Progress Toward Equality

Dear Friends,

“Defenders of marriage:  defending the institution against people . . . who want to get married.” – Roy Zimmerman

The
above line is from a song written in 1998.  That was the year the Iowa
Legislature passed a law banning same-sex marriage.  Only eleven of us
voted “no” – the same number who voted “no” two years earlier, when the
bill sailed through the House but failed to come up for debate in the
Senate.  A couple years later, I confronted Fred Phelps, who paid Iowa
a visit to denounce our status as a “fag state” and burn an Iowa flag
in front of the Statehouse (for the story that appeared in the Iowa
State Daily, see this.

Well,
we’ve come a long way in just a few years.  Last week, as part of the
national campaign called “Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights,” I
spoke at a rally just yards from where Phelps burned our flag.  This
time, there was no flag burning, no name-calling, no gay bashing –
simply 30 people braving a cold evening to show support for equality.

More
than anything, that’s what this about:  equality.  Yet, I know many
good people who struggle with this issue, who feel in their hearts that
marriage must be between a man and a woman.  I appreciate such struggle
when it is sincere and not motivated by hate or fear.&nbs p; But I
ask all my friends, family members and acquaintances who oppose
same-sex marriage to study the perspective of those of us who embrace
equality and to try to understand the challenges facing gay and lesbian
couples.

To
give you some insight into my viewpoint, I have included, below, the
full text of my 1998 speech on the subject.  I would also refer you to
a column from the New York Times
(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E2DA1F39F93BA35750C0A960958260),
and my speech before the Iowa House in 1996
(http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Village/9299/speech.html).

As
always, I look forward to hearing from you.  Thank you for taking the
time to read this Update, and please consult our website for upcoming
events.

Ed Fallon



Ed Fallon’s Speech on Same-Sex Marriage before the Iowa House (March, 1998)

Ladies
and Gentlemen of the Iowa House, I hope that before you vote today,
you’ll consider the full impact of HF 382, which has received very
little debate in committee and seen almost no coverage in the press.

Equality
for women was the defining civil rights issue of the early decades of
this century.  Equality for African Americans was the defining civil
rights issue of the 1960s and ‘70s.  The reason this legislation is so
important is b ecause equal rights for gays and lesbians is almost
certain to be the defining civil rights issue of the early years of the
next century.

Please
note that I say “equal” rights, because there are people who
consistently mislead the public, insisting that gays and lesbians want
“special” rights.  The lack of logic in this argument is self-evident
if you will examine the content of the bill before us.

Because
those of you in this chamber who are heterosexual (and I’ll assume that
five percent are not) have the right to marry, with all the attached
benefits and privileges.  Yet under current law, homosexuals are not
afforded this right.  In other words, homosexuals are less than equal. 
And if Hawaii decides to take the giant leap forward and recognize
same-sex u nions, HF 382 will make certain that in Iowa, gays and
lesbians remain second class citizens.  The truth is, colleagues, we
should be going in the opposite direction.  Instead of the
anti-marriage bill before us, we ought to be discussing legislation to
allow any two adults who want to make a commitment to each other the
option to do so legally.  I can’t help but note a bit of hypocrisy
here:  Supporters of banning same-sex marriage frequently portray gays
and lesbians as promiscuous.  Yet, they’re also eager to forbid
legally-sanctioned, personal commitment.

Some
contend that we need this legislation to protect the sanctity of
heterosexual marriage.  From what?  It isn’t as if there’s a limited
amount of love to go around.  Love isn’t a non-renewable resource.  If
Amy and Barbara or Mike and Steve love each other, it doesn’t mean that
John and Mary can’t.

It
isn’t as if marriage licenses are distributed on a first-come,
first-served basis.  Heterosexual couples don’t have to rush out and
claim marriage licenses now, before they’re all snatched up by gay and
lesbian couples.

The
truth is heterosexual unions will continue to be predominant,
regardless of what gay and lesbian couples do.  To suggest that
homosexual couples in any way, shape or form threaten to undermine the
stability of heterosexual marriage is paranoid and absurd.

Two
years ago I spoke against this same legislation.  During the months
that followed, I received over 2,000 letters, phone calls, and e-mail
messages in support of same-sex marriage.  And this may surprise you,
but about 40% of those letters came from heterosexuals.  Through the
stories people shared, I learned much about the challenges,
frustration, intimidation, and abuse endured by homosexuals trying to
fit-in to a hate-filled world that doesn’t accept them.  One of the
many former Iowans who wrote had this to say:  “The fact that, in
recent years, some sectors of Iowa’s political process have become
increasingly hostile to gays was a major factor in my decision to leave
the state.”

Another
former Iowan wrote: “I’m a 41 year-old lesbian raised in Grinnell.  My
partner and I have been together for 14 years.  We have two sons, ages
12 and 8 . . . we are consistently denied benefits due to our unmarried
status, everything from student housing and AAA spousal cards to
adoption.”

And
this one: “As a Canadian homosexual who does a lot of business travel
in North America and in Europe, I must admit that nowhere do I feel as
uncomfortable and unprotected as I do in the U.S., particularly in
states such as yours.”

Another
couple wrote: “The fact that we pay outrageous taxes because the state
does not recognize our union, the fact that I could be stopped from
visiting my lover in the hospital because I am not ‘family,’ and the
fact that we get stared at if we show any affection towards each other
is quite appalling.”

