This is like an African-American in 1965 saying, "Is the Voting Rights Bill really what we need right now, when we've got so many Black soldiers dying every day in Vietnam?"

It isn't an either-or, Paul. God's a multi-tasker and expects us to be the same.

There is no connection whatever between California's budget problems and same-sex marriage. And I'd think the rector of St. Gregory of Nyssa might have better things to do than to mock the "fabulous weddings" of the professional class, considering the neighborhood it's in and the marriage icon that covers its walls.

Every Friday, St. Gregory of Nyssa holds a food pantry, giving away free groceries to all comers (usually hundreds of people) from the surrounding area. (I recommend reading "Take This Bread" by Sara Miles). Everyone who comes is treated with immense respect, not being ushered into some basement but receiving food right around the altar. This is just one example to show that Rev. Fromberg speaks with authority when he writes that we all should be "doing the hard work of becoming a community" rather than just "throwing a bit of money at a campaign so we can all have fabulous weddings."

Paul – you provide a very good reminder about the connectedness of all of the important issues we face in society right now, and I appreciate your ability to see past an issue that affects you on a deeply personal level to see how it relates to other struggles that brothers and sisters all around the state are facing. Your statement reminded me a lot of something that Desmond Tutu said in one of his books (God Has a Dream, I think) about how all of the issues that face society are interrelated and that none of them should be overlooked. He uses the African term ubuntu to paint the picture he is trying to describe, and explains it as meaning, roughly, “I am who I am, because we are who we are.” If we get lost in our own issues without recognizing how those issues fit into the larger picture for all humanity, then we fail an opportunity to grow closer to humanity and to God. Being able to see, in the midst of this bittersweet court decision, not only that a court decision will never trump the truth and power of one human being’s love for another, but also that that same love calls us to support and move to action to help ALL of our brothers and sisters who face roadblocks to wholeness and equality, is both visionary and a testament to your faith.
I also feel compelled to comment on the first comment left on the post, by Josh Thomas. Josh – It seems to me that you really missed the point of what Paul was trying to say. He never says that it is an either/or, nor does he say that we shouldn’t “multi-task” in our work to make society better. Rather, Paul was pointing out quite the opposite - that it is important to remember the whole, especially during times when the parts can seem so consuming. And I hope that you’re able to see, then, that there ABSOLUTELY is a connection between the State’s Budget crisis and the gay marriage vote/ruling in that they both deeply affect the people of our state. Both issues are causing life for our brothers and sisters here in California to be painful – for teachers, police officers and other state employees, what is going on with the state budget decides if they’re able to provide insurance and food and a roof over the heads of themselves and their loved ones; for gay and lesbian couples, the gay marriage vote/ruling mean an oppression of basic rights afforded to heterosexual couples that effect virtually every arena of life. Paul was saying that its not an either/or, but rather that it has to be a both – evidenced by the fact that he, as a coupled (MARRIED!!) gay man, shouldn’t be MORE concerned about gay marriage simply because it affects him personally, than he is about the issues that are more “removed”, like state budget cuts, or the problems in our state prisons.

Thank you, Paul, for a very thoughtful and well-written piece.

Dear Paul,

Thank you for nailing on the head something that has been bothering me about the whinging after Prop 8 (and my Canadian boyfriend keeps pointing it out to me, the American).

Since the mid80s, the American “gay movement” has been largely white, middle class, secure, and yes, mostly male - and even more so in California! We have largely ignored the injustices that our economic power was helping to create.

Perhaps if we didn’t look so faux-helpless with our cushy tech and fashion jobs and our big houses, our hipster and designer clothes and our fine wines, our music festivals and roving sex parties, our multinational travel budgets, our electronic toys and condos... I'm terribly embarrassed to call us "oppressed" in any but the most covert ways. I bet someone who is *actually* oppressed because of the colour of their skin or their sex would love to trade places with almost any gay white male in California!

If we had gone out into the farms to protest with the workers, if we were to go to the slums and the tenements and the projects with food, maybe, just maybe, we’d have more friends to vote with us.

Maybe if we called foul on the gay business leaders (men and women) who made it all out to be about profit and loss and (their) economic privileged, who complained about anti-Gay attitudes but voted Republican for low taxes, no social services and no "illegal" immigration...

I don't know - I'd rather have a fabulous wedding myself than do the work. It's hard.

Much love,

Huw

What is the most important issue for me? My answer might change on a daily basis. Mostly on the top of the list, however, would be the right to marry legally my partner of twenty-five years. For us, our inability to marry legally has a very immediate, negative impact on our lives. I can’t convey my government health insurance on my younger partner or any of the other benefits I have as a retiree of the Federal government.

