By any means necessary?

The secret is out.

It’s been out for quite a while to be honest with you, which is why it’s kind of surprising that people are still trying to use it legitimately. Nevertheless, on Saturday the 21^st of May, the Rapture didn’t happen and Minnesota joined the ranks of the 29 other states that have allowed voters to decide on whether or not to ban gay marriage by actually amending the state constitution. This isn’t about democracy. In fact, I don’t even think it’s intended to actively discriminate against gay people any more. This is simply about scoring political gains for the Republican Party at the polls in November 2014.

Remember when George W Bush was re-elected? His 2004 campaign was managed by Ken Mehlman. When Mehlman publicly acknowledged he is a gay man last year, he brought a few home-truths out of the closet with him. Namely, that the Republican Party worked very hard to ‘motivate’ religious and conservative voters to the polls by making sure issues like abortion and gay-rights were also on the 2004 ballot. It is, after all, much easier to get people to stand up for what they passionately believe is wrong than to passionately stand up for what they believe is right. And while they’re there, they might as well vote for Bush.

Take another look at that list of states: 14 of them (nearly half) passed their amendments in 2004, GWB scored another term by a landslide and Republicans won majorities in the House and the Senate. Regardless of whether this approach was morally just, it was certainly successful.

Ironically, it can be argued that banning gay marriage through a constitutional amendment is fundamentally anti-Republican. The Republican Party, after all, supposedly stands for limited government intervention and individual liberty – as pointed out by GOProud. But somewhere along the way conservative politics got tangled up in conservative religion and now the two are inseparable...or are they?

Apart from GOProud, there are a few political conservatives willing to stand up for LGBT equality. Mehlman is one of them, and he recently contributed to the Big Think’s debate through this short video. Laura Bush, Lynne Cheney and Cindy McCain have all opposed their husband’s stances and come out in support of gay marriage (or at least said it shouldn’t be banned at the federal level). Perhaps more importantly, New York’s mayor Michael Bloomberg has recently been personally visiting GOP candidates to discuss the issue of gay marriage and has said he will use his significant influence to support any Republican who is willing to stand up for equality.

But I’m not here to pretend there is any hope that the Republican Party will actually change its course.

I’m here to point out that this IS an issue of human rights that affects a minority group, and, as such, it shouldn’t be left to a majority vote. The only thing that will right what Minnesota has just put into motion is if it backfires and motivates people to go to the polls and actually stand up for what is right. I’m here to put into the world a little bit of hope that, by 2012, people will be able to put aside their own personal or religious views and come to the conclusion through a majority vote that it simply shouldn’t be the government’s role to legislate against a person’s right to marry the person they love simply because of gender.

Without Representation

The Stamp Act 1765 was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament on the colonies of British America. It required that some documentation like legal documents, magazines and newspapers were printed on special paper that was produced and stamped in London. It was met with little to no opposition from the members of parliament and was probably enacted solely as a revenue generator for the British government. However, it was met with considerable political opposition in the USA leading to the formation of the Sons of Liberty of Boston Tea Party fame. It also inspired the slogan “no taxation without representation.”

Seriously, why would I bother telling you that?

I’ll admit that after living outside the USA for 8 years now, I’m a bit out of the loop when it comes to local politics, but I am registered to vote in Illinois via my Mom’s address and I’ve voted in all the ‘big’ elections (Yes We Can!).

It was only when I tried to sign an online petition in support of the Uniting American Families Act that I realised how mis-represented I was. The form would only accept my signature if I could provide a US address, so again I used my Mom’s. I used it again a few weeks later when I wrote a letter to Dick Durbin (D-IL) to ask him to co-sponsor the bill because Senator Durbin’s office prioritises responses to residents of Illinois...

The whole point of electing representatives is, after all, to send someone who can represent the aspirations and interests of the electing population to the government...

...but with all due respect, I am not a resident of Illinois.

I am, in fact one of the over 5 million Americans estimated to be living abroad, a community collectively known as the American diaspora. Believe it or not, people move away from the USA all the time, temporarily or permanently, for all kinds of reasons. As pointed out on that link, if the entire diaspora were located on-shore, we would be the 17^th most populous state! However, apart from military personnel, federal employees and their dependents, Americans living abroad are not counted in the US Census, which is used to compile a snapshot of various characteristics of the population (finally including sexual orientation in 2010) and to reapportion seats in the US House of Representatives.

