Two Weeks, One Year and Three Years

 

The week following the Orlando massacre was rough for me. The slaughter of 49 of my gay brothers and sisters and the injuring of another 52 more two weeks ago today passed relatively unnoticed at our embassy, and I found that personally devastating. Our Ambassador, whose leadership I greatly admire, was out of town. And consequently, we didn't have a condolence book. We were told at country team that we could have one if we wanted but that the Charge' didn't have strong feelings about it.

I nearly walked out of country team.

I am sure no harm was meant by the comment, but it harmed me. And perhaps anyone else who was LGBT, or had LGBT family or friends, or who had been touched by gun violence, or who just cared that their fellow Americans were mowed down by a madman able to get an assault rifle.

And then I had to fight to get our local LGBT activists to be ALLOWED to have a memorial vigil at the embassy. To be ALLOWED to light 49 candles for those who were lost. I was devastated all over again.

But several healing things happened since then. First, we did have the memorial. Not at the embassy like they wanted, but at least at USAID and not downtown away from the embassy. And it was really touching.

And then our Ambassador returned, and told us how sad he had been not to be with us when that happened. And how awful what had happened was and how he knew how hard it was to be so far away when this happened. And how we were lucky, because we were in a position to serve the country and to help make the U.S. and the world a better place.

And that helped a lot.

And so today I am celebrating. Because today I am reminded that it has been three years to the day since the Supreme Court ruled that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.
This is what I wrote about it at the time:

"We were on vacation in Norway when the ruling was first announced. I had been waiting for it for what seemed like an eternity. I expected it to come at 10 am Washington time on Wednesday, and it did, but I had not told my wife that this was when we would hear. She had already chastised me for watching SCOTUSblog over the past few weeks for fear I would jinx it. So I watched the clock anxiously that day and never told her I was watching the clock.

We got back into our hotel room around 4:20, or 10:20 DC time, and I immediately jumped on Facebook to see what had happened. She sat on the bed, and did the same thing, only she wasn't looking for the results. She thought we would hear the next day, because she thought the rulings were issued at the end of the day. As tears welled up in my eyes, I heard her say, "Wait, what? Did they? No..."

I said, "Honey, we are full citizens."

I didn't get up...I didn't want her to see me crying...and then she came over to me, tears streaming down her face. Neither of us had expected to cry. She had expected them to rule against us...and I had figured they would do what they did but was at the same time afraid to hope for it. I expected I would scream or dance or both.

But we both cried together. Together, apparently, with thousands of other LGBT people who felt finally accepted by their country. Who felt they were finally full citizens. Within minutes, I saw several proposals online, including one from one of my closest friends to her partner of more than 20 years. They had always considered themselves married, and she asked if her partner if she would now marry her legally. Of course she said yes. And I cried again.

What this means for us is that we no longer have to worry about being allowed to make medical decisions for each other. We never have to worry about being able to claim the other's body for burial should the unthinkable happen. We can inherit each other's property and pensions without paying inheritance taxes. We are no longer legal strangers."

One year later, I wrote about the astounding changes that had happened in that time. Marriage bans across the country were dropping like flies. We were able to go about our lives and do everything exactly the way other married couples do. And when we moved to our new house in Maryland, and went to go get our driver's licenses, one clerk accepted our mortgage document as proof of residence for my wife but not the same one as proof for me. When I went over to her at the window where she was to get the proof of car registration from her to use as proof since my mortgage paper wouldn't work, the clerk said, "Aren't you married?" When we said yes, the clerk said, "oh then she can vouch for your residency." So, yay bureaucracy?

And then a year after that, the unthinkable happened. On the two year anniversary of the Windsor decision finding DOMA unconstitutional. SCOTUS found ALL marriage bans unconstitutional.

We were finally full citizens. And I subsequently asked anyone who didn't respect my right to marriage to unfriend me, on Facebook or in real life.  But I added this:


"But before you do, I ask you to consider how you would feel if your spouse was hospitalized and weren't allowed in the room? I don't have to imagine. I have experienced it.

How would you feel if your spouse died, and you weren't allowed to bury him or her because you were a legal stranger and the law required immediate family to claim the body, even if that person was someone your spouse hated? What if you weren't allowed at the funeral? I have friends who experienced this after 20 or more years together.

How would you feel if you lost your home because your spouse died and you had to pay inheritance tax on "their half" of your home. It has happened to many gay people.

Civil marriage brings some 1,300 rights and responsibilities. Wills don't cover it. And some states could ignore even wills. And medical powers of attorney. It happened, a lot.

And hopefully it won't any more.

So maybe you still have religious beliefs that oppose marriage equality. Fine. But you don't get the right to impose those beliefs on others. Because you know what? My church believes in marriage equality. We were married in the church.

Think marriage is a Judeo-Christian ideal? Then why can atheists marry?

