As a straight white male, I will always acknowledge that the privileged
lens through which I view the world does not make me the best person to
speak on issues like this, but I’m going to try, and people are free to
weigh in through comments.
Despite the seeming ease and comfort with which Katherine Patrick has come out, for many, it’s not easy to come out in a heteronormative world. According to Mass Equality:
Coming out can be an incredibly difficult and stressful event in a
young person’s life. It can be a scary, confusing and isolating time,
even for those who have a supportive family — and many LGBT youth do
not. Studies show that LGBT youth are at increased risk for suicide,
homelessness, substance abuse and other risk behaviors.
According to Mass Equality
director, Marc Solomon, not only is the LGBT youth rate of suicide
attempts higher than straight youth, but HIV rates among LGBT youth are
also on the rise. While there is no evidence that Katherine Patrick
has had to deal with issues like this, there is still the added effect
of being forced into the public limelight.
Taken within this
context, Katherine Patrick’s seemingly breezy sit-down interview with
Bay Windows is courageous, and she’ll probably serve as an inspiration
not only to other LGBT youth out there, afraid to come out, but even
straight youth like myself. One of the most touching parts of the Bay
Windows interview describes, Katherine Patrick’s feelings as she
watched her father fight for marriage equality in Massachusetts:
On June 14, 2007, the day that lawmakers finally
voted down an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution,
Katherine Patrick stood outside the State House and looked up at her
father. Gov. Deval Patrick was standing on the front steps, surrounded
by a jubilant crowd of hundreds that mobbed the brick sidewalk and
spilled halfway across Beacon Street. As they cheered the defeat of the
amendment – an effort led by the governor, Senate President Therese
Murray and House Speaker Sal DiMasi – Katherine had never before felt
more proud of her father.
“Because, of course, he didn’t know
that I was gay then,” the 18-year-old recalls. “So, for someone so
publicly to fight for something that doesn’t even affect him was just
like, ‘That’s my dad,’ you know?” she says with a laugh. “That’s all I
could think. I was very, very proud to be part of this family, and this
state in general.”
“It was great. I’m very glad,” she adds,
looking at her father. “Don’t cry, Dad.” Patrick’s eyes are brimming
with tears, prompting some good-natured teasing from his daughter.
“He’s done some good things,” she says with a laugh, patting his arm.
“I appreciate it. Want a tissue? Oh, God. He’s a crier.”Laura Kiritsy – Bay Windows (12 June 2008)
I
especially liked how Gov. Deval Patrick handled the whole situation.
It certainly makes me proud to live in a tolerant state where the
Governor thinks it’s no big deal that his daughter is a lesbian, even
going so far as to say:
You know, it’s interesting even just thinking about
having this interview. Katherine and Diane and I and her aunt and Sarah
were all talking about, you know, would we give an interview to
announce one of our kids was straight? It’s just not about the public
… it’s just about making sure that they had the fullness of their
personality and their humanity.Deval Patrick – Bay Windows (12 June 2008)
This comes at a time when Gov. Patrick has put marriage equality at number two on his top 20 list of accomplishments since he’s been in office, right below clean energy:
- Making Massachusetts a national leader on clean energy
- Joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
- Worked
with Legislature to develop comprehensive energy and advanced biofuels
legislation to help consumers deal with the rising cost of fossil fuels.- Passed a first-in-the-nation comprehensive oceans bill for our state waters.
- Approved the final state environmental review for Cape Wind.
- Launched Commonwealth Solar rebate program to spur installation of solar electric power.
- Marriage equality for all Massachusetts residents
Deval Patrick’s Top 20 Accomplishments (10 June 2008)
I can’t express enough how ecstatic I am for all of the above. Gov.
Deval Patrick has been stellar at defending marriage equality in the
Commonwealth, and Katherine Patrick’s very public coming out was handled in the best possible way, for an administration that has had its media mishaps. With the Boston Pride gay pride parade over the weekend I would go so far as to call it a communications masterpiece.
