Most readers of this column know by now that Juan and I are lead plaintiffs in Martinez v. Kulongoski, the court case aiming to overturn the voter-approved ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage in Oregon.
Juan and I had always planned to be together when the judge announced his ruling on the Measure 36 case. It was that important to us—perhaps the most important moment in our lives. But other commitments made it impossible for both of us to join our fellow plaintiffs at the downtown office of Basic Rights Oregon, the civil-rights group working so hard to end marriage discrimination in our state.
So at 9 am last Friday, as soon as I heard that Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph Guimond had announced his decision, I dialed up Juan at work and said these three painful words:
"We lost, baby."
Now, rather than get knee-deep in all the legal mumbo-jumbo of what this might mean for Oregon, here's what this means for me and my partner.
I shouldn't be surprised that Guimond decided to side with a majority of state voters—after all, gay marriage does mark uncharted territory in Oregon. But what really surprised me was how, the moment the verdict was announced, I had this strange feeling come over me. It was if my soul was being yanked around on a ball and chain. Now, I may be a bit of masochist, but that overwhelming feeling of having no control over your future is tantamount to feeling like a convicted criminal. And that's all because I want exactly the same constitutional protections as any straight person.
Once you begin to realize a majority—a large majority, according to the ballot box last November—of Oregonians see you less as a person and more as a second-class citizen, you begin to lose hope in the abilities of humans to be humane to those who are unlike themselves.
But Guimond's ruling is not the last word, because it gives us an opportunity to take this to a higher court. And it sure looks like that's what we are going to do.
Which brings me back to three other words I'm lucky enough to share with my partner several times a day:
"I love you."
That's what this is all about. The ability to share, and show, the love you have with the person you choose. I really can't think of a nobler mission. Or a more fundamental one. We may suffer through several losses along the way, but ultimately we're going to win this battle.
Mark my words.
Webster and Oxford provide the definition they do because of what Western civilization recognize as a domestic union (and I won't go in to how it got that way). That doesn't mean they are automatically correct. It just means that is what we have come to understand a thing to be.
Do we have the capacity to change? Of course we do. After all, the desire for drastic change is what created the country we love and support -- the United States of America.
This country was BORN through the idea of acceptance, tolerance and the belief that everyone has certain "inalienable rights".
Sure, you can say that our fore fathers didn't have this in mind when they made those distinctions, but the spirit of their declarations DOES, IN FACT, carry with them the possibility for all freedoms. Who are we, as heterosexuals, to say that homosexuals have fewer rights to realize their version of the American dream?
If you ask me, none.
Cheers and peace to all.