Domestic Partners

[Esprix]

Another news article from PlanetOut.com (3/15/00):

Brit Loses Battle to Stay in US

SUMMARY: He’s been with his lover 12 years and he’s a treasured member of the community, but he’ll be sent into exile for a decade because he can’t get married.

A U.S. immigration appeals judge on March 14 rejected a gay Briton’s plea to remain in the country with his partner of 12 years, so he must leave within four months. Charles Lago, who had become a fixture in the San Diego community, will probably move to Canada, but will not be able to return to the U.S. for a decade. As for his partner Charles “Chip” Snell, Lago said wryly, “Maybe we will meet on the border.” Had Lago and Snell been able to legally marry, there would have been no problem, and in fact an attorney recommended to Lago that he marry an American woman. Congressmember Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced a bill last month to recognize same-gender relationships in immigration proceedings.

In November 1999, in the course of a routine check at a Border Patrol station near the Mexican border – a check Lago had passed hundreds of times – it was discovered that his six-month tourist visa had expired in 1992. Lago didn’t have his passport with him and was arrested and detained for three days in several different facilities before his friends were able to bail him out. The ten-year ban from the U.S. has been imposed because the visa had been expired for more than a year. Lago says he didn’t realize his continued residence was illegal after the visa expired.

Lago is well-known in the community as the owner of the Quentin Crisp Theater in San Diego’s heavily gay Hillcrest neighborhood. Lago worked as personal manager for Crisp, that “stately homo of England” made famous by his autobiography The Naked Civil Servant and the movie made from it, before his death in November 1999. Lago will now sell the theater, although he hopes that several plays already scheduled will still be able to be staged there. Lago also produced plays in Los Angeles, and his arrest came as he was planning the opening of a second theater there.

Lago, who worked as a police officer in Britain, met Snell in London in 1989. When Snell’s student visa expired in 1991, Lago followed him back to the U.S. For a time they owned a bookstore in the Washington, DC area, and later a coffee shop and bookstore in Palm Springs. They moved to San Diego in 1997.

When some 25 people rallied outside the Immigration and Naturalization Service building in San Diego last month in support of Nadler’s bill, they proceeded on to a candlelight vigil outside the theater in support of Lago. Among those demonstrators was lesbian City Councilmember Christine Kehoe, who last week won the Democratic nomination for a seat in the California Assembly. Dennis Lucarelli, a local spokesperson for the national Gay and Lesbian Immigration Rights Task Force – himself forced to separate from his Japanese partner – told that crowd, “U.S. immigration law is based largely on family reunification but, since gays and lesbians don’t enjoy the right to marry, our families are not recognized for immigration purposes.” He said the law “forces people to live in separate countries and others to leave the U.S.A. Others are able to stay here on visas but live under the constant fear that they will be deported when their visas run out.”

Only 13 countries recognize same-gender relationships for immigration purposes.

A “special right?” Or the US cutting off its nose to spite its face?

Esprix

---

Ask the Gay Guy!

[Esprix]

"MARRIAGE" VS. "DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP"

A friend of mine living near Baltimore mentioned to me that his Presbyterian church is, “seriously
considering getting out of the legal marriage bit, saying ‘if ALL cannot marry, then we as a More Light church should not marry some, and not others.’”

Thoughts?

Oh, and an update to the VT situation in a few…

Esprix

Ask the Gay Guy!

[Flinx]

Esprix wrote:

I have a specific question for Flinx:

Since we all know you would vote against same-sex marriages if it were on a ballot, and you’ve also stated that you do not believe homosexuals should be discriminated against, would you vote for a bill that introduced a legally equal domestic partnership bill? Is it just the word “marriage” that you object to?

Honestly, I don’t know how I would vote. I’m re-evaluating my position on SSM right now, so can’t say for sure how I would vote. I need more info from both sides, both pro and con. I will give more weight to what the LDS prophet(s) say than to non-LDS people, though. I wonder if they (the prophets) will speak on this issue at the next LDS General Conference in April? I think they just might.

---

The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)

[Esprix]

THIS JUST IN!

