruth and Naomi provide the best example of love in all of the Old Testament, perhaps a quote you paraphrased at your own wedding: “And Ruth said [to Naomi], Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: …Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.” Ruth 1:16-17

YouTuber “LenaLena” wrote me to say “That is extremely disgusting. How dare you twist the story of Ruth and Boaz around?! Ruth fell in love with Boaz. There is no way that the bible supports homosexuality in anyway. Actually, the bible is very clear on where God stands with homosexuality.”

What is so sad and frustrating about this is that the foamers don’t read the Bible they are using as a weapon against their neighbors. I am really tired and frustrated of being treated as less than human by a Church and a Government that is seemingly beholden to these people. Anybody who reads the Bible can see in an instant that Ruth’s relationship was with Naomi, not Boaz. And God blesses committed same-sex relationships with abundance:

Ruth 4:17 “And the women her neighbors gave [Ruth’s baby] a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.” And we all know where the House of David leads.

Everybody ought to be able to follow their own personal belief on this – but I wish you would not let the foamers make public policy while my beliefs are trampled by falsehoods and lies.

Yours,

Today’s letter - God made Scotty and Kevin too

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

On the season finale of the hit series Brothers and Sisters, a major character, Kevin, married his boyfriend Scotty in a high-profile (but not legally binding) ceremony.

Executive producer Monica Breen explains “Kevin deserves a stable relationship in the same way that Kitty, Sarah and all the others deserve it. He will be facing many questions in his life — but now he has someone to share that with.”

Hurrah.

Governor, all Californians deserve to have a stable relationship, and the only way that is possible is through access to the time-tested tradition of marriage. Please continue your support of the Constitution and its mantra, that no Californian should be specially excluded from our economy and society because of who they are or what they believe. Please support the freedom to marry.

Yours,

Today’s letter - permission to marry

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

The President who said that gay Americans are not worthy of marriage had his daughter married off today. I wonder if Henry Hager asked Mr. Bush for permission to marry his daughter? That would be very traditional, and the Bushes seem to be weirdly into what they think is ‘traditional.’

The only thing more daunting than asking the President of the United States for permission to marry might be asking the State Supreme Court for permission to marry. But that is exactly what five couples did after you vetoed their nuptials, and in the next couple of weeks we will get the court’s answer.

It is a shame that adults in this country have to ask other people for permission to marry the person that they love. It is a worse shame that somebody – anybody – would deny it. I feel badly going around you to get this permission, when you ought to be the first to offer it. But it ultimately makes me feel special, because not many people get to ask the Supreme Court for permission to wed.

Yours,

Today’s letter - two great men

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

Two prominent black gay men are in the news.

John Amaechi is a former NBA player who came out of the closet in February 2007 and became a media sensation — as well as the target for ugly homophobic rants and jokes.

“You’ve got the black people stereotype,” says Amaechi, “that black people are strong, can jump high, are really quick and very masculine. Then because you’ve got this one stereotype of black people, that automatically means they can’t be gay, because you’ve got a different stereotype about what gay people are, both of which are absurd.”

Miles away, in Falls Church, Virginia, voters elected the state’s first black and openly gay person to take public office. City Councilman Lawrence Webb said “I hope my election opens the door for others to get involved in public service. It doesn’t matter if you’re gay or black or both. What matters is your dedication to building a better community and your willingness to work hard at it.”

What makes our country great is our Constitution that allows great people to rise to the level of their ability with a blind eye towards their gender, race, age and sexual orientation.

Unless, of course, they want to make the commitment of marriage. In that case, you step in and stop that playing field from being level, based on absurd stereotypes and arguments from those opposed to building a better community. And that’s just not nice.

Yours,

Today’s letter - sliding down the slippery slope

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

I wanted to explain to you why the stakes are so high for this November’s ballot initiative limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Michigan’s State Supreme Court ruled yesterday 5-2 that their 2004 ballot initiative to limit marriage also included “similar unions” and stripped at least 375 gay couples at public universities, community colleges, school districts and local governments of their benefits. It doesn’t’ take a crystal ball to realize that as soon as the Limit on Marriage passes, the Opponents of Equality will be gunning to unwind domestic partnerships too.

