Times flies, and it brings with it a new challenge...

No on H8

Closing arguments in the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, begin today, with an hour-by-hour schedule of the day's events as well as a blow-by-blow (no pun intended) description of the proceedings posted here on the "Prop 8 Trial Tracker" blog... check it out!

Happy Anniversary!

Today, Kevin and I celebrated our first wedding anniversary, and we finally were able to free up the space in our freezer when we took out the top of our wedding cake and cut into it one year later.

The cake was sweet (like Kevin) and a little dry (like me), and it was the perfect way to end one year and kick off the next.

Thank you, baby, for sharing my life with me. I'm still the happiest man on the planet.

Equal = Equal

The following is a review of a 1997 and 2004 government report that outlined the specific benefits afforded married couples in the United States. These are benefits and rights denied gay and lesbian couples.

Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
-- Social Security pension

-- veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing

-- survivor benefits for federal employees

-- survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers

-- additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease

-- $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty

-- continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits

-- renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse

-- continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances

-- payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death

-- making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts

Right to benefits while married:
-- employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges

-- per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating

-- Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)

-- sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits

Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
-- veteran's disability

-- Supplemental Security Income

-- disability payments for federal employees

-- medicaid

-- property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans

-- income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates

Joint and family-related rights:
-- joint filing of bankruptcy permitted

-- joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records

-- family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison

-- next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims

-- custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce

-- domestic violence intervention

-- access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods

-- Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs

-- Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.

-- Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens

-- Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act

-- Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime

-- Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse

-- Court notice of probate proceedings

-- Domestic violence protection orders

-- Existing homestead lease continuation of rights

-- Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption

-- Funeral and bereavement leave

-- Joint adoption and foster care

-- Joint tax filing

-- Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society

-- Legal status with stepchildren

-- Making spousal medical decisions

-- Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver

-- Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation

-- Right of survivorship of custodial trust

-- Right to change surname upon marriage

-- Right to enter into prenuptial agreement

-- Right to inheritance of property

-- Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:
-- veteran's medical and home care benefits

-- housing assistance

-- happy birthday housing loans for veterans

-- child's education loans

-- educational loan repayment schedule

-- agricultural price supports and loans

-- eligibility for federal matching campaign funds

-- Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home:

-- Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs-- Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage

There are some laws that either benefit or penalize married couples over single people, depending upon their own circumstances:
-- Marriage penalty/bonus

-- Someone working for their spouse cannot be defined as an "employee"

-- Someone cannot change beneficiaries in a retirement plan or from waiving the joint and survivor annuity form of retirement benefit, without the written consent of his or her spouse

-- Wages can be garnished at a maximum of 60% (instead of the normal 25% limit) if the garnishing is for alimony or child support

Many thanks to Wikipedia for providing this review of marriage rights and benefits.

_____________________________________________

from EqualityMatters.org

On Sydney Harbor

Another one of my favorites from our recent trip down under...

Told you so...

From the top of our wedding cake...

... to the mouths of babes.

Honeymoon photos

Kevin and I are back from our postponed honeymoon in Cairns and Sydney, Australia. Here are a few of my favorite images and memories from our trip.

(Scroll over the photos for more info and links.)

We're still married... deal with it!

CAIRNS, Australia -- Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 2:35pm

Greetings from the future. As I write this, Kevin and I are on the other side of the world, enjoying our delayed honeymoon in Australia. In Cairns, it's tomorrow, and having just heard the news regarding the California Supreme Court decision that affirms our marriage last October, we're raising a glass in celebration of the 18,000 other same-sex couples who got married during that brief period between June and November last year, while our state had a brief moment of sanity. We also take pause concerning the Court's other decision, upholding Proposition 8 and the rights of bigots everywhere to strip their neighbors of their constitutional right to marry the one they love. So, the fight continues. For protests and demonstrations in your area, check out http://www.dayofdecision.com/. We'll join you when we're back in the States. Until then, to those who wish us well, God bless. All others can go fuck themselves.

Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce

Finally! A Petition for a California State Proposition that Prohibits Divorce between Heterosexual Married Couples...

Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage and its powerful influence on the betterment of society. This proposition would keep the very meaning of marriage from being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between two adults.

Prohibiting divorce between heterosexual married couples will keep the interests of children and families intact. We will continue to celebrate marriage as the union of husband and wife, not as a relationship between "Party A" and "Party B." The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage.