We can still register to vote for any election to Federal office by using the address where we resided immediately prior to leaving the USA, so technically we’re not un-represented. And I know that the geographical delineation of voting districts leads to problems for every minority group. However, I would argue that those of us who have left the USA indefinitely are not accurately represented under this system and (to finally bring it back to the theme of this blog) this compounds discrimination against those of us forced to remain abroad because the USA will not allow us to sponsor our partners for immigration. I have identified the following issues, but there may be more:

1.       When it comes to politics, there is clear strength in numbers. In Sharing is Caring, I pointed out that Americans in binational same-sex relationships and their partners aren’t just minorities in terms of overall numbers. In most cases, they are also invisible, either by choice (to avoid detection) or circumstance (because they have left the country). Immigration Equality estimates that roughly 36,000 couples are affected by this issue, but it is a gross under-estimation because it is based on an interrogation of 2000 US census data. Of those couples who were able to report, many did not reveal their circumstances for fear of revealing their immigration status and those who no longer reside in the USA were not even considered.

2.       Once abroad, there are a number of barriers to voting. In a 2010 report, the Overseas Vote Foundation (OVF) estimated that in 2008 “approximately 6.8% of the overseas civilian population attempted to participate [i.e. vote] and were successful in doing so.” This isn’t just because people who leave the USA can’t be bothered to vote. OVF found that 4% of their survey respondents tried but were unable to complete the registration process, 22% requested a ballot but never received one and, of those ballots received, only 81% were accepted. This indicates a sense of disenfranchisement.

3.       This issue goes on to affect the next generation. Children of binational same-sex couples living outside the USA face the most discrimination. There are challenges in proving their American citizenship at birth, particularly where the non-American partner is the adopting or biological parent. Even if they are able to prove their citizenship, only 18 states allow children born to parents outside the USA to vote.

These three issues lead me to conclude that, due to a combination of social barriers and disenfranchisement, binational same-sex couples are not truly represented in the US political system. The federal government has the ability to enact laws like DOMA that (whether intentionally or not) force Americans like me to move and/or remain abroad. Once abroad, we and our children are significantly limited in our ability to affect political change directly, through voting, or indirectly, through influence. Ironically, though, no matter where we go in the world, we (and our children) are legally required to pay US taxes to continue funding the system that keeps us away.

I say bring back the Sons of Liberty...maybe it’s time we had a Haste Y’all Back Tea Party of our own.

Sharing is Caring

On April 14, 2011, I held my newborn nephew, Wee Man, tight against my chest as he dozed in a state we all refer to as “drunk baby.” With his right eye closed and his left eye rolled back in pure post-feed ecstasy, he cooed rhythmically as I stroked his back and drank in his pure baby smell. In that moment I was so overwhelmed with gratitude at the time I had gotten to spend with him and the rest of my family over the previous two weeks. Sitting in that rocking chair and looking around at my Mom, Grandma, sister-in-law and C all together, my eyes started to fill with tears. I got up and went into my Grandma’s room with Wee Man and wept uncontrollably. I wasn’t ready to say goodbye again.

Although in reality I am only ever a day’s travel away from my family, the distance never feels as vast as when I turn that first corner away from my Mom’s house and watch their waving arms disappear from view. I think this is because I’m never sure what I will be facing when I return. When I kiss my family goodbye, there is a part of me that knows there is a chance I will never see them again. That may seem ridiculous, but it was underlined by my Mom’s accident in 2009. Also, my Grandmother is 92 and even though she is still in remarkable health, I have to accept the fact that even she cannot live forever.

This goodbye drove home a new realisation to me. Wee Man had already changed so much in the 14 days since I had met him and I was distinctly aware of everything I was going to miss between that day and my next arrival. I reflected back on how much I hadn’t experienced in my grandmother’s mother’s and brother’s day-to-day lives and, equally, how much I have not been able to share with them over the previous 8 years and I immediately began to mourn all the time I would not be able to spend with this newest addition to our family.

As if sensing my distress, Wee Man stirred and started to fuss as C came in to comfort me. She has seen me fall to bits like this on two previous visits and knows that there is no stopping it. She lovingly and patiently watched me express my overwhelming frustration and sadness for a third time, even though I know it broke her heart to watch me cry from all the way from my Grandmother’s bedroom to O’hare airport.

I know the same limitations on the amount of quality time I spend with my family would apply to any situation where I didn’t live within easy access and I accept that I made the decision to move away from them in the first place. At the same time, life circumstances change and we should all be able to make choices in response to those changes. The existing legislative framework set out by the US federal government does not give me a choice; it gives me an ultimatum. There is no situation that allows me to live with C and be near my family.

