I almost got married 23 years ago. To my then-girlfriend. We were going to get married in a local MCC; flowers. dress and everything. We knew it wouldn’t be legal. At the time, we didn’t care (at least I didn’t) about that; it was the thought and the intent that counted for us.

All these years later, our country has taken another baby step for her to really marry the woman that she loves and with whom she is raising a family. Yesterday, Judge Vaughn Walker of the 9th District Circuit Court finally issued his ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Proposition 8, voted into law by Californians in 2008, prohibited the state from recognizing same sex marriages performed on or after Nov. 5, 2008. Judge Walker found the law violated the equal protection and the due process clauses of the US Constitution.

There’s a great opinion piece in today’s New York Times, entitled “Marriage is a Constitutional Right”. Hat tip to The Rachel Maddow Show’s blog, who has a great piece today on two weaknesses in the ruling.

There has been a stay issued, and there is the little matter of it most likely going to the US Supreme Court (gee, I wonder how they’ll rule on this one). But for now, it’s another baby step toward equality for all in our country.

As the three of you who read this know, i am not a lawyer. I love reading about the law and court cases, but other than that… So take the following comments for exactly what they’re worth.

Mr. Charles Cooper, one of the lawyers for the defendants, did an ineffective job in the closing statements, in my personal opinion. A couple of things that stood out to me, which the judge questioned him about in detail:

Cooper made the argument that marriage is both designed for procreation only and to discourage “irresponsible procreation”.

THE COURT:
to marriage to people their own.
MR. COOPER:
It does not insist –
THE COURT:
But the state doesn’t withhold the right who are unable to produce children of their own.
MR. COOPER:
That’s true, your Honor, it does not.
THE COURT:
Are you suggesting that the state should, to fulfill the purpose of marriage that you have described?
MR. COOPER:
No, sir, your Honor. It is by no means a necessary — a necessary condition or a necessary requirement to fulfilling the state’s interests in naturally potentially procreative sexual relationships.
THE COURT:
Well, then, the state must have some interest wholly apart from procreation.
MR. COOPER:
It doesn’t necessarily follow that that is true…

Therefore, as an infertile woman married to a man, we should get a divorce immediately. Mr. Cooper, I thank you and my soon-to-be-ex-husband thanks you.

On the subject of marriage, and why it should only be for opposite sex couples (Cooper’s point), I especially liked this quote from Judge Walker:

THE COURT: Parental responsibilities don’t depend upon how the child came into the world. Parental responsibilities extend to adoptive parents who had nothing to do with the creation of the child physically. They extend to in-laws and grandparents and a host of other people who are not involved in any way in the — at least directly, in the creation of this child as a human being.

Judge Walker asked a lot of questions, bringing Mr. Cooper continually back to the trial, to the witnesses, to defend his position. I was impressed enough to think at the time:
No mater what happens, at least it’ll be fair.

The judge was equally inquisitive with Mr Olson, arguing for the plaintiffs. All of the judge’s questions seemed, to me at least, to show that he was paying attention, that he took this case extremely seriously, and didn’t consider his verdict to be a foregone conclusion – no matter what his verdict/written opinion turns out to be.

There was also the sense that they were all talking to the inevitable chain of courts leading to the US Supreme Court. As of 10:30 MDT today, Judge Walker has not issued his opinion and verdict.

Cross posted to my Square State diary.

The most fun way seems to be the Great Global Kiss-In; held everywhere on earth but here, apparently. Which makes me sad. But anyway.

Biphobia is something I’m the most familiar with for obvious reasons. I’ll just say this:

If you’ve read this blog for longer than today, you already know somebody who is bisexual. I’m not a horrible monster (at least not today). I’ve got no interest in stealing away your wife/husband/partner/whatever – been happily married for 21+ years, thanks for asking. I don’t need “one of each” to be happy; although it’s fun for a little while, I found poly relationships to be unsustainable for me. Not that it doesn’t work for anybody, just not for me. It’s a “phase” that’s been ongoing for…far longer than I want to tell you. Most bisexual women and men are pretty much like me. Like you. We’re not unicorns, we’re real (Oh HAI Dan Savage! ) and we’re not going away any time soon.

If you’d like to read more, here are some of my favorite posts from this morning:

• From Lurleen at Pam’s House Blend: Good Morning and Happy International Day Against Homophobia!
• Joe.My.God’s post featuring an awesome Kiss-in video
• Chally’s post at Feministe.

I think you guys already know my feelings about religion. But take a look at the religion section of the IDAHO website (Iink above). That pretty much sums it up.

Dr. Reker’s story looks like just another self-hating closeted gay man who’s been outed. But he’s not just any closet case. Nope. Dr. Rekers is one of the co-founders, along with James Dobson, of the Family Research Council. Amusingly enough, Tony Perkins and the FRC are doing everything they can to distance themselves from this guy. But no matter.

Rekers is also a Baptist minister who has preached hatred and intolerance from his pulpit, much like another self-hating closeted bigot I remember by the name of Ted “I only do it when I’m high” Haggard. Incidentally, Haggard ad some words to say on the subject of Dr. Rekers in an interview with the Advocate this week (this courtesy of The Bilerico Project):

“I know exactly what it feels like to have both sides hating you bitterly,” Haggard said. “Some Christians will throw him away. Some gays will crusade against him.”

Oh Ted. If only you had practiced a little more of that Christian tolerance and love none of that would have happened to you. But anyway. That’s what made me write about this. When Susie Bright started “Bet on Ted”, her pool to see how long it would take before Haggard finally came out, I wrote about my feelings about Ted at the time.

Why would any of this be important to me as an adoptive parent? It’s because Rekers and people like him would rather see children age out of foster care, carrying their belongings in a Hefty bag from foster placement to foster placement, rather than being a part of a loving, stable, two parent home – if those two parents happen to be a same-sex couple. This is the man who is responsible for the bans on same-sex adoption in both Florida and Arkansaas. This is the “expert witness” Florida’s Attorney General used to defend the legal challenge against FL’s adoption ban (only one of two people he could find willing to testify in court, by the way). He was the expert witness picked by the Arkansas attorney general to defend Arkansas’ same-sex adoption ban, which was finally overturned last month.

This is merely my opinion, but Rekers is deserving of just as much love and compassion as he has shown to others. Especially to potential adoptive families.

On the bright side, all this has gotten me reading an awesome blog more regularly, Joe.My.God. He’s done some terrific reporting on this story, and is trying to make certain that Lucien is ok.

*Yes, I realize that Lucien is not his real name. Yes, I realize that he’s already dealing with way more shit than he bargained for. But none of this is his fault – he had no idea that Rekers wasn’t who he said he was until the story broke.

As anybody who knows me could say, I’m not a good one to offer advice. Unless, of course, you’re wondering how not to come out to family and friends.