Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Last Man Standing

I arrived back in Phoenix a week ago. As I write this, I realize that by the time I return home to L.A., in another week or so, I will have spent more time in Arizona than I have in California so far this year.

One of the three reasons for my return to Phoenix was to attend my friend’s wedding. This was the wedding that aligned with the bachelor party that I attended and subsequently wrote about in the What Happens in Vegas post. But before I can offer some insight on my first wedding OUT, I wanted to share a little bit about a text conversation I had on Thursday night.

At 9:50PM on Thursday night I received a text from a good friend in regards to our college basketball game that took place a few hours earlier. Our conversation then moved on with my comment:

Such is life. I no longer worry about things I can’t control.

I’m just going 2 dig myself a deep hole so when the sky falls I won’t get hurt. LOL


Friend

You’ll live longer. I worry about everything I can’t control not the least of which is your misguided president


Me

He was still better than McCain. I can’t wait until the midterm elections.


Friend
Voting repub?


Me

If congress keeps up their spending ways and nothing changes relative 2 my rights then I’m voting 4 the challenger and throwing the incumbents out. Time will tell.


Friend
Your rights, speaking of which big decision coming up

I hope the courts don’t usurp the voters though

Just revote the initiative


Me
Odds were never very good that they would overturn it although they constitutionally should. The majority should NOT be able 2 vote 2 take away rights of the minority. Hey we can talk about it at J’s wedding/civil union/commitment ceremony on Saturday.


Friend

X

I sort of agree, but I don’t think that is the case here.


Me
In Cali that is the case. Maybe we should put 2 the voters an amendment that says the state will no longer recognize divorce. In the argument in Cali 2day that was discussed. That the majority could decide 2 take away free speech or any other right.


Friend
Except that the “right” has 2 exist 2 begin with to take it away. There was never a same sex marriage right to start with. The voters simply decided to prevent changing that


Me
In Cali there was and 18000 couples got married

And 2 think how lucky I and many people like I are to look forward 2 spending countless hours and millions of dollars 2 ask people 2 allow me and people like me the opportunity to marry a person whom they love and then receive 1,388 federal rights that go along with that. (according to Equality Matters it’s actually 1,138 and I was wrong on my text)


Friend
That was based on city decisions not a Cali constitutional amendment


ME

No it wasn’t. It was based on the California state constitution.


Friend
All the better then, people dont get to decide their own constitution?

2000 years no gay marriage. Do you ever ask yourself why now?


Me
R u serious?

I’m not going 2 debate this now (It was 10:46PM and I was in bed)

Let me rephrase that, discuss this now. C u on Saturday.


Friend
This will be interesting to discuss since its clear you hate the american system of govt and decision making


At 9:31AM on Friday morning I responded

I don’t think you’ve experienced or know what the word hate really means


I was pretty tired when we began our text conversation on Thursday night, and my drowsiness turned into a feeling of disbelief, disappointment, and a touch of anger.

I arrived at the wedding with a few minutes to spare. As ushers, the Mayor and Gray welcomed me with open arms and the question, “Where’s your date?” My date, haha. They were very much hoping that I would have brought one and I very much appreciated their thoughts. I got to my seat and after a few minutes the ceremony started. It was a beautiful, and fairly quick wedding ceremony. I found myself concentrating on the spoken words during the ceremony to see how often the words “husband and wife” were used compared to the term partners. I had never done that before.

After the ceremony, I had some drinks, mingled, and the wedding turned out to be just like all the others, FUN! I spoke with my friend who I had the text conversation with on Thursday and all is well between the two of us. (we actually spoke very briefly about the topic on Friday evening, and he, like many others, likes to politically rile me up) So on Saturday we spoke a bit more in depth about the marriage topic and we actually agreed that the government should get out of the “marriage” business and solely recognize civil unions. Civil unions for heterosexual couples and civil unions for homosexual couples. The term “marriage” would then be left up to the religious community and each religious community can then decide whether their beliefs allow them to recognize and perform marriage ceremonies for loving homosexual couples. A religious organization’s acceptance, or refusal, of gay marriage would have no bearing on their tax exempt status or their recognition by the government. The rights, benefits, and privileges of unions would be bestowed by the government. A government that is separate from the church. The free market system would then decide what type of religious communities flourish based on their beliefs, but more so, the Church would not be the gatekeeper bestowing the 1,138 rights, benefits, and privileges that currently exist in our federal marriage system. My friend also mentioned that he thought this issue would be behind us in 10 years.

I hope so! Of my core group of friends from college, all are married except for one, who is currently engaged to be married next year. And then there was me. And then there was me...........

Oh and I almost forgot. No wedding would be complete without the song that has been affixed to me since my experience at a local bar in college. So whoever requested it on Saturday, thanks! And one more time, I am no queen!

ABBA-"Dancing Queen"

2 comments:

Emma said...

As a straight atheist female I completely agree that there should be civil unions for everyone and then the churches can keep their excluding version of marriage. Church and state are separate, and if the churches don't want to "marry" gay couples due to their beliefs that's their right. For most people that aren't religous marriage nowadays is more of a legal/financial union, a way of making the relationship "official" and keeping up traditions.

I live in Sweden and we have civil union but sometime this year the parliament will most likely (and probably with majority) pass a change in the law that will make marriage include gay couples as well and all existing civil unions will become marriages. I think the Swedish church has decided that they will also marry gay couples, but it will be up to the individual priest to decide whether he or she wants to perform the cermony.

To me that is a very good example of the separation of church and state and hopefully this will be reality in the US as well sometime in the (hopefully not to distant) future!

queer heaven said...

The whole thing of "Marriage" vs. "Domestic Partner" is getting old.
If what the world calls 2 people in a committed relationship is "Marriage" then that is what 2 samesex should be allowed to do.
AS far as what the supreme court decides....they are the ones that have been put there to make the legal decisions, NOT the voting public.

BTW Adam, hope you are getting some goodsex!