Ironically, as I said yet another goodbye to my family in Illinois, the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) was being re-introduced to Congress by Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to introduce ‘permanent partner’ as a new sponsorship category, defining ‘permanent partner’ as an individual 18 years or older who:

a)      Is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years or older in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment;

b)      Is financially interdependent with that other individual;

c)       Is not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone else;

d)      Is unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act; and

e)      Is not a first, second or third degree blood relative of that individual.

As far as I can tell, point d above means that UAFA would only benefit US citizens and permanent residents looking to sponsor their same-sex partner for immigration. This recognises that heterosexual couples have the choice to enter into marriage if they need to for immigration purposes. In effect, UAFA seeks to add the words “or permanent partner” after every reference to “spouse” throughout the entire Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure immigration equality for all, regardless of sexuality.

As it currently stands, there are no Republicans supporting UAFA in either the House or the Senate, and Democrats seem to be divided on the issue as well. So what exactly is the contention? Rep Nadler pointed out opponents’ two main arguments on MSNBC recently, namely:

1.       Passing UAFA would lead to rampant cases of fraud. Fraud is already a serious concern under the existing system. It is relatively easy for one man and one woman to get a marriage certificate as no one checks to make sure they are a genuine couple when they legally register their union. That places the responsibility on the immigration assessment process to ensure the truthfulness of applicants seeking to settle in the USA as the spouse of a citizen or permanent resident. UAFA opponents feel that introducing ‘permanent partner’ as a new sponsorship category will make it even easier for people to cheat the system. In my opinion, the problem of fraud is an issue to be addressed as part of the wider immigration reforms and it should not be used block immigration equality.

2.       UAFA is a backdoor route to federal support for gay marriage. By specifying an age of consent, exclusivity in the relationship and genetic distance the qualifying criteria by which UAFA defines ‘permanent partner’ closely reflect that required for a man and a woman to enter into marriage (I discussed this in Go Forth and Multiply). However, apart from immigration sponsorship, UAFA does not extend any of the benefits, rights and responsibility associated with marriage to permanent partners. In fact, of the 19 countries that do recognise immigration rights for same-sex couples, only 5 have equalised marriage benefits. I have a feeling this is one of those ‘slippery slope’ arguments that those opposed to the so-called gay agenda makes against any proposal that would grant equal rights to homosexuals.

UAFA has been introduced in some form to every consecutive Congress since 2000 but it has always died in committee. The closest it ever came to being seriously considered was in 2009, when Senator Leahy, who is chairman of the Judiciary committee, bypassed the normal subcommittee and held a hearing to discuss it. You can watch the entire 2009 UAFA hearing here if you have a couple of hours to burn. Watching it this afternoon I was surprised and disappointed that I was watching a conversation from 3 years ago. The testimony statements from those affected by the discrimination are incredibly moving and still relevant, and the arguments given in opposition are exactly the same as those being put forward today.

The 2011 version of UAFA is almost word-for-word identical to the previous versions that have been introduced and it has clearly hit a political stalemate. Re-introducing the same proposal over and over again in this way means progress depends on a significant change to the hearts and minds of many politicians. Despite some significant steps forward in the LGBT movement, like the repeal of DADT, even Rep Nadler and Senator Leahy, who are sponsoring UAFA, aren’t hopeful that it will pass this year.

The only way to affect a political change is to throw a lot of money at politicians or to amass a significant amount of public support for a cause. Unfortunately, there is relatively little awareness of the immigration equality cause simply because there is no reason for anyone to consider it unless they are affected. Due to the very nature of this issue, visibility is not a strong point. Consider the following situations:

1.       If the couple are living together in the US, the non-citizen/resident may not want to draw any attention to their relationship or their immigration status because:

·         They could face problems in obtaining, maintaining or renewing a temporary visa for other reasons (e.g. work or study) if their relationship was made public; or

·         They are in the country illegally.

2.       If the non-citizen/resident is frequently travelling to and from the US, they may not want to draw any attention to their relationship because:

·         They could be refused a tourist visa and entry to the US as a result of having ‘immigration intent’.

3.       Those of us living together in other countries are significantly limited in our ability to represent ourselves to American society in any capacity.

