Jerry Timms

Today I received one of those automated political survey calls. Much to my surprise (or sadly not), it was regarding another gay marriage amendment to the Arizona Constitution that is planned to be proposed this coming November. Surely they’re freaked out about the recent California action being so close to our state! There were questions in the survey to that effect. Remember that the last amendment failed here in 2006, with the organizers of that initiative vowing to return with greater numbers in the next election (which happens to be in 6 months).

Well, they’ve been gathering signatures hoping to get it once again on the next ballot. They don’t have enough yet, but they do have until early July to get them all. And if history tells us anything, it’s that there are at least 200,000 nutjobs in Arizona that will support something like this.

I need to tell you guys that I have a source in a local news organization that has informed me that a group supporting the amendment has been buying up internet domain names left and right. It seems that a rogue organization deployed a bunch of smear websites in 2006 that ruined their reputation, and so this year they’re planning several counterfeit opposition websites to smear the “no” campaign!

What really worries me is that they have literally bought every single possible proposition-related domain name. I guess the Secretary of State legally has to use a certain numbering scheme for constitutional related propositions, so it wasn’t hard for them to figure it out and cover all their bases, even though the official proposition number hasn’t been determined. I’ve also learned that they’ve gone so far as to set up a news distribution service, retail store and podcast, and that much of this is being funded by a certain local restaurant chain.

You know what? The type of confusion, anger and pandemonium this can all cause really concerns me. Playing these games not only hurts those who sacrifice themselves and work hard to defend our rights, but trivializes the political system that has been set up to protect us. The games need to stop now. And so I’d like to announce that I will work to expose those who are behind this insane plan.

This morning the California Supreme Court declared that the State’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. This effectively legalizes gay marriage in California.

For the last 3 years I’ve been making a substantial monthly contribution to Lambda Legal, as a proud Liberty Circle member. A lot of people do not realize that they are the ones fighting these ground battles. While HRC is involved with political work and supporting gay friendly candidates, Lambda Legal provides the attorneys and legal work for the court challenges like this one. Even better, any donations to Lambda Legal are tax deductible (donations to HRC are not).

Please read more about Lambda Legal and support us by clicking this link now.

Cheers! There will be many more victories like this to come!

I was inspired a few days ago to start the mental legwork for this post after reading an interview with Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, in this month’s issue of The Advocate.

Mayor Newsom ordered the City of San Francisco to begin granting marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004. The marriages began on February 12, and about 4,000 couples were married by the city until the California Supreme Court stepped in 29 days later and stopped it. A case is still pending in court (with the City of San Francisco as the plaintiff) that will ultimately decide if the court will allow marriages statewide or not - that decision is due very soon.

Mayor Newsom is not gay. He followed his principles, and ironically he got a lot of criticism for it from the gay community. Why? Because nobody thought this was the right time to do something like this, and many believed for awhile that Mayor Newsom may have triggered a national backlash against gays that may have helped get Bush re-elected and get many state constitutional amendments passed to ban gay marriage. Maybe it did and maybe it didn’t, although much new research is proving that the backlash and constitutional amendment momentum had already started well before Newsom decided to start marrying gay couples in his city.

Even his inner circle of advisers at the time thought it was very bad timing, and that the Mayor was likely destroying his political career. Asked how the final decision was made to go ahead with the marriage orders, he replies,

“The ultimate assessment was: So what? We talk about principles. And if you can’t stand for what you believe in, what’s the point?”

Mayor Newsom is my hero for this. But this post is not merely about gay marriage.

What other hopes and dreams do we all have, that are kept on the back burner because we’re waiting for something else to fall into place?

I want to be in a relationship, but I’m not where I want to be with my career yet. I want to get back into shape but I’m too busy with work right now to get to the gym. I want to get married but I have to save up for money for the ceremony. I want to move somewhere else but I haven’t finished fixing up my house yet. I want to start dating again but I’m not totally over my last relationship yet. I want to…

I have only recently been able to move my life forward again when I realized a few things. That everything is possible at every moment, and it’s never the right time. Everything else is just an excuse, because greatness never follows good timing.

I’ve come to understand over the last few weeks that I’m still limiting my own life experiences out of fear of being out of control. I avoid dating anyone who doesn’t fit what I believe is my perfect match, I don’t socialize with people who don’t share all of my core values, I pass on all activities that I think I may not enjoy.

Eventually all these useless limits we place on ourselves build up, and guarantee a boring life devoid of any change or development. Mayor Newsom didn’t get his state’s Supreme Court to look at gay marriage by waiting for the right time to flaunt state law, any more than you’re going to fall in love by waiting until your life is perfect before you start dating, any more than a gay man is ever going to make new friends by waiting for a complete lack of sexual awkwardness, any more than you’re going to get a ripped body by waiting for tons of free time to manifest itself for going to the gym. It’s all bad timing, so get used to it!