That
being said, you didn’t think I was going to let the Governor off that
easy, did you? If I did, I wouldn’t be doing my job. I have one small
bone to pick with the second accomplishment on the Governor’s top 20
list: “marriage equality for all Massachusetts residents”. There is
one subset of Massachusetts residents that still do not have marriage
equality. The above statement is false.
Most same-sex couples
residing in Massachusetts can now get married, but there is still one
subset of same-sex couples that are left out in the cold. Bi-national
same-sex couples still do not have the same rights as heterosexual
couples. That is to say, if a U.S. citizen woman were to want to marry
a man who is not a citizen of the United States, there are visas and
channels to do that. But if a U.S. citizen woman wants to marry
another woman that is not from the United States, tough luck, there is
nothing she can do. A recent video from Current expresses this hardship better than I ever could:
It’s
just another way that migrants are discriminated against in the U.S.
and no one is talking about it. The only way to end this hardship is
through the Uniting American Families Act.
I really am happy for Gov. Deval Patrick and his family. It made me
smile to read about him imagining his daughter’s marriage:
[Gov. Patrick says,] “you kn
ow, I can still – because we live in
Massachusetts – I can still imagine what Katherine’s wedding is going
to be like.” Lowering his voice, he adds, “How much it’s gonna cost.”
“Yup,”
laughs his daughter – who is single for now – indicating that she’s
dreaming of a big, fat, gay wedding. “It’s okay, Dad.”Laura Kiritsy – Bay Windows (12 June 2008)
I
just think it’s important to remember that there are still people
forced to be separate from their significant others just because they
were born on separate pieces of Earth.
for bringing attention to this ongoing problem. that is, the inability of many binational same sex couples to be honest about and legally solemnize their relationships because of the immigration implications.
<
p>let’s be fair to deval, though. immigration equality is a federal issue out of his purview, and therefore should not be used to cast a shadow on gov patrick’s own accomplishments for equality in MA.
<
p>no, patrick is not the issue here, obama is. obama never co-sponsored the bill, but rather has demured because he thinks it is too open to fraud. and although he states that “I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.”, no one can find any evidence of said work. obama has a habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to lgbt issues. uafa is another sad example of that.
<
p>BMG readers, are your US senators and representative co-sponsors of UAFA? Find out here. If they’re not, call them and ask why. Let them know why you think they should be. and be sure to tell barack that he looks all talk, no action when it comes to lgbt civil rights. does he want to do something about that?
Here, I’ll make it easy on ya. đŸ™‚
COSPONSORS(99), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] – 5/8/2007
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] – 5/8/2007
Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1] – 5/8/2007
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] – 5/10/2007
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] – 5/8/2007
Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] – 5/8/2007
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] – 5/8/2007
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] – 5/8/2007
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] – 5/8/2008
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] – 2/7/2008
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] – 5/8/2007
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] – 5/8/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] – 5/8/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] – 5/8/2007
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 5/8/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] – 5/8/2007
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] – 5/8/2007
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] – 7/12/2007
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] – 5/8/2007
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] – 5/8/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] – 5/8/2007
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] – 5/8/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] – 5/8/2007
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] – 5/8/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] – 5/8/2007
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] – 5/8/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] – 5/8/2007
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 5/8/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] – 5/8/2007
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] – 4/29/2008
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 5/8/2007
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] – 5/8/2007
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] – 2/12/2008
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] – 5/9/2007
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] – 5/8/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] – 5/8/2007
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] – 5/9/2007
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] – 5/8/2007
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] – 5/8/2007
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] – 5/8/2008
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] – 5/8/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] – 7/11/2007
Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] – 7/26/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] – 5/8/2007
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] – 5/8/2007
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] – 5/8/2007
Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] – 5/8/2007
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] – 5/17/2007
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] – 5/8/2007
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] – 5/7/2008
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] – 5/8/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] – 5/16/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] – 5/8/2007
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] – 5/8/2007
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] – 5/8/2007
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] – 9/4/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] – 2/25/2008
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 5/8/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] – 5/8/2007
Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21] – 5/8/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] – 5/8/2007
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] – 9/26/2007
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] – 7/31/2007
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] – 5/8/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] – 5/8/2007
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] – 5/8/2007
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] – 5/8/2007
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] – 5/8/2007
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] – 5/8/2007
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] – 5/8/2007
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] – 5/7/2008
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] – 5/16/2007
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] – 5/8/2007
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] – 2/28/2008
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] – 5/8/2007
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] – 5/8/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] – 5/8/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] – 5/8/2007
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] – 5/7/2008
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] – 5/8/2007
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] – 5/8/2007
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] – 9/4/2007
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] – 5/16/2007
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] – 5/24/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] – 5/8/2007
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 5/8/2007
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] – 5/21/2007
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] – 5/8/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 5/9/2007
Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] – 4/10/2008
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] – 5/22/2008
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] – 5/8/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] – 7/24/2007
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] – 5/8/2007
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] – 5/8/2007
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] – 6/18/2007
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] – 5/8/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 5/8/2007
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] – 5/8/2007
COSPONSORS(13), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] – 2/14/2008
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 9/11/2007
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] – 5/16/2007
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] – 5/14/2007
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] – 5/15/2007
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] – 8/3/2007
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] – 9/4/2007
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] – 9/26/2007
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] – 1/31/2008
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] – 9/20/2007
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] – 1/30/2008
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] – 9/4/2007
Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] – 5/7/2008
I agree that Deval has done everything in his power to protect marriage equality, but I still don’t believe that gives him the right to publish a false statement in his top 20 list of accomplishments.
<
p>As long as Bi-National Same-Sex couples are out in the cold the statement, “marriage equality for all Massachusetts residents”, is false.
<
p>Does anyone know why Mass Equality has not thrown any of the power to the federal level on this? Was it determined that it just wasn’t possible for them to do anything about this issue? I’ve never gotten an email from Mass Equality on this issue.
functions at the state level. and quite effectively, i’d say! i would not expect them to get involved in federal issues unless/until massachusetts is truly an equality state (great strides are being made, but still some ways to go…).
Was at least a bullet-point on Mass Equality’s website, or something. There is no mention of the issue what so ever. I look to Immigration Equality for leadership on this issue, I just there would be at least some support or awareness raising from Mass Equality on this.
<
p>I agree though, Mass Equality is doing a great job, and I do appreciate their recent push to help LGBT youth.
is that the people who work there are very aware of the whole suite of laws and customs stacked up against same-sex couples. however, i believe taht as an organization they are smart at identifying their boundaries of expertise and remaining within them. too many organizations become ineffective by over-reaching. so, i guess it would be nice if masseq. made some mention of the problems bi-national couples (one of which i am part of!) face, but i certainly don’t expect it from them and don’t feel in any way abandoned. as you mention, immigration equality is the main org working on this issue. and very appropriately, in my view.
I’m confused. If states get to define marriage then it seems that if said US citizen were also a MA resident then the citizen could marry a non-citizen of either gender in MA and the effect would be the same.
you certainly can marry a non-american if you live in massachusetts. however, if that person doesn’t have a green card, changes are excellent that the feds won’t let them back into the country next time they go on the mandatory exit-re-entry trip abroad. the “reasoning” is this: what better way of indicating to the feds that you plan on overstaying your visa than marrying an american citizen? this isn’t a problem for heteros since the american hetero spouse can sponsor their new spouse for green card. but the feds don’t recognize s-s marriages as legit, so won’t let the american sponsor their s-s husband/wife for a green card. it is really s disgusting policy, as they actually do recognize our marriages to the degree that they will use them against immigration rights for our spouses. but they won’t recognize them so that we can take advantage of those immigration rights. GLAD has a good explanation on the problem here.
It seems the Congress should pass a law saying that the federal government will recognize any marriage legally entered into in any state, in accordance with the laws of that state.
the federal defense of marriage act prevents the federal government from recognizing s-s marriage. repeal that, and problem should be solved unless the immigration services are immune from federal law (after almost 8 years of bush, who knows!).