That is why it is so important for people, like me, who are affected by it to share our stories, and for those who are sympathetic to our situation, like you, to talk about it with others. I will talk more about this in future posts, but C and I are at a crossroads in our own lives and are considering where in this world we want to live over the coming years. I would love to have the choice to move close to my family, but the reality is we will end up settling in a country where neither of us has any family or historical ties. There are a number of countries that recognise their economy and society would benefit from the skills and experience we have worked hard to attain and would gladly welcome us as a couple.

Even if this isn’t the year for immigration equality, we can collectively make a difference over time, and I would love to think that I may have a choice to permanently return to the country of my birth sometime before I die.

(If you’d like to do something worthwhile, the people at Immigration Equality have made it easy for you to email your representatives, share your story or let your friends know about these issues through their Action Fund.)

Wedding Belles

Ours wasn’t the only wedding in 2009. I had to come to terms with the fact that my little brother isn’t little anymore. Admittedly, he hasn’t been ‘little’ since he shot up to well over 6 feet tall in 1999, but I think even he will admit it took him a lot longer to grow up - about ten years, in fact. You see, in May 2009 my little brother stood up tall and married the woman who had given him the inspiration and strength to be the best man that he could be.

His wife doesn’t have a malicious bone in her entire body. She is incredibly kind, caring and immediately adopted me as another sister. In my short visits home over the previous two years I had watched in amazement as she patiently and completely transformed him. My Mom and Grandma applaud her for succeeding in what they had desperately tried to do for the previous ten years. The boy who wouldn’t get out of bed before 2pm was now driving his beloved to work at 6am without complaint (though at that time of the morning I don’t expect he really says much of anything); where he had previously taken anything he could get his hands on, he was now giving little tokens of affection; while he had never before acknowledged what other people were feeling, he was now offering help and showing gratitude for receiving it. The boy is clearly in Love – it has given him a sense of purpose and self-worth and has empowered him to finally grow into his mighty frame.

Before I touched down in Chicago, a week before the main event, I knew it was going to be a full-on visit with all the last-minute preparations, rehearsals, visitors and celebrations. To top it off, in the car ride down to Bloomington I found out there wasn’t just one wedding on the cards – my aunt was also getting married!

My aunt has been a huge support to me throughout my life, in a way providing the ying to my mother’s yang. Where I’ve seen my Mom as controlled and restrained, my aunt is more impulsive and carefree. She has always let me sound off to her about everything and anything. I’m sure she can chuckle at the evolution of my various personal conflicts from trying to fit in at school to developing an adult relationship with my mother to navigating through random political and moral worldviews. She and her partner have been together as long as I can remember, so he’s also had a big influence in my life. I distinctly remember the gruelling hours of practice he put me through to improve my skills and confidence enough to make the softball team in 8th grade. Summer afternoons have never been as baking hot before or since!

I don’t know all the details of their life together, but I know they have been through a lot and that they have always made decisions together, confidently. In spite of hardships, they have been together for over 20 years, but had never married so I must admit I was more than a bit surprised that they were choosing to tie the knot.

One of their deciding factors to wed had to do with health care; namely that they needed to be married for my aunt to include her partner in her health care benefits package. “In sickness and in health” is a fundamental aspect of any marriage, after all. Having just been through a decision-making process of my own, I knew the importance of taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure the security of my relationship. They got married with no pomp and circumstance in their front room, witnessed by small crowd of close family and friends and administered by a justice of the peace.

My brother’s wedding the following week could not have been more different. It was, in every sense, a traditional wedding with a young couple committing themselves to each other in front of God and everyone. There was a blur of chaos and stress leading up to it, but the big day was beautiful and the ceremony perfectly represented the two of them. The church was full with extended family and friends from both sides. I cried when they said their vows and laughed as my brother drove his bride around the church car park with his head peering out the sun roof.

The stark contrast between these two events is quite revealing. Both are considered to be weddings and both resulted in two individuals marrying, yet their reasons for marrying and the ceremonies undertaken are products of these couples’ circumstances and aspirations. At no time did anyone from the government step in to question or regulate the validity of either. There was no government official present to assess their love for each other, question how they intended to live their lives together or to obligate them to have children.

While my aunt and her partner may not have ever felt marriage was for them in terms of the holy matrimony aspects, the civil aspects of marriage were absolutely fundamental to their overall wellbeing and happiness. Ironically, while some would see this approach to marriage as little more than a paper exercise, their decision to marry has affirmed their commitment to each other and has ultimately strengthened their relationship like nothing else could. I know for certain they are grateful for the opportunity that their marriage has afforded them.