As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

And for those of you who voted yes on Prop 8 but disagree with this petition...Why? This petition is copied and pasted from literature from your website, ProtectMarriage.com, but applied to Divorce instead of Gay Marriage. So how can you argue with your own words?

Sign the petition by going here:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce

From this moment...

Finally, some photos from our Big Day.

Photography by Kara A. Reilly

California Supreme Court Grants Review in Prop 8 Legal Challenges

from EqualityCalifornia, eqca.org

Court to Determine Constitutionality of Prop 8

Yesterday the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.

On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.

The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was “Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples,” the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.

Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.

On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women’s rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.

Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures. For more information on these cases, click here.

In memoriam

The Sanctity of Marriage

June 16, 2008 - November 4, 2008

The Marriage of

Geoffrey P. Gamble & Kevin P. Metzger

October 11, 2008 - *

*There's no piece of paper or "law of the land" that's going to tell us who we love. Ironically, however, the California State certified copies of our Marriage License arrived in the mail yesterday and will be displayed in a prominent place in the home we build together.

With 15% of the precincts reporting...

Kevin and I go to bed as ballots for Proposition 8 continue to be counted. On this election day and in this race, I find myself thinking:

"Separate but equal" doesn't work

There is no other honest way to put it. Stripped to its core, Proposition 8 is designed to make discrimination — against loving, committed citizens — part of the state constitution.

-- Jon Mendelson

from "The Ugly Core of Proposition 8"

24 October 2008

Prop. 8 would back pretzel logic

By Michael Fitzgerald
Record Columnist
October 24, 2008 6:00 AM

Every age offers its people a chance to evolve or to stick in a haven of outmoded ideas.

Which brings us to Proposition 8, which would amend California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Prop. 8 should be defeated. And it can be defeated without any defeat to religion, to personal moral convictions or to "traditional" marriage.

All can flourish. All should.

Prop. 8 is wrong because - let's not kid ourselves - civil unions are not the equal of marriage. They do not bestow the same dignity, respect or exalted status as marriage.

And if the law is treating citizens unequally, the discrimination must stop, even if tradition supports it, even if a majority prefers it.

Tradition in the case of same-sex marriage, it has been said, is just discrimination that has been passed down.

And a majority, no matter how strongly held its views, is not reason enough for a state to enshrine discrimination in law. A state needs a better reason than that. Same-sex marriage presents none.

It is not for the majority - for anybody - to deny a person's deepest, most intimate relationship and commitments. To deny them their most fundamental right.

Why should we? "Traditional" marriage is not protected by such a ban; those desiring traditional marriage are free to marry. Same-sex marriage will not restrict anyone's rights.

But banning it will, and unfairly. Because sexual orientation bears no relation to a person's ability to contribute to society.

Here in our own city we have entrusted a lesbian Councilwoman with a multimillion-dollar treasury of our dollars, our public safety and the growth and future of our city.

What does it say about us as a community that we find her competent to shoulder this responsibility but not deserving to marry her partner of 20-plus years?

How can a person be an esteemed leader and a second-class citizen? That is pretzel logic.

And what about the children of same-sex couples? The state permits same-sex couples to adopt. Clearly the state recognizes same-sex couples can be good parents.

So what is it like for children when society tacitly says their parents rank below others? What is that like on the schoolyard? Can discrimination against children be "family values?"

No. Even if Yes on 8 is thundered from the pulpits. Religious leaders opposed to same-sex marriage are not rendering unto God what is God's; they are telling Caesar how to run the secular show.

Well, it is a democracy down here, and the right to disagree includes the right to live according to different values. That is not disrespect. That is 1776.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, upholding same-sex marriage, recently wrote that decisions about such things as marriage, procreation and child rearing are the very essence of individual freedom, in fact, of individuality itself.

"At the heart of liberty," the court wrote, "is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. ... Belief about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state."

The chance to end marriage inequality is like the choice to give women the right to vote, or to hold them unfit because they were born women.

It is a historic chance to renounce a long history of discrimination, not to mention violence, against homosexuals. Or to perpetuate it.

Permitting same-sex marriage also is a chance to re-interpret our law so it does not petrify into irrelevance but remains a living force for basic human rights in modern life.

People opposed to same-sex marriage are free to live according to their religious beliefs or personal moral convictions. But one thing no one can do is champion American rights by denying them.

This column from "The Record" is reprinted in distinct, easy-to-understand chunks, for the dim-witted "Yes on 8" crowd. Kind of like speaking slowly. You can contact columnist Michael Fitzgerald at (209) 546-8270 or michaelf@recordnet.com.