Because of the Domestic Partnership legislation that you signed in 2000, I have been able to make a pretty good life here in California, marry my husband and have two kids through surrogacy. I have been able to contribute back to the economy and society through taxes and tithing. But the Limit on Marriage proposition threatens to take all that away.

Your reaction to the initiative that would wreck my life has been merely neutral. I know that there are a lot of other things that are important these days, but could you amp it up a bit? A few words in opposition to the people in your administration, government and political party who are dedicated to eliminating same-sex partner benefits, child custody, and adoption would do wonders. You need only to remind them of the golden rule – and why limiting marriage is a truly bad proposition.

Yours,

Today’s letter - exiled for 25 years

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

On the grand scale of “people doing mean things to other people,” banning same-sex couples from marriage seems pretty insignificant. But with Friday’s death of Mildred Loving, I was reminded of how cruel people can be.

Mrs. Loving, who was black, had married a white man, Richard Loving, in 1958 in Washington, D.C. They returned to their home in Virginia, but that state, along with 15 others at the time, would not recognize their marriage. They were arrested and charged with violating Virginia’s law against interracial unions. Under a plea bargain, they received suspended sentences and agreed to leave the state and not return, except separately, for 25 years. They moved to D.C., sued Virginia and the Supreme Court eventually said, yeah, this is a pretty awful way to treat your neighbors and fellow Americans.

California is on the verge of passing an initiative to do a similar nasty thing to her citizens. The Limit on Marriage proposition will change California’s constitution to make it clear that certain couples are not welcome here, just because of who they love.

The proposed “limit on marriage” will cruelly exile same-sex couples from our economy and our society, and teach kids who happen to be gay that there is no alternative for them but celibacy or suicide. That’s not good for anybody.

You have publicly dismissed the Limit on Marriage proposition as a “waste of time” but please consider joining us to explain to all Californians why this is a bad proposition.

Yours,

Today’s letter - what about MY beliefs?

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

Every four years, the United Methodist Church holds a meeting to set church policy. At this year’s conference, the delegates:

- Upheld a church law that says gay and lesbian relationships are “incompatible with Christian teaching.”
- Kept a sentence in the Book of Discipline that says the church “does not condone the practice of homosexuality.”
- Retained a policy that lets pastors deny membership to gays and lesbians.

I think it is great that the United Methodist Church can make and enforce their own laws regarding who is able to participate in their community.

While the United Methodist Church has chosen to exclude lesbian and gay people from their ministry, my Episcopal church (like the Presbyterians, United Church of Christ and Metropolitan Community Church) has taken a different view that goes something along the lines that every human being is worthy of dignity and respect.

Governor, why are the United Methodists allowed to decide that gay couples will not get married in their church, while my church is not allowed to decide that gay couples will be allowed to marry in their church? Worse, why is my government – and my governor – enforcing this?

I’m starting to suspect that the real threat of the ban on same-sex marriage is a government intervention in the way America worships. Removing that freedom begins a slippery slide that will hurt us all.

I wish you would support the freedom to marry. It would not block the United Methodists one bit, but it would free my church to practice our beliefs without interference from you.

Yours,

Today’s letter - checkbox for hate

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

I still need your help again to fix the language on California EDD Form DE1-HW. I wrote to you in July 2007 complaining about the checkbox for HUS/WIFE. As members of a California Registered Domestic Partnership trying to hire a nanny, we were quite alienated by this clear state preference for man-on-woman marriages in contrast to the letter and intent of the law that you signed in 2000 authorizing our partnership (and our Constitutional bans on discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation.)

At the time you referred us to Mr. Robert Affleck, Deputy Director, Tax Branch, who referred us to Mr. Stan Adge, Tax Administrator, Taxpayer Advocate’s Office. Through ensuing conversations with Mr. Adge, he made it clear that this issue would be considered for the “next revision of the form.” Then he left the department, Ms. Leslie Weiss took over his job, and Ms. Michelle Mosley took over the mantle to fix this form.

