Time To Draw the Line

by on

Two starkly different but possible futures are emerging. One of them would foreclose gay marriage for the lifetime of any person old enough to read this, erecting barrier after barrier to the recognition of gay couples. The other would mean a long, but ultimately successful, movement for full marriage rights. This is the fight of our lives and our elected officials must know that.

In the worst-case scenario, gay marriages in Massachusetts and elsewhere will fuel a backlash that results in double and triple obstacles for us. Already, 38 states have enacted laws banning gay marriages and refusing to recognize such marriages from other states. Facing the specter of gay marriages, under this scenario many states will be stampeded into amending their own state constitutions.

Far worse, Congress would vote to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriages, and perhaps even civil unions and domestic partnerships to boot That will be followed by ratification efforts in state after state. The debate over ratification will be vicious, marked by hateful stereotypes of gays as promiscuous child-molesters bent on destroying everything good in American life. In this super-charged atmosphere, hate crimes go up. Other civil rights measures stall. Worst of all, the amendment is ratified. Since only 13 states may block any repeal of this amendment - and we know where they are - the possibility of gay marriage is ended for our lifetimes.

But that is only one possible future. Here's another.

In the best-case scenario, gay marriages in Massachusetts and elsewhere demonstrate that same-sex marriage is no threat to anyone. Straight married couples get on with their lives, unaffected. Children still have mothers and fathers. There is no plague of locusts upon the land. Massachusetts accordingly rejects a state constitutional amendment, either because the legislature can't muster the votes for a ban or because the people of Massachusetts vote it down. Either way, the people will have spoken. Gay marriages in that state will have a democratic legitimacy no court can confer. For the first time, gay marriage will have survived its most crucial test, the one in the court of democratic politics.

The experience of Massachusetts will embolden other states to start trying gay marriages, or at least civil unions followed quickly by marriage. State legislators will realize they don't commit political suicide by voting for it. The momentum gathers. Still no locusts.

At the federal level, under the best-case scenario, Democrats find their backbone on this issue after all the support we've given them over the years and vote to reject a constitutional amendment. A few principled Republicans, loathe to write what Andrew Sullivan has called "graffiti" on the Constitution, and truly committed to federalism, join the Democrats. State experimentation with gay marriage, free of congressional meddling and federal court fiat, is allowed to proceed.

The debate over the amendment and over state legislative action, and the existence of actual gay marriages, force people to think for the first time about why we would deny a loving, committed couple a marriage license. Many Americans can't come up with a good reason. Religious conservative groups, like those running to courts right now to stop people from marrying in San Francisco, look like the Grinch Who Stole Matrimony. Gay marriage, perhaps in our lifetime, is a reality across much of the country.

Neither of these scenarios is foregone. The future is ours to make. The people of this country are basically decent and fair. They do not like to shut people out for no good reason. But they also do not like to be rushed into, or to be forced into, a change they rightly regard as having fundamental significance. When the people have time to listen to our pleas, to consider the consequences, and to make a deliberative choice, equality usually wins.

But above all, winning the right future will mean making it plain that stopping an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the issue upon which every politician will henceforth be judged, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. There can be no "pass" given to any elected official on this issue, no matter how supportive he or she has been in the past. They must know we will always remember where they stood on this.

Gay Democrats must make it crystal clear to Democrats and to our civil-rights "allies" among progressive groups that we consider stopping this proposed constitutional amendment critically important. No votes, no money, no time, should be given to any Democrat who supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, no matter how many times they've sponsored an employment non-discrimination bill or a hate crimes law. This means you, too, John Kerry.

Gay Republicans also must stand up. We have been working to build some small voice in the GOP for just this moment. We must be crystal clear that no votes, no money, no time, will be given to any Republican who supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, no matter how many times they've cut taxes or made war on Islamo-fascism. This means you, too, George W. Bush.

Write and call your member of Congress and the White House. Talk up the issue among your friends, family members, and co-workers, even those whose support you can usually count on.

On this issue, unlike almost every other issue, no quarter can be given They are messing with our families now. This fight is for keeps. We must win it.

