Freedom to Marry

My name is Larry Ingalls, and as you probably already know I'm here to talk to you about a legal precedent that’s being set in the state of Hawaii. In the case Baehr Vs. Lewin, two lesbian couples and one gay couple have filed suit to obtain legal marriage licenses which they are currently denied in all 50 states, not just in Hawaii.

Many of us have filed similar suits in various states in the past, but this time it looks like it may actually go through. The State of Hawaii guarantees equal protection under the law, regardless of gender. So, because of that the Supreme Court of Hawaii has said that unless the State can come up with a compelling state interest to deny same-gender couples the right to marry, it’s unconstitutional to bar them from all the privileges and responsibilities that marriage accords.

The civil right to marriage is one of the most basic privileges of citizenship. When Americans are denied the right to marry each other they are being told whom they may and may not call “family.” Though marriage has traditionally been defined as a union between a man and a woman, at different times it has also been defined as unions between people of the same race, the same religion, or in which wives were the property of their husbands. Today, we realize that the choice of a marriage partner belongs to each man or woman, not to the state.

I have a whole lot to say in a little bit of time, so here’s where I’m going to talk kind of fast so that we can get it all in. And we will get it all in. I’m going to tell you a little bit about myself and probably a couple of stories to illustrate what’s going on in the U.S. today; and then I want to talk a little bit about the implications of this whole marriage issue.

I’ve been in public speaking for a few years now; mostly in the areas of business and computer training. What got me started talking about this particular subject, and Lesbian and Gay issues in general, was my birthday this year. Back on March 25th I turned 29 years old (for the very first time). A couple of weeks after that I was reading in the paper that back on my birthday the State of Montana passed a law requiring Lesbians and Gays to register with the state as criminals -- just like rapists and child molesters are required to register with state and local authorities. Not for anything we had done, you understand. Just for being Lesbian or Gay.

I read that and I thought, “Wow. Time for me to speak up.” So here I am talking to all of you. Fortunately, a number of civil rights groups got Montana to immediately overturn its own law. The point, though, is that it was introduced and passed almost unanimously in the first place.

Mostly what I'm here to talk to you about is marriage, and I'm intentionally not using the words "gay marriage" because when you say gay marriage that makes it sound like we're after a right or privilege that other people don't already have. We're not. We want the same thing everyone else has: When we get married, and we DO get married, we want our marriages to be legally recognized.

What if marriage were abolished everywhere for everyone in the United States and not just Gays and Lesibians? Suppose Federal and local authorities said, "That's it. No more marriage, for anyone. You can live together and even have kids if you want, but we're abolishing the institution of marriage." What would that do to families and relationships of all kinds? What kind of chaos would that cause?

It turns out you don't have to do that to the entire population to see what the results would be, because it works exactly the same way on a smaller scale when you deny just a segment of the population the right to marry.

There are things we take for granted in everyday life in modern day America. You know, if you're Black it probably doesn't occur to you that you're allowed to sit anywhere on a bus and not just the seats in the back. If you're a woman and you see or hear a political advertisement you probably don't think to yourself, "Gosh, I can vote. Just like a man!" That's not how you approach those issues -- that's not how you approach those issues anymore.

Most of us take the idea of getting married for granted. Really, when most of us think of getting married we think "do I want to" or "will I" or "when will I." I can t do that. I can t take it for granted because I can't get legally married. When I think about getting married I think "Why can t I?"

If I wanted to marry a woman, I could. That's true. If I wanted to marry a Black woman, I could. My dad could not have, but I can. And I make that point because there are no arguments against same-gender marriages that are not identical to the arguments you hear against interracial marriages. The only difference is that as of 1969 interracial marriages are no longer illegal in this country, but same gender marriages are still not legally recognized anywhere in the United States.

We're often told that we DO have the right to marry, we just have to meet the requirements: Marry the opposite gender, like most people. That is no different than telling my father, Sure, you have the right to marry, as long as it's within your own race. Just like interracial couples can't change the fact that they have two different skin colors, same-gender couples can't change the fact that they re both women or both men.