I’m not proposing that you live your life with reckless and careless abandon. But my hunch is that when you are at the end of your life, you will look fondly at the times that you stepped clear out of your comfort zone and changed everything about the life that happened afterwards.

I can no longer look at Log Cabin Republicans with the same amount of disdain, when my own party of 14 years still refuses to support full marriage equality. I would be just as self-hating as a gay or black Republican if I continued my affiliation with the Democratic party. So, about 5 minutes ago I changed my registration to independent status.

I’m obviously going to continue voting for the lesser of the available evils, but I’m no longer a Democrat.

The presidential election ended for me last night while watching the Democratic presidential debate on Logo. The four frontrunning democratic candidates made it clear that they do not support gay marriage, but instead maintain varied support for the separate but equal civil union scheme. Some of them may actually privately support gay marriage, but they are clearly tempering their public support in order to make their win a little less complicated. Barack Obama actually belongs to the United Church of Christ, one of the few Christian churches that supports gay marriage, but he still stopped far short of endorsing it.

Instead, Barack Obama had the tenacity to bring up the fact that his parents wouldn’t have been allowed to marry in several states in the early 60’s, and because of that he felt like he understands our situation. Ha. While that may be a cute effort to find some common ground with us, using that as a backdrop to tell us that we shouldn’t push completely forward for full rights is disgusting.

I want to feel comfortable with Hillary Clinton, but how many times does she have to reconsider past statements and decisions? It’s impossible to make a mistake when dealing with equality, it either is or isn’t. We’re left with a feeling that all of the candidates still have some thinking to do, but time has run out.

The presidential election ended for me last night, and this is probably the last time you’ll ever hear me mention it. Time to get started on a new project.

A few months after my last relationship ended, I found myself chatting on online dating sites to pass some of the time at night. The ultimate goal was to meet someone new to date, as I was not used to (or comfortable with) going to bars by myself. Funny thing happens when I’m in a relationship for awhile, I usually don’t make many new gay friends, or hold on to the ones that I’ve had. So here I was, with straight friends who were getting pretty sick and tired of going to Amsterdam and BS West with me!

I noticed, when chatting with people, that everyone would ask me if I was single. I thought, well of course I am, why does everyone ask that? Well I think I didn’t realize that, among other things such as text messaging, open relationships became a lot more popular while I was out of the dating pool. Or maybe I have just been a little too naive about it before, it doesn’t really matter at this point…

Since attendng a few circuit parties, I’m surprised at how many couples are there…not being exclusive with their intimacy. I tell myself that I’m looking at only a small subset of the gay population, so this should not indicate a broader trend worth thinking about. Maybe so.

But since expanding my circle of gay friends, I’m also surprised at how many couples I either socialize with or meet locally that also do not practice much exclusivity. I tell myself that I’m looking at only a small subset of the “coupled” population that still goes out to clubs and bars, and that surely the majority of couples are probably home enjoying a more traditional relationship.

But is that what I want?

Here’s my concern, that I’ve expressed before. I want a monogamous relationship, but I still want to go out to clubs and parties with that person. I really, honestly, can’t see giving up on going out and having a good time with drink and music and friends. I’m not what one of my friends calls a “dinner party gay” or what I have come to call a “board game and go to bed early gay.”

But I want a more traditional monogamous relationship, and sometimes I feel like those are going extinct. Like the stay at home mom…is it a dated idea?

Let me be clear for a moment. I do not think it’s appropriate or useful in any way to judge those who choose an open or “inviting” relationship. We are all working very hard for the political and social freedom to choose the types of relationships that we want, as part of the general gay rights movement, and it would be simply ridiculous to start judging our own for choosing an unconventional intimate arrangement. I’m all for it, and I say all the power to you if that’s what works best for you!

But, it’s not for me.

I’ve tried it before, with one of my first boyfriends when I was 25…someone who I still miss dearly. I think the arrangement may have even been partially for my benefit, as a way of getting around the idea that someone’s first relationship never lasts, because they have not been with many other people. Maybe the idea that I could get everything out of my system within the open confines of our relationship was a ploy to keep me longer term. But it didn’t work for me, and I was not comfortable enough with myself to be a tolerable boyfriend in that relationship. Ugh, how I so regret what he had to deal with.

I think it’s interesting how we all tend to define intimacy and love differently. Personally, sex is related to both for me. Sex isn’t love, but it’s one of it’s many expressions. Sex also isn’t intimacy, but it doesn’t usually happen without it. Sex also isn’t the only thing that separates friends from lovers, but it’s one of those things.

Others think about sex differently. It can be a physical activity, a vehicle for self validation, a compliment…or on the opposite side of the spectrum, it can be love itself. Or, a sin.

The point is that everyone places a different level of significance and value on various sexual and intimate activities, and after talking with one of my friends tonight we realized that those values can vary widely. For example, he told me about how he met a few different couples last weekend who had quite different rules about what they allowed each other to do in their relationship. One couple allowed all forms of sex with others except kissing. And another couple allowed everything with others except for intercouse.