0 Comments

‘Troubled’ Bush.

by on

When asked to comment on the hundreds of same-sex marriages being performed in San Francisco, President Bush had the following response, reports the Washington Post:

"I strongly believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman," Bush said. "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage. I have watched carefully what's happened in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued even though the law states otherwise. I have consistently stated that if -- I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. And obviously, these events are influencing my decision."

But, of course, in San Francisco it's the top elected official, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who ordered that the city begin issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses, not "activist judges." And the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would, it's believed, nullify state marriage and domestic partner laws passed by legislatures and signed by governors (by prohibiting courts from enforcing these laws). So it's marriage opponents who are seeking to limit both states rights and the democratic process in these circumstances.

0 Comments

Making the Case.

by on

Lambda Legal has posted the brief filed by the City of San Francisco defending its granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples (right-wing groups are asking a state court to issue an injunction to stop these marriages and invalidate those performed to date). The city's defense of its actions begins:

For centuries, indeed millennia, homosexual persons have been subjected to extreme and humiliating forms of discrimination in all aspects of their lives. The opprobrium directed against gay men and lesbians is a hatred that is based specifically and directly on the identity and gender of the persons they love. At the root of discrimination against homosexuals has always been the distinction between their intimate and personal relationships and the relationships of heterosexuals, which have over the same millennia been celebrated, recognized and supported in thousands of different ways.

As of now, state court judges have turned down the request to halt these marriages, but will hear further arguments next month.

The more weddings that are solemnized in San Francisco and later this year in Massachusetts, the more obvious it will become that the religious right, in demanding that these unions be nullified, is anything but "pro marriage."

0 Comments

Left, Right, and Marriage Lite.

by on

In Europe, it seems, both the gay left and the social right are supporting "marriage lite" in the form of civil unions or, in French, pacte civil de solidarit", for heterosexuals -- the left seeing this as an end-run around an oppressive institution, and the right seeing it as a way to avoid specifically sanctioning gay relationships.

As the New York Times reports:

A government proposal still being considered in Britain, for instance, would allow gay couples to register in civil partnerships that would give them inheritance and pension benefits, and next-of-kin rights in hospitals. But when the government announced its plan last summer, gay groups protested, saying that it discriminated against heterosexuals. "

The civil solidarity pacts in France, in fact, began as a way for gays to formalize their partnerships, but were broadened, when religious and conservative groups objected, to include heterosexuals.

Isn't it nice that the gay left and religious right can find something to agree on!

The Needs of the Party Trump Those of the Individual (Again).

From Tuesday's Wall Street Journal article, "Usually Fractious, Democrats Cut Kerry Some Slack" (sorry, no free link):

Gay and lesbian activists are preparing [to swing behind John Kerry] even though Mr. Kerry opposes gay marriage and hasn't taken a stand on a constitutional amendment to prohibit it in his home state. ...

"What the Democrats are saying is, we're not going to sweat the small stuff," explains Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the Black Caucus chairman. ...

Dean backer Elizabeth Birch, former executive director of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, [sic] predicts that Mr. Kerry would "receive tremendous support" from gays and lesbians despite his opposition to gay marriage. ...

Actually, as previously noted herein, Kerry has said he could back a state constitutional amendment if the right language can be found (that is, banning marriage but allowing lesser civil unions or domestic partnerships), while leaving it to his gay liaison to convey his opposition to a federal amendment. But why let such small stuff stand in the way of party unity?

Of course, gay Republicans who support Bush if/when he endorses a constitutional amendment would be in the same boat.

Am I guilty of holding Democrats to a somewhat higher standard than the GOP, in that both Bush and Kerry oppose gay marriage? Yes, in that Democrats campaign as the champions of gay rights. This gets them many, many gay votes that, based on issues such as the economy, social security reform, national security, etc. would otherwise go to the GOP, all things being equal. So I don't apologize for calling Democrats on the carpet for false advertising.