From PlanetOut.com (3/16/00):

VT House OKs Civil Unions

Without a single vote to spare, the Vermont House of Representatives on March 16 approved a bill to extend all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage within the state’s power to gay and lesbian couples. There’s believed to be majority support in the 30-member state Senate that will next take up the bill, and Governor Howard Dean (D) has promised to sign it. Vermont will then have made a quantum leap beyond any other state in the union in recognizing same-gender couples, although more than 1,000 federal benefits will still be out of reach. The legislature is acting in response to a December ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court that denying the benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples violates the state constitution’s Equal Benefits clause.

There are 150 members in the Vermont House, and the final vote was 76 - 69, the minimum number of “yeas” for passage…

The House Judiciary Committee charged with drafting a bill in response to the high court ruling provides for three kinds of relationships. One is marriage, reserved for heterosexual couples by state law; the preamble to the bill repeated that restriction, and one amendment that passed on March 15 added its restatement to the body text as well. The second is “civil unions” for same-gender couples, which are equivalent to marriage in every way the state can provide; that means changing some 400 statutory references to “marriage” and “spouse” to add “or partner in a civil union,” in order to offer some 300 benefits and responsibilities. From buying a license to divorcing in family court, civil unions are like marriage. The third category is “reciprocal beneficiaries,” providing some very limited benefits to other kinds of couples who live together but cannot legally marry, such as blood relatives…

{Two measures failed; one to extend the marriage law to include gays and lesbians, and one to amend the civil unions bill to include a prohibition against legal recognition of same-gender marriages another state may someday perform. Also, proposals to put questions before voters on the November ballot and to hold a constitutional convention on the issue failed.}

One of the great highlights of the debate was gay Representative William Lippert’s (D-Hinesburg) impassioned effort on March 15 to “put a face” on the issue by describing the rewards of his own relationship and the way he’d seen other men care for their partners through the AIDS epidemic. “I’ve had the privilege of developing a deep, devoted, loving, caring relationship with another man,” he began. “Gay and lesbian people, gay and lesbian couples, deserve not only rights, they deserve to be celebrated. Our lives, in the midst of historical prejudice and discrimination, are, in my view, in some way miracles. … The goodness of gay and lesbian people, gay and lesbian couples, is a triumph against discrimination and prejudice. We deserve to be welcomed because, in fact, we are your neighbors, your friends, indeed, we are your family.” He closed saying, “Don’t tell me about what a committed relationship is and isn’t. I’ve watched my gay brothers care for each other. There is no love and no commitment greater than what I’ve seen and what I’ve known.”

When Lippert had finished, conservative Representative Robert Kinsey (R-Craftsbury) instantly rose to call it “the greatest speech I’ve heard in my 30 years,” and to add, “That’s why I’m glad to be a friend of the member from Hinesburg and that’s why I’m glad to be on his side.”…

Many Representatives struggled with conflicts between the wishes of their constituencies, their oath to uphold the state constitution, and their deeply held personal beliefs. Representative Dianne Carmolli (D-Rutland City), a supporter of civil unions, grew teary at opposing the position of the state leader of her Roman Catholic Church, and commented, “I say this with a heavy heart. I feel this is the first time the Church has turned its back on families – on children and families.”

Representative Nancy Sheltra (R-Derby), a leader in opposing civil unions, was just as sincere in saying, “I truly feel sorry for the state of Vermont. We’re really putting ourselves in a dangerous position of judgment from the Almighty God.”

Governor Dean, who was lobbying heavily for civil unions throughout the proceedings, told people that the bill would have no impact at all on 97% of Vermonters. But Representative George Allard (D-St. Albans Town) said, “If this passes it will mark the beginning of the end of life in Vermont as I have known it for 56 years.”

Time will tell which was correct.

Bits I find interesting:

[ul][li]300 state laws are affected, and over 1,000 federal still aren’t[/li][li]Ballot and constitutional convention motions failed.[/li][li]A conservative Republican called a gay speech the best he’s ever heard.[/li][li]The quote, “We’re really putting ourselves in a dangerous position of judgment from the Almighty God.”[/li][li]The Governor’s observation that this simply won’t affect the vast majority of people.[/ul][/li]
I’ll let you know when it passes.