"ProtectMarriage," my ass

Ron Prentice, Edward Dolejsi, Mark Jansson, and Andrew Pugno are petty thugs and extortionists.

These ProtectMarriage.com executive committee members -- their campaign chairman, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and one of their attorneys, respectively -- have "warned" businesses that have given money to California's largest gay rights group that "they will be publically identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the same-sex marriage ban, too," noted the Associated Press.

So, it seems that the umbrella group behind the pathetic "Yes on 8" campaign is resorting to blackmail in the final days up to the election November 4. And you were unclear how gay people and their supporters have been threatened and discriminated against in this day and age?! Take it in.

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," read their ransom-note-like letter . "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, [...] the names of any companies that [...] have given to Equality California will be published."

The list of "No on Prop. 8" supporters include Pacific Gas & Electric, Levi Strauss, and AT&T. Donations for the good cause can be directed to http://www.eqca.org/.

Stop the HATE! Vote NO on PROP 8!

"Hello. I'm a Mac?"

In the news

Uncertain unions

Written by Jennifer Wadsworth
The Tracy Press, Saturday, 18 October 2008

Some same-sex couples rush to marry, while others hang on the edge of their seats as a vital vote about their relationships — also known as Proposition 8 — approaches.

The marriage of Tracy residents Jeff Gamble and Kevin Metzger last weekend was legal, thanks to an early June California Supreme Court ruling. But like many among the 11,000-plus same-sex couples statewide who exchanged vows since the court decision to legalize gay marriage, 45-year-old Gamble and 36-year-old Metzger are left to wonder about the future legality of their union.

Depending on whether Californians vote for or against a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriages, their certificate could prove null and void come Nov. 5.

"On a personal level, of course it’s meaningful," Metzger said. "But this is about civil rights, really, and what rights we have as a married couple."

Though California Attorney General Jerry Brown said he doubts that same-sex marriages performed before Nov. 4 would be annulled, Proposition 8 supporters could challenge the validity of those unions if the measure passes, according to legal experts from a few political action groups both for and against the measure.

So some same-sex couples have decided to marry before Election Day, said activist Nicole Devencenzi, 25, a San Joaquin Delta College student and spokeswoman for Marriage Equality USA San Joaquin Chapter, a group that supports same-sex marriage. A few have decided to wait until after the vote, she added.

It’s hard to spot a trend, though, especially with the absence of an official record on a local level of the number of same-sex marriage licenses issued.

"People are uncertain," she said. "But it’s hard to see how they tend to react as a whole. It’s hard to break that down."

Unlike a few California counties, the San Joaquin County Clerk-Recorder’s office has kept no record of the number of same-sex unions since the early summer court decision that permitted them, officials said.

Some counties in Southern California that do track the number of same-sex unions have noticed a spike in pre-election ceremonies, according to recent news reports.

Local activists, though, sense the number of local gay marriages has started to taper off.

"I think a lot of people are unsure of what to do, and that uncertainty has held them back a little," said Martina Virrey, also a member of Marriage Equality, a group that supports same-sex unions. "I think they’re hesitant to enter into something that’s legally ambiguous. At least that’s my sense of it."

What also remains to be seen, she added, is whether the state would immediately write off same-sex unions solemnized the day after Nov. 4. It’s possible, clerk-recorder employees noted, that there could be a little leeway even if Californians vote in favor of the proposition, because it takes about a month for some election results to become final.

A Secretary of State spokesman said the ballot measure would indeed become official the day after the election, if voters approve it, but officials with the county clerk’s office said they would continue to issue marriage licenses to anyone who asked until the California Department of Health Services — the office in charge of marriage records — tells them to stop.

Wife-and-wife Tracyites Colleen Brown, 45, and Lorraine Lorio, 46, decided to marry last month while it’s still legal.

"We ‘rushed’ into it after 21 years together," joked Brown, who this week propped up a "No on 8" sign on her front lawn. "But really, we wanted to marry while we still could, because we just don’t know. That’s really what it gets down to, is the uncertainty."

More than their own uncertainty, the couple worries about confusion among voters about what the proposition really means, a confusion they say is worsened by misleading TV ads from proposition supporters and a lack of civil public debate before the Nov. 4 decision.

Statewide, support both for and against the measure appears nearly even, though opponents have outraised supporters by a few million dollars, according to campaign finance reports released last week. Supporters of the "protect marriage" measure have raised more than $22 million. Those against it garnered at least $27 million.