Most or all of the arguments against interracial and same gender marriages come from a religious or a pseudo-religious perspective -- it's unnatural or it's immoral are the big ones -- and I'm not even going to get into all the various religions we have in this country because I'm not here to try to change your religious beliefs or ideals.

What we are seeking is the legal recognition of our relationships, not the religious recognition of our relationships, and they are completely separate issues. All of the plaintiffs, by the way, in the Hawaii case who are against my having the right to marry are all very wealthy religious groups (most notably the Mormons and Catholics). The big argument the radical religious groups make -- well, the current argument the religious groups are making (it keeps changing) -- is that if you legalize same-gender marriages that will force churches to perform gay marriages and that tramples on their religious freedom and is therefore unconstitutional.

There's no truth to that, but right now it's enough to stay the decision of the court in Hawaii while they put a case against it. Actually, it's an outright lie. For example, under the way the law works right now if you are a legally married man and woman and you get a legal divorce, you can remarry, and your second marriage is legally recognized in all 50 states. It is not recognized by the Catholic church, anymore than a gay marriage is recognized by the Catholic church. But the fact that a church or religious group doesn't recognize your marriage makes it in no way less legally binding. And that's because the legal recognition and the religious recognition of a marriage are completely separate issues.

The flip side of the whole church issue, by the way, is that there are churches that do sanctify same-gender marriages. In addition to any Buddhist Temple, there are some Quaker churches and some Episcopalian churches and many non-denominational churches that perform same-gender marriages. They all feel slighted by the law because only some of the marriages they perform are legally recognized, and not all of the marriages they perform.

I want to talk a bit about the benefits and consequences of extending the right to marry to some people while denying it to others because what you're really talking about is the extension of the full rights and privileges of American citizenship to some Americans, but denying it to others. You know, my boss and several of the people I work with are not American citizens. They're from South Africa and Iran and El Salvador -- they're from all over the world, and they can all get married in my country and I can't. I have a problem with that.

I have a friend who is Scottish and she was teasing me one night about the fact that she's not even an American citizen, but she can get married here and I can't. Ha ha. That was a mistake (teasing me about that) but it turned out to be a good thing because much of what I ended up telling her was what I'm saying to all of you tonight.

Suffice it to say that it's upsetting to Lesbians and Gays the older we get, the longer we live within the bounds of the law the longer we pay our share of taxes, etc. that we are not accorded the same rights and privileges that everyone else is.

I am an American citizen (by birth and by choice), and I expect the full rights and privileges of American citizenship. There's nothing special or even a little bit strange about that.

Still, most people are resistant to granting the right to marry to two men or two women. And feelings have a lot to do with that. It's not a matter of conscious reasoning. Feelings tend to have more to do with the decision making process than rational thought. Most people do not look at me and consciously think to themselves, "That fag has no business expecting all the rights that I have! I'm straight for heavens sake!" People just aren't like that. It comes down to how you feel about something. Even if you're one of those people who thinks that the adult that I choose to marry should be my decision and not some religious group that I don't belong to -- how would you feel if you saw two women kissing each other? Or two men holding hands standing in line for a movie? For some people that's very, very disturbing.

For my grandparents, who are wonderful people, for them to see two men holding hands is as disturbing as it is for them to see a black man and a white woman holding hands. My grandmother is 82 years old, and she has confided in me that interracial relationships really bother her, and she's embarrassed about it. But even being embarrassed about her feelings doesn't make her feelings any different. In her words, "It just doesn't seem right. It's not natural."

The thing that is so hard to remember while you're experiencing bigoted feelings is this: Real feelings are not indicative of real circumstances or situations. My grandmother really does feel repulsed by same gender couples and interracial couples. "It just seems unnatural." She really does feel that, but her very authentic feelings that it's wrong do not make that situation authentically wrong. They're just her feelings, and most people do not make that distinction when making decisions about something.

Some people really do feel that being Lesbian or Gay is a choice, and I won't go into the arguments for or against that position because it doesn't matter, in this country, whether or not it really is a choice.