A
college student wrote this: “Sometimes sitting in classes I feel as an
African American law student must have {felt years ago}.  I have to
learn, memorize and be tested on laws which discriminate against me in
almost every area – tax, insurance, family law, social security, wills,
estates and trusts, torts, criminal procedure . . . the list goes on.”

And
finally, “I am a high school psychologist, and I work daily with gay
and lesbian children who are depressed, scared, intimidated and looking
for understanding.”

Colleagues,
these are the voices of people affected by your vote here today.  And
if that isn’t enough to convince you that this legislation is wrong and
hurtful, then I’d like to introduce you to a few of the faces behind
these voices.

If
you look up into the balconies, you’ll see a handful of the many Iowans
who a re opposed to this legislation.  Most of those opposed aren’t
here today because they’re working or in school.  And to put it
bluntly, some are too scared to be here, scared of retribution.  Most
are in stable, healthy relationships.  Many have children.  Some are
your constituents and even your neighbors.

And
like you and me, they celebrate Christmas, attend PTA meetings, get
stuck in blizzards and plant flowers in the spring.  They pay taxes,
pick-up trash in front of their homes and eat three meals a day.  In
short, they share all the usual joys, dreams and concerns that you and
I share.  And yet somehow, all some of you can see is what they do in
their bedrooms.  The only tag you’re willing to place on them is the
one that identifies them by their sexuality.  And since you regard that
as sinful, it’s a short step from there to justify a denial of civil
rights, including a denial of the right to marry.

Think
about if for a minute.  How thoroughly inappropriate, small-minded and
yes, bigoted, to label someone by one small aspect of their identity. 
Do we hear the Speaker of the House say, “the Chair recognizes the
heterosexual from Polk, Representative Lamberti?”  Or, “the Chair
recognizes the asthmatic, or the lawyer or the senior citizen?”  

Colleagues,
I feel we are asleep at the wheel.  If you cannot see the harm this
legislation does to one of our most maligned minority groups, then you
haven’t thought about the issue or this legislation in great detail.

Make
no mi stake about it:  What we do here in this chamber has a definite
and profound impact on public opinion.  And if we pass this bill, we,
the elected government of the state of Iowa, say to the people and
businesses of this state that not only are same-sex marriages wrong,
but homosexuality itself is wrong.  The message is that if it’s OK for
government to deny civil rights to homosexuals, then government is
certainly not going to care if others do so as well.

Just
last week, I heard an evangelist named Jim Wallis tell a very moving
story about another evangelist, a guy named Tony.  One hot summer day,
Tony was walking down a street in Philadelphia when he saw a homeless
man walking toward him.  Despite the heat of the day, the guy was
wearing a big, heavy coat.  He was sweating profusely.  He had a long
beard, didn’t look too clean, and even from a distance Tony could smell
him.

And
Tony’s thinking, “With any luck, this guy will just keep walking right
on by me.”  But as luck would have it, the homeless man stops right in
front of Tony and says to him, “How are you doing today?”  Tony
responds, “Fine.”  The homeless man says, “Would you like a sip of my
coffee?  When God gives you something good, you share it.  And this
coffee is really good.”

Well,
the last thing Tony felt like doing was taking a sip of this dirty,
sweaty, smelly homeless bum’s coffee.  But to refuse would be to hurt
his feelings.  So, Tony takes a sip of the coffee and says, thinking
the guy might like some pocket change, “Friend, is there anything I can
give you?”

The
homeless many looked Tony right in the eyes, paused and said, “I sure
could use a hug.”  And when he heard that, Tony thought he would have
preferred to part with a twenty-dollar bill than to touch this sweaty,
stinky fellow.  But he reached his arms out to embrace the man, the man
embraced Tony . . . and the poor guy was so starved for affection he
just wouldn’t let go.  And as that embrace on the hot streets of
Philadelphia stretched beyond the comfortably brief period normally
expected of such human encounters, and as Tony, the evangelist, felt
and realized the depth of this man’s loneliness, he forgot about the
smell and the sweat, and the experience became for him a profoundly
sacramental moment.  To Tony, in that moment, it seemed as if he was
hugging Jesus Christ himself.

Like
all metaphors, this one has its limitations.  But like homeless people,
homosexuals are often shunned, maligned, feared and misunderstood. 
Well, colleagues, just as Tony the Evangelist found Christ in a
homeless man on the streets of Philadelphia, we could find Christ in
our gay brothers and lesbian sisters, if we would only make the effort
to reach out to them, even as they try desperately, quietly, to reach
out to us.  

There
are far too many outcasts in our society.  Homosexuals, like the
homeless, are people we’d rather not think about, rather not see,
rather not reach out to.  And that’s because they appear different, and
their difference makes us uncomfortable and even afraid.

But
our discomfort is no reason to deny other individuals their basi c
civil rights.  The state of Iowa does not have veto power over your
choice of a marriage partner.  Why should the state of Iowa deny gay or
lesbian people the right to marry the ones they love?

In
closing, Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask you to join me in voting “NO” on
this very anti-marriage bill.  A “NO” vote is to offer a warm,
accepting embrace.  A “YES” vote is merely kicking someone who’s
already down.