I admire this post by Louis J Marinelli, which illustrates my point here perfectly. After years of narrowly understanding marriage as ‘holy matrimony’ he now appreciates, and perfectly articulates that the government should only be concerned with regulating the civil aspects of marriage. Once this is understood, it is clear that the civil rights afforded through marriage should be applied equally under the law to all citizens, regardless of gender. It takes a lot of guts to admit you have been wrong in the past and I hope he will continue to be a champion for marriage equality. I know that me, C and our friends and family will.

We Did

C and I were looking forward to 2009. We recognised all the risks, forward-planning and hard work that it had taken for us to get to where we were and we were ready to finally be settled in our new place. At the same time, we knew that my Fresh Talent Scheme visa was due to expire in December. It was becoming more and more apparent that my status as a non-permanent resident meant it was nearly impossible for us to make any long-term plans together because our future together (geographically speaking) wasn’t clear.

I could have applied to remain in the country on my own merits, sponsored by my employer but there were challenges associated with that route. First, the company would have to advertise my job and I would have to re-apply to keep it; this was relatively routine and everyone was confident it was a low-risk. More importantly, though my status in the UK would be bound to my employment at this company: so, if I were to lose my job for any reason, I would have to find another employer to sponsor me or leave the country. Normally I wouldn’t have considered losing my job as a real possibility, but the evidence of the recession was more apparent than ever and unemployment levels for my sector were growing exponentially. Redundancies were (and still are) a possibility, and the options for finding alternative jobs quickly were (and still are) incredibly limited. This wouldn’t have provided us with any sense (or reality) of security.

It made more sense for me to apply to stay in the country based on the legitimate reason for me wanting to be here – so that I could live my life with my partner. In the UK, that was a real option for us.

I have to pause for an aside here. I had originally written “Fortunately, in the UK, that was a real option for us.” Yet it’s not by luck or chance or circumstance that the UK affords gays and same-sex couples equality under the law. Enormous effort and resources have gone into campaigning for and achieving equal rights often in spite of efforts by the ‘moral majority’ to exclude gays. It’s certainly not perfect I can’t help but admire a political system that not only recognises the importance of treating everyone fairly in rhetoric, but also in policy, procedure and practice.

The first Civil Partnership in the UK happened in December 2005. C often talks about how she never thought marriage equality would happen. As a teenager she had to seek out a hidden scene in basement bars with blacked out windows tucked away from public life. Because it was new and topical, we had talked a lot about getting married early on in our relationship and knew that it was what we wanted to do when the time was right for us. I think we’d always assumed that in order to get married we’d have to have a wedding, and all the pomp and circumstance that went with it. I didn’t want to do that without including my friends and family in some way and there was still a lot of relationship-building that needed to happen for that to be a possibility.

The more we talked about it, though, the more apparent it became that neither of us were ‘wedding’ people. The thought of having to plan and execute a day where we were the centre of attention was our collective idea of hell. We were all for celebrating our love and commitment to each other; just not as a public spectacle. It became apparent very quickly that, actually, there really wasn’t a better reason for us to make a formal commitment to each other. It would enable us to have a secure future together and finally start planning our life beyond the next visa.

So, in February, we were engaged. There was no ostentatious proposal and we didn’t actually tell anyone, but it was incredibly romantic.

Despite not having a wedding as such, we still had a lot of planning to do. We wanted to register our civil partnership on 20 August 2009, our fourth anniversary, and needed to time our various applications and submissions to the Home Office accordingly. We needed a Certificate of Approval from the Home Office (processing time 4 weeks; valid for 3 months) in order to give notice to register our Civil Partnership to the registrar in Edinburgh. We then had to seal the deal within 3 months. After that we could apply for me to get Indefinite Leave to Remain as the spouse of a UK citizen any time before December, when my other visa expired. The process was pretty straightforward and we had plenty of time to get it all in place. Once we knew what we had to do and when, we were able to relax and really enjoy the build-up to starting a future together.

We even had enough wiggle room to programme in a holiday to Rhodes in July. C’mon...it wouldn’t have been ‘us’ without some time in the sun! It was an incredible week and we spent a day leisurely wandering around Rhodes Old Town shopping for rings. We’d seen a few possibilities, but eventually found two simple matte white gold bands with a polished continuous wave. We had them sized and went off to bask in the sun while they were engraved with our wedding date. A few short hours later, our most prized possessions were stowed away in a small blue velvet ring box.