Every interracial couple in this country could choose to marry or date within their own race. Every woman with a career could choose to stay home and make babies. Every Jew in America could choose to become Christian.

To say to me, "Sure, you can get married; as long as it's to a woman. Don't tell us you're being discriminated against." That is no different than telling a Black person, "Sure, you can ride the bus. But make sure you only sit in the back seats, because you'll get where you're going just as fast and just as comfortably as you would if you were allowed to sit anywhere you wanted. Don't tell us your being discriminated against"

So what would happen today if YOUR marriage were legally reduced to the status of "friendship" or "roommates"? Think of your husband or your wife and try to seriously consider what life would be like if your marriage were no longer legally recognized. If you're not married, and you never have any intention of being married, play along with the rest of us and try to imagine being legally barred from marriage. This is how I and millions of other Gays and Lesbians live, everyday, in America.

Despite your wedding, your public declaration, your church ceremony and your commitment to each other, you and your spouse are now legally just roommates. Okay? Do you both still have health insurance coverage? Maybe. Maybe not. Would you be able to file a joint tax return? Would you have access to your spouse's pension, Medicare or Social Security benefits? Would you be able to take bereavement leave from work if your spouse died? And if your spouse did die would you be the one deciding whether or not he or she were buried or cremated, and if buried, where? The answer to all of the above, and a whole bunch of other things, is NO. Absolutely not. "Roommates" and "Friends" do not get to make those kinds of decisions for one another. Only legal family members make those kinds of decisions.

I used to know a married couple named Michael and Robert who were married for six years. They had been together for 11 years, but they were actually married for six of those 11 years. They had a formal ceremony in their church with all of their family and friends there. And even though the State of California denied them a marriage license, they went through with the ceremony anyway. If you've never been to a gay wedding, just picture both grooms and the entire wedding party in tuxedos. The rest isn't all that different.

Robert was a tri-athlete -- he used to compete in marathons and stuff like that -- and one Saturday morning he was down on PCH riding his bike along the coast there and he was hit by a car. He never really woke up from the accident. Part of Robert's skull was crushed on the impact. He had I.D. on him so the hospital called his house and of course Michael rushed down to the hospital as soon as they told him what had happened.

To make a very long and very painful story short, the hospital kept them separated while Robert died. They made Michael sit in the waiting room, alone, while Robert died in the intensive care unit, alone, just 2 or 3 doors down the hall. You see, when someone is that critically injured and they're in intensive care they only allow family members in to see the patient. Legally, Michael was just his roommate. These men had spent every day of their lives together for the last 11 years, but still they kept them separate and Robert died all alone while Michael sat all alone just 2 or 3 doors down the hall.

Now, Michael didn't say this, but here's my assessment of that situation: Whoever was making decisions at the hospital that day had something against Gays and Lesbians because, I think, humane people would have allowed even "just friends" or "just roommates" to be together while one of them died. It was cruel under any circumstances, however you look at it, to make Michael sit there waiting to be told, "Oh, your friend died a few minutes ago."

My point in telling you this story is that Michael had no legal recourse against the hospital. If he had called the police and said, "They won't let me in to see Robert "the police would have had no choice but to tell him that hospital rules are hospital rules. Our hands were tied. If the hospital says family only, there's really nothing we can do about that.

If he had taken it upon himself to force his way into intensive care, (which is what I probably would have done) the hospital would have called the police, and then he would have been waiting at the police station with no chance at all to see Robert before he died. At least there in the waiting room they were able to dangle hope in front of him, that maybe they'd change their minds and let him see Robert before he died. Which, in fact, they didn't do and he died alone.

I want you to please think of your husband or your wife or ANYONE you love and value when I tell you this and really put yourself in Michael s situation; knowing that your loved one is definitely going to die and that they're just 2 or 3 doors down the hall. The doctor or nurse on duty, for whatever reason, doesn't feel that you should love and value this person. So they keep you in a waiting room while your loved one dies alone. And it's all perfectly legal. It was a horrible thing for Michael. It was a horrible thing.