Oh, and if CalifBoomer is reading…

http://www.beginbids.com/ubb/smilies/icon25.gif

NEENER NEENER NEE-NER!

http://www.beginbids.com/ubb/smilies/icon25.gif

{ahem}

Esprix, who usually tries to be more dignified

---

Ask the Gay Guy!

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Flinx:

Honestly, I don’t know how I would vote.

Now, remember, I’m talking about a measure that would provide all the same legal rights and responsibilities without calling it “marriage.”

I thought I had understood your issue was not with equal rights, but with equating such a relationship with a “real” marriage.

Esprix

---

Ask the Gay Guy!

[Dirt]

This makes an obvious and oft-repeated point, but hey, I just like Tom the Dancing Bug.

[Esprix]

Oh, that’s priceless!

But ever so true. “The institution of marriage” needs housecleaning of its own before it can cast stones at anyone else (as CalifBoomer so aptly put it in his one intelligent post ever).

“Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire” indeed…

Esprix

---

Ask the Gay Guy!

[Flinx]

Esprix wrote:

quote:

Originally posted by Flinx:
Honestly, I don’t know how I would vote.

Now, remember, I’m talking about a measure that would provide all the same legal rights and responsibilities without calling it “marriage.”

I thought I had understood your issue was not with equal rights, but with equating such a relationship with a “real” marriage.

Ask me again after April’s General Conference. I hope the prophets will clear this issue up for me. Frankly, I’m torn between wanting equal rights for “gays” and wanting to follow the Prophet. I need more info before committing to a decision about SSM or DP’s.

---

The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)

[Flinx]

Not to imply that the Prophet is against equal rights, of course.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Flinx:

Ask me again after April’s General Conference. I hope the prophets will clear this issue up for me. Frankly, I’m torn between wanting equal rights for “gays” and wanting to follow the Prophet. I need more info before committing to a decision about SSM or DP’s.

Not to imply that the Prophet is against equal rights, of course.

Um, well, that implication is there. If you need to wait until April to hear what the Prophet would say about DP’s vs. SSM’s, then obviously he has been ambiguous up to this point on the subject of both equal treatment under the law and the issue of what should constitute a marriage.

Regardless of what the Prophet might impart, what are your thoughts of DP’s vs. SSM’s?

Esprix

---

Ask the Gay Guy!

[Flinx]

Esprix wrote:

Um, well, that implication is there. If you need to wait until April to hear what the Prophet would say about DP’s vs. SSM’s, then obviously he has been ambiguous up to this point on the subject of both equal treatment under the law and the issue of what should constitute a marriage.

I wouldn’t know–I don’t attend church regularly due to social phobia, so I don’t know if the Prophet has been ambiguous on this issue or not. The fact that the LDS Church has strongly opposed SSM in California leads me to believe that it’s an important issue, however. The Church doesn’t just spend lots of money on efforts it doesn’t believe are relevant to salvation, so it’s obviously something the leaders feel strongly about. Since I believe that the leaders of the Church are inspired by God, I’ll follow their lead.

Regardless of what the Prophet might impart, what are your thoughts of DP’s vs. SSM’s?

I don’t know that much about DP’s, so I really have no established opinion yet. If it threatens the institution of the family, I’m against it, and WhiteNight can attack me for that if he wishes. I have to go with my conscience, not his.

---

The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Flinx:

… I don’t know if the Prophet has been ambiguous on this issue or not. The fact that the LDS Church has strongly opposed SSM in California leads me to believe that it’s an important issue, however… Since I believe that the leaders of the Church are inspired by God, I’ll follow their lead.

Well, this kind of answers that. You followed their lead enough to know that they were supportive of Prop. 22 in California, but you either didn’t delve deep enough to get their entire position, or, more likely, they were focusing on the issue of “marriage” rather than civil equality.

I don’t know that much about DP’s, so I really have no established opinion yet. If it threatens the institution of the family, I’m against it, and WhiteNight can attack me for that if he wishes. I have to go with my conscience, not his.