Think it is for procreation? Then why can the elderly and the infertile marry?

They can, because just as was determined in Loving v Virginia in 1967, marriage is about love, and it is a civil right.

And before you worry that this means your church will be required to marry gay people, it won't. A Catholic priest is not forced to marry non-Catholics. A rabbi is not forced to marry Christians. In fact, when we got married in our church, our pastor had just refused to marry a couple because they did not want to go through the required premarital counseling. Churches will still get to decide what is right for them, Just not for everyone else.

So please celebrate with me, because for the first time, I feel like a full citizen. I feel like the country that I serve, that I have kept faith with, has finally kept faith with me.

And I want to close with this, Justice Kennedy's eloquent final paragraph in the 5-4 ruling:

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered. "

Orlando has demonstrated that we still have a ways to go. There is still so much hate in the world. But I think we are heading in the right direction. So while I still mourn, while I am still shaken over and attack that happened in a "safe place," I celebrate that we are on the right path.

And I need no further proof of that than that the Charleston Post and Courier in my home state of South Carolina, where they fought to avoid accepting marriage equality, reported yesterday that one year later, same-sex marriage is simply "routine."

Feel Free to Unfriend Me

Exactly two years ago today!

I am ecstatic about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision making marriage equality the law of the land.

If you disagree, if you don't think I should have the right to have my marriage recognized nationwide, please if we are friends on Facebook or in life, feel free to unfriend me.

But before you do, I ask you to consider how you would feel if your spouse was hospitalized and weren't allowed in the room? I don't have to imagine. I have experienced it.

How would you feel if your spouse died, and you weren't allowed to bury him or her because you were a legal stranger and the law required immediate family to claim the body, even if that person was someone your spouse hated? What if you weren't allowed at the funeral? I have friends who experienced this after 20 or more years together.

How would you feel if you lost your home because your spouse died and you had to pay inheritance tax on "their half" of your home. It has happened to many gay people.

Civil marriage brings some 1,300 rights and responsibilities. Wills don't cover it. And some states could ignore even wills. And medical powers of attorney. It happened, a lot.

And hopefully it won't any more.

So maybe you still have religious beliefs that oppose marriage equality. Fine. But you don't get the right to impose those beliefs on others. Because you know what? My church believes in marriage equality. We were married in the church.

Think marriage is a Judeo-Christian ideal? Then why can atheists marry?

Think it is for procreation? Then why can the elderly and the infertile marry?

They can, because just as was determined in Loving v Virginia in 1967, marriage is about love, and it is a civil right.

And before you worry that this means your church will be required to marry gay people, it won't. A Catholic priest is not forced to marry non-Catholics. A rabbi is not forced to marry Christians. In fact, when we got married in our church, our pastor had just refused to marry a couple because they did not want to go through the required premarital counseling. Churches will still get to decide what is right for them, Just not for everyone else.

So please celebrate with me, because for the first time, I feel like a full citizen. I feel like the country that I serve, that I have kept faith with, has finally kept faith with me.

And I want to close with this, Justice Kennedy's eloquent final paragraph in the 5-4 ruling:

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be con- demned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Well Done, GLIFAA!

I want to congratulate GLIFAA on taking on one of the more serious issues facing LGBT diplomats today, the issue of accreditation.

Basically, when a diplomat is assigned to a country, that country also gives a type of diplomatic immunity to the diplomat's spouse. If the country refuses, as is too often the case if the diplomat has a same-sex spouse, that spouse goes to post at his or her own peril.

GLIFAA President Selim Ariturk was interviewed on the issue for an article called Gay Diplomats Say State Department Is Failing Their Families.

And they are right.

For those diplomats who cannot get their spouses accredited to a country, they must generally either break their assignment or go to post alone. The spouse can visit, as I did when my wife was assigned to Azerbaijan, only for one month at a time, or whatever is allowed by that country's tourist visa, at which time they must leave the country with no guarantee they will be allowed back in.

Now on the one hand, that is fine. Most Foreign Service Officers do what are called "unaccompanied tours," which is where the spouse cannot join the diplomat. But you see, there are a series of boxes we all need to check in order to make Senior Foreign Service, and one of those is to do an unaccompanied tour. But it only "counts" if you do it at places specifically designated "unaccompanied." So if you are an LGBT diplomat forced to be apart from your spouse because a country won't accredit him or her, you still need to do another one to be considered for our senior ranks. And that isn't fair. The Department can and should choose to make these tours "count."

But what is more, in many countries, the Department could use a stronger hand. No, you are not trying to change that culture (though working for LGBT rights worldwide is a foreign policy priority of the administration), we could say fine, for each legal spouse of ours you refuse to accredit, we will not accredit one of yours. Reciprocity, a tried and true method for getting our people treated equally. I can't imagine that we would stand for a country denying accreditation to a spouse based on race, so we shouldn't stand for it here.