According to verbal conversations with Ms. Mosley, “the form has been revised” and is “awaiting internal review” before being released to the Web site. But I have been unable to secure written confirmation if and when this will happen, and nobody in my community has had an opportunity to review the revised form to see if it complies with our need for equal treatment under the law.

Above all, this slow response and obscured process has made me feel as though this critical change to comply with an eight-year-old law is not a priority within EDD as it is within our community. I fear that the process has been derailed, the outcome will further alienate my family, and the result will please no one. This should be an emergency change to comply with state law, not a “suggestion” to be “considered with the next revision.”

Would you “work your magic” to get EDD to take this seriously? I don’t have anybody else to turn to to make sure that as long as lesbian and gay couples are being treated separately in California, they are at least treated equally.

Yours,

Today’s letter - a sad world without marriage

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

My sister-in-law lives in Germany. There, gay or straight, everybody gets “civil unions” in the eyes of the state. The churches are left to themselves to decide who they will marry in their ceremonies and bless with the word “marriage.”

I went to college in Canada. Whether gay or straight, there everybody gets “married” in the eyes of the state. The churches are left to themselves to decide who they will marry in their ceremonies and bless with the word “marriage.”

I live in the United States. Here, the government reserves marriage for heterosexual couples and “civil unions” for same-sex couples. The churches are prevented from deciding who they will marry in their ceremonies and blocked from blessing them as “marriage.”

Around the world, from Armenia to Uruguay, government after government is realizing that one way or another, marriage apartheid must end. Abraham Lincoln said “a house divided cannot stand” and we are unquestionably divided.

I wish we would follow Canada’s lead and let everybody get married instead of abolishing it. Marriage is the only time-tested social and legal framework that exists to unite two families – and I’ve always dreamed of getting married, not “civil unioned.”

But I predict that the way this pitched battle will play out in America will be much sadder. Instead of giving everybody the freedom to marry, we will eventually give nobody the freedom to marry.

The end result will be the same: the state will get out of the way of deciding if and who will marry, and leave that intimidate decision to the individuals involved. I will have no trouble finding a church to bless my union, but generations of Americans straight and gay will miss the opportunity to have their government bless their marriage as well.

Yours,

Today’s letter - ignorance is bliss

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

Researchers at Hunter College, Rutgers and New York University asked gay Americans if there is a federal “nondiscrimination” law barring the firing of workers based on their sexual orientation. Only six in 10 gay Americans got the right answer (there is not.)

Pat Egan, an assistant professor of politics at New York University, pointed out that “considering this has been the top priority for advocates in Washington for the past 20 years, that is pretty astounding and disappointing,” and went on to call for more education in the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual community.

The last time the people of California were asked if same-sex couples are as capable and worthy of choosing marriage as their opposite-sex counterparts was in 2000 with Proposition 22. Almost 60% of Californians got that wrong.

Please join me, Governor, in making sure that the people understand that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage – there is everything wrong in denying it.

Yours,

Today’s letter - the popular vote

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

Do you think civil rights should be decided by an emotional popular vote, or by the ultimate popular vote, the Constitution?

Every human rights victory we hold dear (like suffrage, apartheid, the United Nations and slavery) was installed by decree, not by popular vote.

Please help a pro-same-sex-marriage Supreme Court decision to stick in the law, and in the minds of the people. Please support the freedom to marry for all Californians.

Yours,

Today’s letter - a great precedent

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

In a development that bodes well for a favorable decision in the same-sex marriage case pending in California’s Supreme Court, today’s Wall Street Journal reported that the highest court of the Presbyterian Church ruled that a Northern California minister had not violated denominational law when she officiated at the weddings of two lesbian couples.

A regional judicial committee had rebuked the Rev. Jane Spahr for performing the ceremony, but the church’s high court cleared her of all wrongdoing.

If the Presbyterian Church can witness and support the commitments of committed couples, perhaps someday our government can too.

Yours,

Today’s letter - the cream of the crop

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

A comprehensive survey of Gay America was released today, with important implications to California.

The researchers at Hunter College, Rutgers and New York University confirmed that gay Americans are considerably more involved in public life than heterosexual Americans, by volunteering more, writing more letters to newspapers and political officials, attending more protests and rallies, and being roughly twice as likely to vote.