We kept our plans on a need-to-know basis, only revealing to people when we were ready for them to know. That may seem selfish, but we weren’t doing this for anyone else and really didn’t want the fuss that comes with big announcements. In June, we had each asked a friend in Edinburgh to be our witnesses out of necessity, but we waited until August to tell our families.

It was a somewhat difficult telling C’s family because we weren’t including them in the ceremony. Both of her brothers had church weddings and she had been very involved in those. At the same time, we didn’t want the day to pass without them even knowing about it. I know they all had wished they could have been there, but we are incredibly grateful for the respect they showed us in simply accepting that we were doing things our own way. I have been touched by how they each acknowledged and celebrated our union with us since then.

I told my Mom over the phone. At the time she seemed a bit distant in her response, but the next day she emailed me:

 5 August 2009

Thanks for sharing with me about you and C. I just want you to be happy and I like C and know that her family has been very kind to include you in so many activities and holidays (which helps me to feel better knowing that you have somewhere to be at those times).  I also know that C and I have not had much of an opportunity to get to know each other...

Be happy (that is what I wish and want for you).  If being with C makes both of you happy and you realize the problems and hardships that you might face that is all that matters.  
Much Happiness Always!!
Hugs and Kisses
Mom

On the 20 August, C and I spent the morning at home. We exchanged cards, rings and lifelong intentions in private before setting off together. We met our witnesses outside the flower shop on Broughton Street where we picked up thistle corsages. It was raining, so we got a taxi up to the Registry Office, just off the Royal Mile. I took a few minutes to freshen up before our registrar met us and took us upstairs to a beautiful room. He said a few respectful words before going through the legal aspects of the ceremony. I remember us looking at each other as we signed our certificate. My hand was shaking and I felt overwhelmed by emotion. I was excited and nervous at the same time – this was unchartered territory for both of us but felt comforting. It was the right time.

As we walked out of the registry office, Edinburgh’s city centre had been transformed. The sun was beaming down and the streets were overflowing with festival-goers. We wandered up the Royal Mile and met a street performer acting as a statue. She was in gold from head to toe and for £1 she handed us a golden rose. We walked up towards the castle and wandered down Ramsay Lane, stopping at Mound Place with the whole of Edinburgh’s New Town in front of us. It was so fitting to be surrounded by the same buzz of Edinburgh in August that had brought us together four years previously. There is a picture of us laughing together there that is one of my favourite photos of us ever.

As we returned home together that evening we simultaneously exhaled a sigh of relief - the next chapter in our life had just begun and we were starting it in style, with a 3-week honeymoon in Australia. Little did we know that C would have an opportunity to get to know my Mom very well before we applied for my next visa, though the circumstances were highly unexpected...

Death and taxes

In Go Forth and Multiply I looked at the reasons why marriage laws exist. I discovered that the personal qualities assessed by authorities to determine whether a couple is qualified to be married do little to ensure the integrity of the nuclear family unit, despite proponents of traditional marriage claiming that this is the purpose of these laws. The real point seems to be to ensure that the individuals entering into the marriage are actually capable of making the decision to marry and that no one is being coerced or taken advantage of through the union.

There is another important qualification that I failed to mention – that neither of the individuals is married to anyone else. This is actually a mandate from the federal government, rather than the state. From what I gather, this is the only marriage law regulated at the federal level and it originates in the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in 1862. This made it a criminal offense to have more than one spouse at the same time. However, the logic behind this decision wasn’t based on a moral standing or designed to protect children; it was in response to the growing property portfolio and power of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as a result of pluralist marriages (the law also placed a financial limit on church and non-profit ownership).

So...is the government’s interest in marriage actually more about regulating power and money than it is about imposing traditional moral objectives?

Let’s take a look at exactly what same-sex couples are actually being excluded from by examining the aspects of civil marriage.

Civil marriage is a single legal contract that instantaneously confers a number of benefits, rights and privileges between spouses. After DOMA passed, The United States Government Accountability Office identified 1,049 federal benefits, rights and privileges that are contingent on marital status. By 2004 this number had increased to 1,138. This is further compounded at the state level where, for example, Illinois has a further 648 benefits, rights and privileges that are contingent on marital status.

Feel free to read through them all in detail, especially if you are having trouble sleeping. Alternatively, you can trust me in saying that they pretty much all whittle down to death and taxes by:

·         defining how the couple is treated with regards to employment benefits and taxation (including 179 provisions at the federal level alone) while they are married;

·         establishing rights and responsibilities for dissolving the marriage, including obligations for child and spousal support; and

·         defaulting the surviving spouse as next of kin upon being widowed, which means they are entitled to receive financial benefits (e.g. pensions), transfer of property, etc.