0 Comments

Why the ‘M’ Word Matters To Me

by on

First published February 16, 2004, in Time magazine.

As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was. I grew up in a traditional home - Catholic, conservative, middle class. Life was relatively simple: education, work, family. I was raised to aim high in life, even though my parents hadn't gone to college. But one thing was instilled in me. What mattered was not how far you went in life, how much money you earned, how big a name you made for yourself. What really mattered was family and the love you had for one another.

The most important day of your life was not graduation from college or your first day at work or a raise or even your first house. The most important day of your life was when you got married. It was on that day that all your friends and all your family got together to celebrate the most important thing in life: your happiness - your ability to make a new home, to form a new but connected family, to find love that put everything else into perspective.

But as I grew older, I found that this was somehow not available to me. I didn't feel the things for girls that my peers did. All the emotions and social rituals and bonding of teenage heterosexual life eluded me. I didn't know why. No one explained it. My emotional bonds to other boys were one-sided; each time I felt myself falling in love, they sensed it, pushed it away. I didn't and couldn't blame them. I got along fine with my buds in a nonemotional context, but something was awry, something not right. I came to know almost instinctively that I would never be a part of my family the way my siblings might one day be. The love I had inside me was unmentionable, anathema. I remember writing in my teenage journal one day, "I'm a professional human being. But what do I do in my private life?"

I never discussed my real life. I couldn't date girls and so immersed myself in schoolwork, the debate team, school plays, anything to give me an excuse not to confront reality. When I looked toward the years ahead, I couldn't see a future. There was just a void. Was I going to be alone my whole life? Would I ever have a most important day in my life? It seemed impossible, a negation, an undoing. To be a full part of my family, I had to somehow not be me. So, like many other gay teens, I withdrew, became neurotic, depressed, at times close to suicidal. I shut myself in my room with my books night after night while my peers developed the skills needed to form real relationships and loves. In wounded pride, I even voiced a rejection of family and marriage. It was the only way I could explain my isolation.

It took years for me to realize that I was gay, years more to tell others and more time yet to form any kind of stable emotional bond with another man. Because my sexuality had emerged in solitude - and without any link to the idea of an actual relationship - it was hard later to reconnect sex to love and self-esteem. It still is. But I persevered, each relationship slowly growing longer than the last, learning in my 20s and 30s what my straight friends had found out in their teens. But even then my parents and friends never asked the question they would have asked automatically if I were straight: So, when are you going to get married? When is your relationship going to be public? When will we be able to celebrate it and affirm it and support it? In fact, no one - no one - has yet asked me that question.

When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses. Churches can and should have the right to say no to marriage for gays in their congregations, just as Catholics say no to divorce, but divorce is still a civil option. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category - civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever - may alleviate real human needs, but by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

It's too late for me to undo my past. But I want above everything else to remember a young kid out there who may even be reading this now. I want to let him know that he doesn't have to choose between himself and his family anymore. I want him to know that his love has dignity, that he does indeed have a future as a full and equal part of the human race. Only marriage will do that. Only marriage can bring him home.

0 Comments

San Francisco, California, USA.

by on

It would be hard to remain unmoved by the raw emotion of what's happened in San Francisco this weekend, as the city issued marriage licenses and conducted weddings for same-sex couples. The SF Chronicle reports:

They came in wedding dresses and tiaras, in suits and ties, in sneakers and baseball caps, with cameras and friends and armsful of flowers. Some had made advance plans, while others left work in a rush when the call came at midday: Get to City Hall. Now.

And, in another Chronicle story:

Gay and lesbian couples from as far as New York, Texas, Florida, Minnesota and Georgia, as well as others from all corners of the state, have heeded Mayor Gavin Newsom's invitation to marry, even if it meant driving all night or hopping on a plane.

The AP/Washington Post tells us:

The numbers have been so overwhelming -- nearly 1,000 couples as of 1:30 p.m. Saturday with the line still around the block -- the city has deputized marriage commissioners. -- Someone carried a sign: "50 Percent of State Marriages End in Divorce. Are You Worried We Can Do Better."