Yes, I am also concerned about health care for the poor, the rights of other minorities, and other social issues affecting the quality of the lives of my neighbors. As a civil rights attorney for thirty years, I worked for the equal treatment of African Americans, women and persons with disabilities in the areas cited by the writer. For me, these concerns are not directly related to the ability of my partner and me to marry legally. Extending marriage benefits to same sex couples honors their relationship of love and caring. On this mission, we need to focus on the goal of equality for us and not mix this goal with social ills arising outside this context.
The writer, who is now legally married, can now devote his time more extensively to the other social issues he lists. Gays and lesbians must keep their eyes on the prize. On this issue, focus is critical for victory whether in the courts, the legislatures or by the ballot.

Of course now you have the 1300+ benefits of marriage so I guess you don't see the problem. And just because we work on this issue does not meant we are not doing the rest.

There seems to be a bit of a conflict of interest that a priest in a Christian denomination which treats its LGBTs as second-class members says that equal protection before state laws is less important than other social issues. The issue here is not gay marriage but marriage equality. As the State Supreme Court of Iowa said, all similarly situated persons should be treated alike. Equality and fairness are important moral principles. The law should treat everybody the same and the job of a court is to protect politically unpopular minorities, what in law is called a suspect class. The issue is not gay rights but equal opportunity for everybody. As the current Governor of Massachusetts said, African-American rights and gay rights are not the same but the same arguments are being used against so-called mixed-race marriages forty years ago.

Currently, even after the latest California State Supreme Court decision, which was based on a very weird state constitution, same-sex couples in the State of California still have the right to form legally recognized families, albeit without the word "marriage." Justice Werdegar pointed this out. Domestic partnerships, which Murdoch and I have in addition to our Canadian marriage, are still available. That is more than one can say for the Episcopal Church, which treats same-sex couples as less than equal for purposes of religion. Oh, yes, there are a few liberal dioceses and parishes but they are far from the norm.

I also wonder about the rhetoric of "I don't think X is important."
A denial or negation enables one to raise the object of prohibition, as in "Don't think of X." It can also betray ambivalence, as in "I love X and I hate X."

If one believed that marriage were not that important, divorce would be the honorable thing to do if one wanted to share or identify with those who are denied marriage. It would make one's ethical position more consistent. It would be similar to someone selling all their possessions and giving their money away so they could identify with the poor. But divorce is yet another of the 1324 rights that come with marriage in New York State and that must be similar in California. The author's position is necessarily one of privilege all the while he accuses the fight for marriage equality as one about privilege. He calls his position of privilege "queer," thus reinscribing the word into a context of privilege, all the while claiming to be considered about the marginalized. Yes, I do understand, however, how we are all compromised.

The author trivializes the fight for equal protection when he says that it is about gays giving money so they can have fancy weddings.

Allowing same-sex couples to access the civil institution of marriage is a way to make it clear this is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I would defend someone's right to have a fancy wedding, though the issue is not really about that.

Gary Paul Gilbert

"the American “gay movement” has been largely white, middle class, secure, and yes, mostly male" --Huw

The thing is, the white gay males were the ones with senses of privilege and entitlement that led them to rebel against being treated as disposable scum. We all owe them a debt. Do they tend to be a bit snotty? Perhaps, but you can confront them on that.

If an organization is going good work, you can join in, even if it takes a bit of push. If you don't feel at home, you can organize on your own. What you shouldn't do is complain about the efforts of people who are actually doing something.

Murdoch Matthew
spouse of Gary

Your article definitely gave a different perspective on the issue. Considering your views how can you REALLY consider yourself a "2nd class" citizen? Yes, state governments have supported traditional marriage and defended it when interracial marriage threatened to redefine it, but do you consider polygamous groups 2nd class citizens as well because their loving relationships aren't legally recognized either?

The fact that you got married in city hall by a mayor and not in the sanctity of a willing church seems to show that you see this primarily as a state legal issue and not an issue of church acceptance. If that's so then maybe we should all be considered to be in Civil Unions by the state so that nobody feels legally marginalized. Let us who were married in a church call yourselves married as we always have.

Paul,

Thanks for putting the very real oppression of us gay people in the wider context of oppression period.

When my nephew (23) emailed me four years ago to come out, he ended a very brave letter by saying, "What I cannot accept is that I am going to be hated without reason." (He did not know he was quoting Scripture).

I could only answer pointing to a shared hope that a country based on human rights would see the light eventually, and that in the meantime, he would be able to really identify with the millions of starving, oppressed, exploited, hunted down human beings who also are hated without a reason.