Some of the federal laws defer to the state definition of marriage, so if the state government legally recognises same-sex marriage then the couple will receive equal legal rights and protection. However, it is important to recognise that only 5 states and the District of Columbia are currently marriage-equal. Other states that recognise ‘domestic partnerships’ or ‘civil unions’ present a complex legal landscape that still significantly limits rights and protections for same-sex couples.

Some of the provisions can be accessed through other routes. For example, most provisions relating to criminal issues (e.g. domestic violence and sexual assault) include the terminology ‘spouse or intimate partner’, recognising the reality that alternative forms of family exist. Provisions relating to employment can be supplement where employers implement their own policies to extend benefits to same-sex couples. Many private companies choose to do this even though they are not legally obligated because they recognise and value staff diversity.

In spite of all that, there are still some incredibly disparaging issues. I take particular offence to these:

·         Federal health and welfare programmes – these are primarily designed to assist disadvantaged individuals and families. Marital status is normally significant in determining whether a family qualifies for support and what level of support they receive. This excludes disadvantaged same-sex couples from receiving adequate levels of support and all same-sex couples from receiving benefits in the event of their partners’ death.

·         Child and spousal support – these laws exist to ensure children receive adequate support in the event of divorce by obliging absent parents to provide appropriate funds to the spouse with whom the child lives. A partner left to raise children after a same-sex relationship has broken up has no legal recourse to seek child support. Equally, a parent can be left without legal recourse to gain access to a child.

Obama extended federal benefits to same-sex couples last year and, with the repeal of DADT, this will likely be extend to include military personnel and veterans. However, immigration remains exclusive as a direct result of the definition of marriage in DOMA.

The reason I can’t come home with my partner comes down to how marriage is defined...by DOMA.

If you asked 100 married couples to define marriage, I guarantee you will get 200 different answers. Ask them again in 10 years and you’ll get another 200 answers, all different from the first. What makes a marriage is unique to the individuals in it; how they conduct their relationship depends on their needs and circumstances which are constantly changing.

Marriage laws and the legal provisions extended to married couples have nothing to do with how marriage is defined to individuals and everything to do with legally defining the couple as a financially interdependent unit. The evidence required to prove the validity of a marriage for immigration purposes underlines this, by requiring couples to submit documentation showing joint ownership or property and/or documentation showing the co-mingling of financial resources.

Watch this.

I absolutely love the point Cynthia Nixon makes here, so I’m going to say it again:

Marriage equality will not re-define marriage any more than allowing women the right to vote in 1920 re-defined ‘voting’ or integrating diners in the 1960s re-defined ‘eating out.’ It will simply mean everyone has a right to sit at the same table.

The more I watch the debates on same-sex marriage and speak with people about this issue, the more I realise how little most Americans know about how and why the government regulates marriage. This realisation is what compelled me to write this blog in the first place and the comments I have received here and through private communications have confirmed this message needs to get out...

It'll be fine

In July 2007, I completed my coursework in Planning and got a job as a consultant on a temporary contract while I finished my final dissertation. After receiving my MSc, I applied for a Fresh Talent: Working in Scotland Scheme visa to stay in the UK for two years as a new graduate. My job was transferred to a permanent contract and I started life as a professional woman. This meant I had to buy a lot of shirts that constantly need ironing.

The transition wasn’t easy. C and I spent almost every night together but it was getting harder to find the space to spend quality time together with my new 9 to 5, Monday to Friday schedule. C had her flat in East Lothian and I was living in a shared flat in Edinburgh, 25 miles apart. We would mostly stay at mine through the week as bus links from her small village to Edinburgh in the morning were pretty unreliable and I didn’t have a car (or a UK driver’s license). Living in a shared flat was fine when I was a student, but it was near impossible to get the privacy we wanted or sleep we needed in a flat full of students. There were many weeknights when we would give up in desperation and drive back to East Lothian at midnight just to get some respite.

I had every weekend off, but C worked at least two weekends a month. When we had time off together we would mostly spend it at hers. She had a gorgeous top floor flat in an 18^th century mansion house in a small, idyllic village. It overlooked a square with a fountain and was only minutes from a beautiful riverside walk, complete with a waterfall. I couldn’t have invented a more beautiful place to stay. The time we spent there was always peaceful and allowed us glimpses of what our life would be like if we lived together. Unfortunately we decided it wasn’t feasible for us to move into hers – mostly because of my work demands in Edinburgh. Instead, we focussed our efforts on preparing C’s flat for sale with a view to renting somewhere in the city together.