The fundamentalists are seeking a court injunction to block all this, and to put asunder those now joined together. Increasingly, the ugly intolerance beneath their "pro-family" mask is being exposed.

The Needs of the Party Trump Those of the Individual.

Yet another Chronicle story reports that:

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank called [San Francisco Mayor] Newsom. The veteran gay representative told the mayor to drop the idea -- the time wasn't right.

No, mustn't embarrass John Kerry, even if it means putting barricades around city hall to keep the gay masses out.

More Recent Postings

2/08/04 - 2/14/04

0 Comments

Marriage and Mendacity.

by on

On this St. Valentine's Day, Massachusetts is on the verge of granting marriage licenses to gay couples and San Francisco has already begun doing so.

Writes columnist Ellen Goodman:

When the gay rights movement focused on marriage, it changed the image of homosexual America. Today the gay poster couples are middle-aged parents with a kid, a golden retriever and a soccer schedule. The "gay agenda" is a wedding.

For better or for worse, I suppose. Meanwhile, more than 100 members of Congress have co-sponsored the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, and White House aides say President Bush is about to endorse it. John Kerry opposes a federal amendment, but thinks states should amend their own constitutions to ban gay marriages.

The Washington Post has an excellent feature on the debate over what the proposed federal amendment actually says, when it says:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Some of its backers claim this would not prohibit states from recognizing Vermont-style civil unions, and much of the media (including the hapless New York Times) have reported this assertion as if it were so. But it's increasinlgy evident the phrase "marital status or the legal incidents thereof" would also prohibit recognition/enforcement of civil unions and domestic partnerships, or else the words would have no purpose.

And, as the Washington Post story notes:

Two of the amendment's principal authors, professors Robert P. George of Princeton and Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School, contend that the opening sentence also would forbid some kinds of civil unions. ...

Gay rights groups contend that the phrase about "legal incidents" of marriage would bar civil unions, and that evangelical Christian organizations are trying to sell the amendment to the public as more moderate than it is.

In the cultural wars, it seems, the first casualty is truth.

More Mendacity.

If Bush is flat-out wrong, at least we know where he stands. As the Washington Blade editorializes, John Kerry wants to confuse his views and is succeeding:

In an interview this week on National Public Radio, Kerry expressed support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. His campaign staff quickly reassured a Blade reporter the next day that Kerry was talking about an amendment to the Massachusetts state Constitution and that he maintains his opposition to the federal amendment.

Of course the national radio audience that heard Kerry didn't learn of that distinction, because the question was not specifically addressed to the Massachusetts state Constitution and neither was Kerry's answer. It was the second time in recent weeks Kerry has fudged the gay marriage issue.

Not exactly a profile in courage, is it?

Gay Activists at Work (Sort Of).

IGF contributing author Paul Varnell takes a sharp-eyed look at the salaries being paid to leaders of gay organizations -- sometimes in excess of what other comparably sized nonprofits pay (GLAAD's Joan Garry, last year's top-paid gay leader at $210,000 according to a Washington Blade survey Paul cites, rakes in "a stunning 5 percent of her organization's total annual revenues").

And what do you get for your money. Often, inanities like the following from the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Assocation (NLGJA). Of all the issues regarding the reporting, and misreporting, of the Federal Marriage Amendment, the PC squad at the NLGJA has decided to unleash its ammunition against the (get this) use of the terms "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" by the press. Declares an "Open Letter from the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association to the News Industry on Accurate Reporting About Marriage for Gays and Lesbians" (from Pamela Strother, Executive Director):

The terms "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" are inaccurate and misleading. The decision made by the Massachusetts court affects the state's existing marriage law. The court has ordered the state to apply the existing law equally to gay and lesbian couples as early as May 2004. The accurate terminology on-air, in headlines and in body type should be "marriage for gays and lesbians."

Oh, sure, I can just see that phrase making it into headlines. The press, of course, will rightfully ignore such stupidity, but it's a sad statement of just how weak our national organizations are, as we embark on what may be the fight of our lives.