This affects me in a couple different ways. One way that it affects me is that I have realized that, not only do I have to compete against every other single guy at a party or club for the attention of other singles, but I must also compete against a bunch of “taken” guys for the attention of the most eligible singles. These guys who are already in a relationship also tend not to disclose their status right away, so it is a little unfair of a situation. Whatever, not a huge deal. Selfish, maybe.

The other way it affects me is that guys I am interested in will often see the behavior of some of my friends and assume that I am also into open or inviting relationships. This turns them off, and they start asking a lot of probing questions. So I have to go into a whole explanation about how I am not like that and convince them that they can trust me. This has happened with 2 Mr. X’s recently, and one continues to ask for validation of my convictions.

Again, not a huge deal, and I think that anyone who takes some time to get to know me should not have any reason to worry. That is, if they are like me and not expecting and wanting the opposite - which is something I often worry about as well.

All I think I want to point out, at the end of this rant, is that the dating landcape is getting more and more complicated every day for gay men. For some reason everyone thinks that they have to completely reinvent the relationship, and that’s fine…except that I don’t, and think that my long standing ideal will eventually work out for me. Maybe in a way I’m just setting the record straight, and getting some frustration off my chest.

Luckily, Arizona defeated a gay marriage ban amendment this past fall. Other states, however, were not so lucky. In the end it actually made little difference, because the Arizona Supreme Court has already upheld our state’s statutory ban on gay marriage.

To all my heterosexual readers, I have a little secret to share with you. You may think that we’re going to keep fighting every year against your silly amendments and laws. Stand around like pansies and beg for help every time some right-wing nutjob decides he wants to pass an amendment. We’re not. There’s a secret movement brewing around the country, and it’s goal is to create utter pandemonium with your marriage and family laws. It’s on! We can play this game too, you know.

Washington has struck first, by filing a proposition to annul heterosexual marriages that don’t produce offspring.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be annulled.

According to the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance:
“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation … The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine,” said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.”

Other states will follow, and Arizona will almost certainly be one of them…

Welcome to my analysis of the New Jersey decision. If you’re not up to speed, read this first:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/25/gay.marriage/index.html

Great news. I’ve been involved with Lambda Legal since Lawrence v. Texas, and I’m proud of the tremendous job they’ve done on this case (especially after the disappointing NY decision). The fact that the decision was unanimous for for at least civil unions is quite a milestone. Three justices favored absolute marriage equality. In 180 days gay partners will at least have all of the practical rights they sought at the state level (remember that many rights are still controlled by federal interests, and their unions will not likely be recognized by the federal government).

Now for the bad news. There are two things I’m concerned about:

1. This is really, really bad timing. We are less than 2 weeks away from the election, and republicans are not looking so hot. As I speak, they are furiously issuing press releases reiterating their support for the FMA, and calling up their most conservative base to donate extra money toward this goal. This decision freaks a lot of people out, and it makes it likely that many more conservatives will show up to the polls to vote for their candidate - and in Arizona, to vote for Prop 107.

2. Separate but equal. The decision opens the likely possibility that the legislature will set up a civil union or domestic partnership scheme that gives equal rights to gay partners without actually calling it marriage. This was not an acceptable option when we had “colored” drinking fountains, and it’s not acceptable in this case either. Will the same number of staff be available to administer the domestic partnership program, will the same body of law be developed to support civil and family court cases (child custody, child welfare, divorce, etc.), will all instances of “marriage” be replaced or replicated in state statutory law, will the “certificate” look the same, will employers be instructed to treat these relationships the same as marriage, etc. - the list goes on. Separate but equal..is never equal by definition - it is still separate; different.

If all the concerns mentioned above were adequately addressed, then why not just call it marriage and be done with it? Why create a separate definition (or term actually) but have it be otherwise the same as marriage? The obvious answer here is that the justices did not want to piss people off and cause a backlash. Let’s explore that idea.

Have major civil rights decisions ever been popular? Brown v. Board of Education was hugely unpopular in some parts of the south - and it was a mess for a little while until it gained widespread acceptance. Indeed, Arkansas called the National Guard to prevent black kids from entering previously-white schools. The president had to eventually call the military to ensure their safe entry. Other major milestones like the ERA were met with some resistance, and were not initially embraced by all in the manner we’d like to think.

Bottom line, recognition of rights should not be determined by their popularity at the time. Indeed, if they were popular we wouldn’t need the courts to guarantee them to us through the judicial process. But, we do look back on these decisions as being the right thing to do. Do some people honestly think that in 50 years we will look back on Massachusets and say “boy, that was a mistake!” I don’t think we will, as massachusets is doing just fine with gay marriage (conservative grumpiness aside).

For now, let’s recognize this decision as the important milestone that it is, and celebrate. It’s not a victory, not yet.