I don’t know if you read the rest of this quote, but let’s use Vermont as an example - at this point they’ve all but passed civil unions, which are exactly the same as marriage in all civil law aspects without actually using the word “marriage” nor in any way stating that they are the moral equivalent of a marriage.

Prophet aside, how do you feel about that? No doubt your church will quickly have something to say about this latest turn of events, but I’m curious what you’re thinking before you hear what their official position is.

And, honestly, I’m not trying to back you into a corner or get you to agree with me, I’m just curious, now that the issue is quickly coming to a head.

Esprix

---

Ask the Gay Guy!

[Flinx]

Esprix, to tell you the truth, I’m a bit wary of it. The idea behind the Proclamation on the Family (as I understand it) is that a union of souls between a man and a woman is sacred and ordained of God. Anything that would bypass or change that union, to make it into something not ordained of God, regardless of whether it’s called “marriage” or not, is thwarting God’s purposes. So I guess I’m against same-sex domestic partnerships as well as SSM, for the same reasons.

Mind you, this is not an opinion set in stone–you are asking me to jump the gun and give you my gut opinion, so there it is. Should I be wrong, I will change my opinion, but somehow I don’t think the Proclamation on the Family is going to be changed to make way for DP’s. A rose by any other name…

---

The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Flinx:

… I guess I’m against same-sex domestic partnerships as well as SSM, for the same reasons… A rose by any other name…

Well, I’m disappointed, but not surprised, I guess. I’d hoped you could see this as an issue of equal treatment under the law, but you again defer to your religious leaders.

Although he raised them in a rather vehement manner, I guess WhiteNight really does have some valid points.

Esprix

---

Ask the Gay Guy!

[system]

I guess it is a difficult position here. I myself, believe in my pastor; and I Know he is against domestic partnerships as he was a vocal opponent while the hearings were going on.
I hapen to agree with him that homosexuals deserve equal rights, meaning, the right to vote, be hired, etc.
If I disagreed; I suppose I would vote for domestic partnerships being legalized. I believe I would still be a good member of his church; after all, the church is about your relationship with Jesus, not politics.
Maybe Flinx is saying he doesn’t consider partnership benefits equal rights? Fill me in here, Flinx.
Personally, domestic partnership benefits wouldn’t hurt me at all. How?

[Flinx]

Orangecakes and Esprix, I haven’t formulated a full opinion on Domestic Partnerships yet. I just gave my preliminary feelings on them. I’ll wait until after General Conference (if the prophets talk about SSM and DPs) to form my opinion more fully. Until then, I have to go by what I have (the Proclamation and the actions of the LDS church against SSM).

[SqrlCub]

Hey there everyone,

I just thought I should weigh in again. Even though I am extremely happy about the legislation being passed in Vermont, I have to say that it will eventually get overturned by the Supreme Court (either the US or VT Supreme court) because separate but equal is not legal. It really irks me right now that we don’t have the same rights as straight people and it will irk me even more when this legislation gets overturned. :mad:

This may be a completely different topic. I think I will post it there too.

HUGS!
Sqrl

---

SqrlCub’s Arizona Adventure

[Esprix]

Originally posted by orangecakes:

I myself, believe in my pastor; and I Know he is against domestic partnerships as he was a vocal opponent while the hearings were going on.

Did he explain why?

If I disagreed; I suppose I would vote for domestic partnerships being legalized. I believe I would still be a good member of his church; after all, the church is about your relationship with Jesus, not politics.

Good church. Respectful dissention, IMHO, is good for growth.

Personally, domestic partnership benefits wouldn’t hurt me at all. How?

They wouldn’t, and in a way Flinx agrees with you, but he will only vote the way his church tells him to vote, so I guess what he thinks as an individual is irrelevant.

Esprix

---

Ask the Gay Guy!

[system]

Esprix: My pastor said God told him to say(at the council meeting) that God’s wrath would come upon our fine city(paraphrasing here) if it were passed.
The board members didn’t pass it, surprisingly; they were expected to.
Say what you will, he is a fine pastor, and he does hear from God(no, I don’t mean out loud).
Check his church’s homepage by going to My homepage http://members.aol.com/abbie4ever22/index.html and clicking the links.
(my webpage constructed by flinx)