More Recent Postings

2/08/04 - 2/14/04

0 Comments

Bush’s Folly.

by on

I can't disagree with Democratic strategist Jim Jordan on this one. As the Washington Post reports, Bush is expected to endorse the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Says Jordan:

"When Republicans are in a pinch, they always look for the cultural wedge issue," he said. "Bush's margin of victory in 2000, such as it was, came from moderate suburban voters taking Bush's word that he was a different kind of Republican, a compassionate conservative. Issues like this look mean-spirited."

Hedging His Bets.

Democratic frontrunner John Kerry seemed to be telling National Public Radio this week he, too, could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, saying:

"Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union. I'm for partnership rights."

But as for same-sex marriage, his opposition is so strong he'd consider favoring an amendment:

"Marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church, between a man and a woman, and I think there's a separate meaning to it."

And you don't want to sully something as sacred as marriage with homosexuals, do you?

While the NPR interviewer appeared to be asking about amending the federal Constitution, Kerry's gay liaison quickly protested that Kerry thought he was answering a question about amending the Massachusetts state constitution, and affirmed that Kerry is against the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. In other words, Kerry can plausibly argue to be on both sides of the gay marriage issue -- shades of his Iraqi position(s). He's only for constitutionally banning same-sex marriage in the one state where it might otherwise happen.

Now let's see what the gay Democratic activists do. Chances are they'll defend Kerry's mixed messages, reiterate that Bush and the GOP are responsible for all evil in the world, and party hardy in Boston.

Meanwhile, Time this week reports:

As Air Force One flew to South Carolina last week, the President made clear his opposition to gay marriage but added, "I'm not against anybody," according to Jim DeMint, a Republican Congressman who was aboard. "If some people want to have a contract, that's O.K., but marriage is the foundation of society." Though it was an offhand comment, the idea that Bush might favor some kind of "contract" for gay couples -- presumably a type of state recognition -- is astonishing when you look back at the brief history of the gay-marriage debate.

No, I'm not defending Bush or excusing his actions -- just noting that even the conservative GOP camp has moved quite far from where it was a few years ago.

A final thought: If the amendment can be stopped, the advancement toward full equality for gay Americans will have jumped forward exponentially. If the amendment succeeds, we'll be frozen in place for a generation. Those who stand up to popular prejudice and defend our Constitution, as written, will be true profiles in courage. We know Bush is on the wrong side of this one; Kerry -- to date -- is trying to have it both ways.

0 Comments

National Gay Leaders: Worth the Price?

by on

First published on February 11, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

Back in the early years of the AIDS epidemic, you could scarcely go out to bars on weekend nights without paying a door charge "for AIDS" or being asked by some fresh-face young man to contribute to AIDS education. Bars held raffles, sales, fundraisers garnering anywhere from a few hundred to several hundred dollars.

Then the head of some AIDS group would step forward, accept the money and thank the crowd for "helping support the fight against this dread disease," telling us how wonderful we all were. And we would smile and applaud because we knew we were helping the fight against AIDS and we were wonderful.

For years, I cheerfully contributed a few dollars each time I was asked. After all, it was a worthy cause, I knew people with AIDS, some dying, and I was glad to help as much as I could.

Then sometime in the late 1980s I read that the head of the largest local gay health organization doing AIDS work was paid a salary of something like four or five times my admittedly rather unimpressive annual income at the time.

That made me stop and think. And I stopped contributing. The amounts this woman was gushing over and thanking people for contributing would barely pay her salary for a day or two, much less go to help anyone with AIDS. If she were so concerned about AIDS, I wondered, how much of her own salary she was contributing?

And this was while I was doing a considerable amount of volunteer AIDS-advocacy work of my own within the all-volunteer state gay advocacy organization.

So I resolved to make no more contributions to AIDS groups unless there were full disclosure. That is, unless I knew how much the executives made, how much money actually went to useful projects, and what specific things the money went for. And that information was seldom if ever available.

I thought back to all this when I recently read an article in the Washington Blade detailing the salaries of executive directors of more than a dozen gay advocacy groups.

