ARE YOU ANGRY ENOUGH YET?
Dr. Bill Thierfelder
Professor of English
Dowling College
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When someone writes a column for a quarterly publication, there’s always that danger that what’s true one month will be inaccurate by the time the next issue comes out. What I’m writing now in April, for example, may be totally “wrong” by the time my June deadline rolls along.
Trust me. This is one time I hope I’m completely wrong by summer.
Why? Because what I’m writing about is same-sex marriage, and I don’t know about you, but my exasperation point has long since approached.
Seriously—aren’t you just a little—or a lot—angered by the fact that you and I can go to Mystic, Connecticut; or Buzzard’s Bay, Massachusetts; or Burlington, Vermont; or—hold your hats!—Ames, Iowa and get married, but we can’t get married in New York City, the home of Stonewall, one of the iconic symbols of the entire LGBT Rights Movement? Stonewall, whose 40th Anniversary we celebrate this summer?
As of this writing, four states have legalized same-sex marriage. Two of them represent remarkable victories for a variety of reasons.
First up is Iowa, a supposedly “Middle American” state where we can now go to get hitched.
But in doing my research, my view of Iowa as some kind of conservative, somewhat Bible Belt-ish state was quite undone. I was (pleasantly) surprised to see how other great civil rights issues—including abolition of slavery and a women’s suffrage—were vigorously debated in Iowa. I didn’t know, for example, that as early as 1870, the Iowa legislature passed an amendment to allow women the right to vote, which failed to pass a statewide vote by only a very narrow margin. Still, it was a start—and well before many other states even addressed the voting issue.
And the Iowan LGBT organization, OneIowa, states: “In its very first decision [in 1839], the Iowa Supreme Court considered the case of Ralph, a former Missouri slave whose master, Jordan Montgomery, allowed him to go to Dubuque to earn money to buy his freedom. After Ralph had been in Iowa for five years, Montgomery sent agents into the state to reclaim him by force. The Supreme Court held that since Montgomery had given Ralph permission to resettle in Iowa, the former slave could not be labeled a fugitive. Although the court ruled that Ralph was obligated to pay the $550 Montgomery had demanded for his freedom, such a debt could not form a basis on which any ‘man in this territory can be reduced to slavery’.”
Now we can add farsightedness regarding same-sex marriage to the list. As reported by Bill Shireman in The Huffington Post: “Justice Mark S. Cady [of Iowa’s Supreme Court], appointed by a conservative Republican governor, wrote in the majority opinion that ‘the constitutional principle of equal protection’ forbids the ‘exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage.’
The ruling ‘does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union,’ Cady wrote. But the majority must nonetheless provide equal protection. ‘We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more’.”
Indeed, if you read the Iowa decision—a wonderfully written, eloquent document that can be found on the Iowa State Courts website: www.judicial.state.ia.us—the opening statement should inspire us all:
“This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto: Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”
Now can’t I cite similar inspirational moments in the history of New York State? How about the first Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls in 1848? How about the fact that New York abolished slavery in 1827—four decades before the Civil War tore apart our nation. Good for us. But when it comes to LGBT rights, why is that Iowa can come through against theocracy and bigotry and New York State can’t?
Now, for this writer, an even more remarkable case is that of Vermont. Unlike Iowa, Vermont has never possessed a “middle American” attitude—read your colonial and Revolutionary history and you’ll see what I mean. But contrasting Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Iowa where court rulings decided the issue, Vermont legislated same-sex marriage. That’s extraordinary. What that means is that Vermont’s duly elected officials went through a truly bipartisan process that has legalized civil marriage for all of its citizens regardless of race, class, religion, or gender. Of course, there were speed bumps along the way. Though Vermont was the first state in our country to allow civil unions nearly a decade ago, not everyone was on the same page. There were debates, for sure—heated ones. But what’s impressive is that both those for and against same-sex marriage were willing to keep working together. Both houses of Vermont’s legislature voted overwhelmingly to approve “marriage for all” at the beginning of April. As promised, the Republican Governor of the state—Jim Douglas—vetoed the bill. It could have ended there, but on April 7th, according to the Burlington Free Press, “Vermont became fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote. The Legislature voted to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.”
One reporter from the Burlington paper wrote that “the true jubilation didn't start until everyone gathered downstairs [in the Capitol] where they congratulated legislative leaders who championed the cause. [Even] three Democrats who voted against the bill voted for the override.”
As we get ready to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots this year, let’s be willing to be as brave and as vocal as those heroes were on that warm June night in 1969. Let’s be ready to write, call, e-mail, sit-in, march—whatever it takes to add New York to the growing list of enlightened states who see LGBT rights for what they really are—basic human rights.
And yes, let’s hope this article—the one that talks about only four states recognizing same-sex marriage—is way off base by the time the summer issue of Outlook appears on the stands.