In February 2008, C’s mother was unexpectedly diagnosed with cancer. These things are never expected, but she hadn’t been unwell in any way leading up to the diagnosis. C was devastated and devoted all of her spare time and energy ensuring her mum was getting the care she needed, attending hospital appointments, etc. I had never been in a situation like that with anyone before. I was scared and I didn’t know how to support C. I would love to be the kind of person who can find the right words or make the right gesture to offer comfort. Instead, I become hesitant, vacant and completely lacking in any emotional intelligence or thought. The Scots actually have the perfect word to describe this: glaikit.

I had booked at trip back to visit my family over Easter weekend. It was already going to be a short trip but it would mean I could celebrate my birthday while I was there. Unfortunately my flight over from London was delayed by 27 hours so the trip was cut even shorter. I still had my birthday in Illinois, the first in many years, but the journey was exhausting and the whole ordeal left me quite uncharacteristically emotional.

It was such a stressful summer. I was at my wits end with shared living and had moved into a tiny and drafty 1-bedroom flat that I could just afford. C put her flat on the market just as the recession hit. Her mum started chemo. It was hard to see any silver linings amongst all the gray clouds. We kept repeating the mantra “It’ll be fine.” Life had guided us toward each other for a reason and it would guide us through all of this the same way. We just needed to keep strong and, in time, it would all be fine...somehow.

I remember sitting with C in front of two glasses of cool white wine at the shore in Leith after work one afternoon. We were tense, fed up and I don’t think we were even looking at each other. Somehow, through the course of the conversation we both finally expelled all of the fears we had been holding back. Ironically, sharing our fears with each other was the only way we could be strong together. In that moment I learned what it means to be a partner. I had never shared my fears about anything with anyone before, but never once did I feel vulnerable or alone. C was there for me and I was there for her at this impossibly difficult time. Our support for each other is unwavering.

And then the pieces gradually started to fall into place. Despite the housing market crash, C sold her flat (and made a tidy profit) in early July. Her reward was to watch all her belongings driven off to storage and move into my tiny flat with me. She arrived with nothing more than two suitcases and a couple of potted plants. It was certainly very cosy, but we were finally together in our own space. C’s mum successfully made it through her treatment and began the long road to recovery. As a means of exhaling, we did what we do best – we went on holiday!

The two weeks we spent in Florida and Georgia were nothing short of perfection. We cruised around in a sexy Ford Mustang called Sally, taking in downtowns, uptowns and backwaters with complete abandon. It was what all holidays should be – exactly the opposite of our real life. We were in gluttonous America; we did whatever we wanted and faced no obstacles.

At the end of the trip, C flew home to Scotland and I flew home to my Mom’s for a week. It was hard to leave her and I would have loved to bring her back to continue our adventure, especially as it was Homecoming week at IWU. Unfortunately it was still not the right time for her to join me but I had an incredible visit. I was able to spend a lot of time with many of my friends from college and I got to be a part of the ongoing planning programme for my little brother’s upcoming wedding. Amazing.

At the same time, C arrived back to a typical October in Scotland and spent the first night shivering under 5 blankets. She understandably took the decision that we deserved somewhere bigger and warmer...immediately. Cold is a great motivator and in a few short days she had found just the place, which she showed to me two days after I got back. We moved into what is now our home in late October 2008. It suits us perfectly: a modern and airy 2-bed flat, quietly tucked away but still in walking distance to the city centre.

A few months later we decided we could share it with 2 perfectly behaved goldfish named ‘Indiana Jones’ and ‘Spike’. I feel compelled to say the names were chosen by our nephews.

We regularly reflect on the hurdles we had to overcome to secure our home together and we will never take for granted the opportunities that this place affords us, in particular: space to spend quality time together, without forward-planning; respite from the normal stresses of work and city-living; and a venue for hosting friends and family (we’re slowly getting better at this).

On the 31^st December 2008 we rang in the New Year by listening to Edinburgh’s famous fireworks from the warmth of our living room. It had been one hell of an exhausting year and we were eager to see it end. Yet, from where we were sitting it was clear that, somehow, everything was going to be fine. We had gotten through it together and had grown stronger in the process. It was also clear that living together was merely the first step in us pledging our commitment to one another. 2009 was going to be a busy year, with two weddings in the diary...