<
p>btw, i’ve heard that it may be a breach of treaty for the usa to not be recognizing valid s-s marriages from abroad, but i’ve never looked into it. anyone know?
With all this celebration it is a shame that we are forgetting what the citizens of Massachusetts wanted concerning Gay Marriage. Gov DeVille and others wouldn’t even let it go to a vote. No matter what side of this issue you were on you should at least favor a system where issues are voted on instead of swept under the carpet. Not in my America!!
Anyone wishing to vote on others equal rights should stake their own as collateral. Are you up for it, JohnD? What shall we take from you first?
I don’t think we can pick and choose which laws we like vs. don’t like. Whether it is 2-1/2 overrides or gay marriage, I think the people have rights and that means we vote on things which are declared to be constitional. The prcedure should have been let the people decide via referendun petition or let the legislature vote on it based on their constituents. Then the State Supreme court would decide on the constitutionality of it. What we did was short cut the system and ignored the public.
that the first ballot measure we need is one that states something like this:
<
p>”Whoever moves to deprive a class of citizens from equal protection of the laws shall themselves be deprived of equal protection of the laws.”
<
p>let’s all vote on that first.
We support marriage equality by leaps and bounds.
<
p>Not a single State Representative or Senator has lost their seat to an anti-equality candidate since the Goodridge decision. This is a reality-based community; like Glinda the Good told the evil Wicked Witch of the West in Munchkin Land, ‘you have no power here, be gone!’
If marriage equality is against the will of the people, then how come your side hasn’t done better electorally?
<
p>Gay marriage was used in 2004 as an issue to help Republicans win the election, in 2008 they’re using migrants. I wonder who conservatives are going to beat up on next to get out the vote>
If it was going to lose, then why keep it off the ballot? Why say that keeping it off the ballot preserved marriage equality if you are so sure now that voters would have rejected it?
The judges are the guardians of the Constitution and not the masses. Nobody’s going to take away your free speech; you are free to scream and yell all you want as far as I’m concerned. If you are married I don’t recall getting a chance to vote on that either. Civil rights and equal justice under the law are NOT fit to be put on a ballot! The legislature DID vote ultimately in two sessions and could not get the necessary 25% both times to send it to the ballot. We as the public frankly have no business deciding that others are unequal.
Looks like marriage inequality got the smackdown in this thread.
At the risk of feeding the trolls: when was the last time you got to vote directly on any federal issue? (I’ll answer that one for you: never.) The initiative/referendum system is a peculiarity of the states that have it. It certainly isn’t inherent to representative democracy, in America or anywhere else.
… it’s insidious because it is another conduit through which moneyed interests’ can manipulate legislation by leveraging their financial position in any media campaign.
I attend the town meetings in the town I live in. In these meetings we vote on whether we should buy a new police car, should we pay for trash collection and many other issues. We have elected officials in the state to handle larger issues however luckily we do have a referendum petition to let the people feel that they have a say in some matters. If politicians where doing there jobs this process would not be needed. However, prior to 2-1/2, politicians spent our hard earned money like drunken sailors and voting them out was too slow and ineffective. So we do have some say on big issues now. It would be nice to have some say on a Federal level but it would be impractical to manage but it would be a great idea. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a vote by the people on the Iraq war, healthcare or other issues? Politicians don’t follow the voters will (Clinton won MA but Kennedy, Kerry, and the Gov all gave their super-delegate votes to Obama). The “people” have lost so many rights and representative democracy can stand a little help from the common man.
New England town meeting is a good point. However, as you probably know, it is also extremely unusual — direct democracy of the New England town meeting variety has all but disappeared from the planet. Even in MA, many town meetings in larger towns (e.g., Arlington) are now “representative town meetings,” meaning that they no longer permit every town resident to vote on issues, but instead require residents to elect representatives. Why? Because, as you correctly point out, it’s “impractical to manage.”
Isn’t it wild to think that we can actually start moving towards direct democracy on the internet? I don’t know if it would be practical or desirable, but this idea that direct democracy is, too difficult, just isn’t true anymore.
I hope all is well.