Joan Garry, executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, headed the list with salary and benefits of about $210,000. Next was Elizabeth Birch, until recently head of the Human Rights Campaign, paid a total of $200,000. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund's Kevin Cathcart was third at not quite $200,000. Kevin Jennings, founder and head of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network earns about $165,000. And so forth.

These salaries are higher than most of us earn, at least more than I earn. I suppose they are not out of line with salaries in other social advocacy groups. If they seem high, maybe we are too used to thinking of gay advocacy as something you do as some sort of personal sacrifice.

And, after all, executive directors do have responsibility for the survival and growth of their organizations: setting policy, hiring staff, being a spokesperson, keeping the money flowing in, and doing what we hope is effective advocacy.

Still, since that moment of revelation years ago, my standards for contributing have risen. Fundraising letters waving the bloody shirt of religious right have no impact on me. Don't tell me about the menace, tell me what you are going to do about it. I want specifics. I figure if they are soliciting our money, we have the right, the obligation, to know what they are going to do with it. And how do we do that? Do they issue annual reports of what they achieved with the money we gave last year? Don't even ask.

In my book Kevin Jennings gets a free pass. He founded GLSEN, working courageously in the minefield of homosexuality and young people. He has written books, given innumerable speeches to educators and sparked those high school Gay/Straight Alliances. If anyone deserves his salary Jennings does. And Cathcart's Lambda Legal files high profile suits against unjust laws and policies and often wins. Perhaps no other gay organizations achieve such obvious results with so comparatively little money.

But the others? Especially GLAAD, best known for holding glittery fundraisers and award ceremonies "honoring" pop culture personalities, piggybacking on other people's achievements. And when we learn that Garry's $210,000 salary is a stunning 5 percent of her organization's total annual revenue of $4 million, something seems awry. Do they need my $25? I'm sure Garry can afford groceries without it.

I don't in principle begrudge executives making more money than I do, even a lot more. Maybe they deserve it. Some certainly do. But if they still want me to contribute, they had better give me a really good reason to contribute to them rather than any one of several other groups.

Just for starters, keep in mind that most statewide gay organizations are desperately poor - yet the state level is where most gay political issues are being decided - gay adoption and foster care, hate crime and civil rights laws, gay marriage and partnership issues, and state ratification or rejection of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.

0 Comments

Brotherhood of Man.

by on

The Alliance for Marriage, a coalition of religious groups backing the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriage, has a slight problem. As this Washington Post story indicates, the anti-gay Christian groups want both anti-gay Islamic groups and anti-gay Jewish groups in the alliance (apparently, they're committed multiculturalists). But the anti-gay Jewish groups and the anti-gay Islamic groups seem actually to hate each other more than they hate gays. So the Islamic groups have now left.

Alas, as the Post reports:

Both supporters and opponents of the alliance said the departures are unlikely to have much political impact, because the Muslim groups still support the alliance's goal".

So gay-bashing may prove to be the ultimate uniter, after all.

Another look at Islamic homophobia is provided by this sad story, also from the Post, about a gay Palestinian living illegally in Tel Aviv with his Israeli lover. He can't stay in Israel, thanks to the Intifada, and he can't go back to the West Bank either, because of Arab homophobia.

The Sanctity of Marriage, Again.

State Sen. Bill Stephens, sponsor of a proposed amendment to Georgia's constitution that would ban gay marriage, is getting some unwelcome publicity. As reported in the Southern Voice, Stephens was married for 15 years and had two sons before he and his wife divorced in 1991, "in part because she heard persistent allegations that he was having an extramarital affair," the paper says.

Moreover, "The Catholic Church granted a religious annulment in 1996, clearing the way for him to remarry." Thus, the church rendered the little Stephenses bastards in its eyes, all in the name of upholding the sanctity of marriage by refusing to recognize divorce so that a homophobe could stay a faithful Catholic while leaving his wife and then campaigning to prevent gays from marrying.

More Recent Postings

2/01/04 - 2/07/04

0 Comments