Older generation homosexuals prioritized laws against bias crimes and workplace discrimination, and emphasized “freedom from discrimination,” while younger homosexuals placed access to marriage and adoption rights as their highest priorities, and valued “the freedom to live their lives” in similar fashion to heterosexual Americans.

Only about three percent of Americans older than 18 identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, but the community is concentrated in states that provide them with rights and protections: one in three lives in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont or Washington.

One conclusion that you could make, Governor, is that if the proposed initiative to ban same-sex couples passes this November, California will lose some of its most active citizens as we migrate to places that are welcoming.

Another is that a Republican party that insists on banning freedoms like adoption and marriage will have difficulty attracting younger participants.

Finally, you might realize 3% of the population is not going to destroy marriage, while building and maintaining two systems of laws that depend on gender for just 3% of the population is not only morally offensive, but also expensive and short-sighted.

Yours,

Today’s letter - my husband

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

I’ve been having problems figuring out how to refer to my spouse. A lot of people try to insist that I call him my “registered California Domestic Partner,” but that doesn’t seem right to me.

We have been living as a married couple for ten years, ten months and twelve days; we were officially married at the earliest opportunity, on Valentine’s Day in 2004; we had two kids almost fourteen months ago; this year we even filed joint taxes.

I think I have to refer to my spouse as “my husband.” Anything less would be disrespectful to him and to our relationship, and confusing to the people that don’t quite know what a “partnership” is.

We shouldn’t be making up new words to describe marriages – we should be using the words that society has already defined. I wish you and your administration would do more to help people like me use the right words to describe our relatives and relations. I wish you would explain to the people that blocking same-sex couples from getting married is bad for our economy and our society.

Yours,

Today’s letter - traditional marriage

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

When President Gerald R. Ford was running for his first term in congress in 1948, he delayed his marriage to Elizabeth Warren until after the election because he was worried that voters would punish him for marrying a divorced woman.

That was “traditional marriage” back then: you got one try to get it right, and after that you were ‘defective’ and couldn’t even take communion at church.

Much has changed in fifty years. Now Tom Cruise can get married as many times as he wants to, and nobody bats an eye. Obviously “traditional marriage” is simply a social and economic construct that unites two people and their families according to their individual choice.

Governor, would you help bring “traditional marriage” back to the people, by allowing all of the people of California to marry the person that they want to?

If Gerald Ford can marry a divorced woman and be elected President, I should have the freedom to marry the person I love, whether they are a felon, foreigner, divorcee, widower, ugly, white, Catholic, Republican, or – in my case – male.

Yours,

Today’s letter - the price of your soul

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

Charles Chesnutt was born in 1858 to two “free persons of color.” This heterosexually-married couple offered to sell their son to slavery, but could only get $23 for him, and turned down the deal.

In the new movie “Baby Mama” the character played by Tina Fey’s (occasionally seedy) character is shocked by the price of surrogacy and quips “It costs more to have somebody born than to have someone killed.” Nevertheless, she proceeds with the surrogacy.

The Opponents of Equality spent about $2 per signature to gather enough support to qualify the Constitutional amendment to limit marriage, and apparently succeeded.

So we have, by successive bidding, effectively determined the price of ones soul. It is $2.

Yours,

Today’s letter - second marriages are immoral

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

We were watching Access Hollywood last night featuring the breakup of Star Jones and Al Reynolds. Their tumultuous relationship gave tabloids the opportunity to explore issues about why people get married, and a chance to speculate about the various motivations of love, money, friendship, children and sex.

What I thought was interesting though was when my domestic partner / fiancée noticed that banning same-sex couples from getting married is just as arbitrary as banning second marriages. Why don’t we ban second marriages?

We don’t ban second marriages – except in the Roman Catholic Church – because marriage is fundamental to uniting families inside a social and economic structure.

So why do we ban same-sex marriages? Is it because their marriages are somehow less fundamental to society and the economy? Or is it to marginalize and punish people for being different?

I think you know the answer to that one, Governor.

Yours,

Today’s letter - why do you want war?

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger -

S