I thought that that was all bad enough, but it actually gets a little worse and, again, I'll keep it brief. Michael and Robert were very close to Michael's family here in California. They were not at all close to Robert's family back east. They didn't even call them at holidays and things like that. But Michael had to call them and tell them that Robert was dead. And when he did call them Robert's father and sister came out to California and in short order they wiped out Michael and Robert's life savings, they took their car, their TV, stereo, VCR, most of their personal belongings -- they basically took everything that wasn't too big to take back with them like the sofa and refrigerator, stuff like that. And they did it all legally because the law says that "next of kin" inherits the property of a deceased person, not "roommates." See, if you re not married you can't have things like joint credit cards and things like that, and since Robert handled all their finances much of everything they owned was in his name or had been bought with his credit.

The fact that they were married in their church, had both paid for everything they both owned and had spent virtually every day of the last 11 years of their lives together meant nothing in the eyes of the law, because their marriage was not legally recognized. If they had been a man and a woman together for that many years Michael could have at least claimed "Common Law Marriage" and kept his personal belongings. Since they were two men the law said they were just roommates, so he lost everything. He was 36 years old and literally had to start all over again.

Bigots who oppose equal rights for all Americans will tell you that all Americans are equally protected under the Constitution. We don t need to go giving "special rights" to homosexuals. We're not looking for special rights. We're looking for the same rights that everyone else has -- in this case a marriage that is fully recognized by the law so that if a spouse dies we don't also lose our life savings or our homes or our personal belongings, in addition to losing the most important person in our lives.

In order to call something a special right you have to restrict it to a certain group of people. If it weren t restricted, it wouldn't be special it would be common or standard. In this country, in order to get legally married you not only have to be straight (or pretend to be straight) but you also have to marry someone of the opposite gender. THAT'S a special right, and it's restricted to straight people only.

When we point this out to lawmakers and politicians we're told, "Marriage is not a special right. Anyone can get married."

So we say, "Great, we want to get married, too."

And we're immediately told, "No, no, no. You're trying to get special rights. We can't do that."

It's very, very frustrating having to live everyday under that kind of double standard.

There are nothing but benefits to be gained by allowing ALL Americans the right to marry, and even encouraging people to settle down and get married. Getting married really does get people to become more responsible and serious about their lives, for the most part. But you can't take responsibility for something you are denied access to.

There is also nothing but trouble to be gained from denying Americans the right to marry each other. You can't create that kind of upheaval or chaos within a segment of the population and expect it not to affect the entire population. It doesn't work that way.

Okay, we re running out of time so let me wrap this up by telling you this: For most people who are not Gay, the idea of two men or two women legally marrying each other can be anything from a little odd to downright disturbing. And I understand how that can be. If you fall anywhere within that range I would like to remind you of the last really big effect homosexuals had on the American way of life. It was back at the turn of the century, and what we did then was as unthinkable and as unfamiliar at that time as same-gender marriages are today. And it completely changed the face of American society forever. Any ideas?

See, it's so common place now-a-days that we don't even think about it. It was back at the turn of the century when a bunch of lesbians -- a bunch of really pushy lesbians -- got together and they basically said, "We are American citizens, and we have as much right to vote and have a say in our government as any man." And they did, in fact, secure the right to vote for all women (not just for Lesbians).

As strange as it sounds to most of us today, at that time women voting was just unthinkable. It was something that had never been seen before at any time in human history, and it was regarded as unnatural and even as a threat to the American way of life where women held a traditional and clearly defined place in our society.

Despite the radical change created in families by making women equal with men, we now know that extending the full rights and privileges of citizenship to women turned out not to be such a bad thing after all. The same thing will happen later this year if Hawaii becomes the first state to extend all the rights and privileges of American citizenship to all citizens and not just most citizens (like California). It will create turmoil and even civil unrest in some parts of this country, but when all the dust settles what we're going to find is that two people settling down and spending the rest of their lives together is not such an unusual or threatening thing after all.

I want to thank you all for your time and your attention and I hope you'll have me back again if you want to hear more on this or related topics, because there's a whole lot more to be said. Thank you very much.


Here are some commonly asked questions and answers.