Even if voters choose to undermine the legal weight of the framed marriage license in the Metzger-Gamble home, the newlyweds said their union "is more than a piece of paper."

"It’s a commitment," Gamble said this week over coffee cake and sparkling cider left over from his weekend wedding. "It means more than what the state tells me it does."

_______________________________________

In a comment on the Tracy Press website, a supporter eloquently writes:

i've grown to live

to love and laugh

i'm quite the man

to know and have

struggle and fight

is to sacrifice

let's have the right

to have suffice

to marry the one you love

initiates a bond till death

married or not

i'm there till your final breath

a crime it is to love someone

what a twisted world this is

they could never bring us down

for love will always exist

Congratulations Jeff and Kevin!

Today's the day...

special, rare and precious
that is what i think about us
us being you and i

i was blessed with a gift that lifts my spirits and makes them soar
i adore you

you have always been in my corner
brighter than the sun
when the sun forgets to shine
finding my faults acceptable
accepting all that i give
and i give all

such a small price to pay for loving you
you are priceless
i didn’t think a love like ours existed
i lived years of loneliness
only to find bliss
I’m content to call you a friend
who understands
the demands
i have made along the way

i love you
i say that with careless abandon
you have never abandoned me
even when i could not see
where you were going
always knowing the
right and wrong direction
loves pressures are heavy indeed
i have always needed you

you tame my wild heart
a part of which is yours
everywhere i go
you will also be
we see life
from the same distorted view
you and i had the same broken heart
once upon a time
when i met you

you heard the cries
i had been screaming for years
never shedding a tear in frustration
i patiently waited for my gift from above
i see god's love when i see you
you love me beyond words
all i did was put my heart in your hands
my prayers had been heard

-- Treina Alexander-Hudleton

We are gathered here today, in the presence of these witnesses – our friends and family – for the purpose of uniting in love and matrimony Geoffrey Paul Gamble and Kevin Paul Metzger.

At some point in our lives, we begin to understand that love is more than verses on a Valentine’s Day card and romance in the movies. We begin to know that love is here and now, real and true, and the most important thing we can find. Love is the creator of our favorite memories and the foundation of our fondest dreams; a promise that is always kept, a fortune that can never be spent, and a seed that can flourish in even the most unlikely of places. Although time goes on, Love’s radiance never fades, and this mysterious and magical joy is the greatest treasure of all – one that is known only by those who truly love.

For many throughout the world, the contract of marriage is something that has been easily taken for granted. That, and no other reason, has corrupted its value and its sanctity.

Here in California and on this day, the right to marry is not only a celebration of Kevin and Jeff’s deep commitment to each other, but the symbolic end of a struggle hard-fought for all and a rekindling of what it means to betrothed.

The contract of marriage is one most solemn. It is not to be entered into lightly, but thoughtfully and seriously, with a deep realization of and commitment to its promises, obligations, and responsibilities. Love, loyalty, and understanding are the foundations of a happy and enduring life together, and Jeff and Kevin, no other human ties are more tender and no other vows more important than those you are about to pledge.

By entering into this marriage, you are pledging yourselves to a lifetime in which each of you will support and enrich the life of the other. You will be partners, standing together to weather the difficulties of life and to celebrate its blessings.

Rejoice in your partner’s graces. Nurture each other and your marriage with care, and watch it grow with grace.

The I, Ching says:

When two people are at one
in their inmost hearts,
they shatter even the strength of iron or bronze.
And when two people understand each other
in their inmost hearts,
their words are sweet and strong,
like the fragrance of orchids.

Jeff and Kevin, now that you have joined yourselves in marriage, may you both strive all your lives to meet this commitment with the same love and devotion you now possess. For love is truly the greatest gift we are given to share. Love’s compassion is the glory of life. Delight in each other’s company, and never take the other for granted, for you are destined to enjoy the blending of your two lives. And remember:

Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up. Again, if two lie together, they are warm; but how can one be warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him.

And now, in as much as you Kevin and you Geoffrey have given and pledged your love and faithfulness, each to the other in the presence of your family and friends, and have declared the same by joining hands and exchanging rings, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Deputy Marriage Commissioner by the State of California, I now pronounce you legally married and spouses for life.

Feeding the troops

With our families arriving from Virginia, Kentucky, and southern California, we'll be commandeering a local Italian restaurant for our pseudo-rehearsal dinner and first "Gamble/Metzger" event.

Good food. Good fun.

Strings Italian Cafe

2541 Naglee Road, Tracy CA 95304

(209) 835-9040