As it is, officers are having their careers harmed by an unwillingness by posts, HR or the Department to find a way to make it work. They are unable to accept jobs that would be good for their careers (don't mistake a reference to a "plum" assignment as meaning a cushy one...for example, I consider my onward assignment to Kosovo to be a plum assignment because the work will be interesting, important and good for my career advancement).

For example, the article says "In one case, a diplomat who asked not to be identified out of fear of retaliation told BuzzFeed News that since joining the foreign service in 2010 he has twice been all-but-promised a plum post in a country where they needed his specialized language skills only to be reassigned at the last minute because of this country’s policy toward same-sex partners. When this first happened in 2011, the diplomat said that his State Department career development officer told him, 'There aren’t a lot of places that will accredit your same-sex partner, so if you choose to continue in this relationship it will adversely affect your career.'"

Even more senior members of the service have been affected. My wife and I aren't affected by this because we are a tandem, meaning we each get diplomatic accreditation in our own right and not based on our marriage. But the Department can and should do more to help those not as fortunate as we are.

One a side note, poor Selim and GLIFAA got absolutely flamed by GLIFAA members for doing this interview. People said they should apologize to Secretary Kerry and to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Human Resources Phil Lussier because the Department of State is a great place for LGBT people to work.

They are right that is it s a great place to work for LGBT people, but make not mistake. It is a great place too work because GLIFAA pushed for equality and fairness for LGBT employees. Selim was with me when we delivered the document on Secretary Clinton's first day, a petition from our colleagues for equal treatment for LGBT employees and a list of changes Secretary Clinton could make with the stroke of a pen. That document, based on the hard work of GLIFAA, is what led to changes that have continued through the group's efforts.

So BRAVO to Selim and GLIFAA for continuing to demand more from the Department in terms of treating all its employees equally. Well done!

One Year

One year ago today, while my wife and I were on vacation in Norway, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

The moment we heard is still vivid in my mind.

Here is some of what I wrote at the time:

"I had been waiting for the ruling for what seemed like an eternity. I expected it to come at 10 am Washington time on June 26th, but I had not told my wife that this was when the ruling was expected because she had already chastised me for watching SCOTUSblog the few weeks prior for fear I would jinx it. I watched the clock anxiously that day and never told her I was watching the clock.

We got back into our hotel room around 4:20, or 10:20 DC time, and I immediately jumped on Facebook to see what had happened. She sat on the bed, and did the same thing, only she wasn't looking for the results. She thought we would hear the next day, because she thought the rulings were issued at the end of the day. As tears welled up in my eyes, I heard her say, "Wait, what? Did they? No..."

I said, "Honey, we are full citizens."

I didn't get up...I didn't want her to see me crying...and then she came over to me, tears streaming down her face. Neither of us had expected to cry. She had expected them to rule against us...and I had figured they would do what they did but was at the same time afraid to hope for it. I expected I would scream or dance or both.

But we both cried together. Together, apparently, with thousands of other LGBT people who felt finally accepted by their country. Who felt they were finally full citizens. Within minutes, I saw several proposals online, including one from one of my closest friends to her partner of more than 20 years. They had always considered themselves married, and she asked if her partner if she would now marry her legally. Of course she said yes. And I cried again."

Just reading the words I wrote a year ago (okay, a year and four days, because I couldn't post very well from my ipad), brings tears to my eyes again.

Since the decision, every single ruling in the country, some 22 or 24 I think, has gone in favor of marriage equality. Two more state bans were found to be unconstitutional just yesterday. There is now marriage equality in 19 states plus DC, and every single state has either had their ban declared unconstitutional or has a pending lawsuit. EVERY. STATE.

In that time, we have purchased a home in Maryland and established residency there. Next month, we will move into our home there for the first time. Virginia, which continues to not recognize our marriage, has lost thousands of dollars in income taxes just from us. And we know we are not alone. (It also meant filing a bazillion tax returns...okay, six I think, including fake federal ones listing us as single for our Virginia taxes and real joint federal ones...plus hiring an accountant for the first time).

The changes in society have been dramatic. A majority of Americans now support marriage equality, including 50% in my beloved South. When getting insurance for a property we have in South Carolina, the agent asked if I was married, I said yes and gave her my wife's info, and she said she didn't think they would recognize our marriage...and that she was sorry because that was simply unfair!

Changes I made to our insurance and such at work and with our mortgages were simple. I had only to tell them we were married. I got not one single negative response. And my friends with foreign born spouses are having their lives changed even more dramatically. Several of my friends are newly-minted Americans because their marriages are finally recognized. I can't even describe how happy I am for them, because their struggles were always so much greater than ours.

There are still some changes that need to be made. Some agencies are still bound to recognize marriages based on places of residence rather than of ceremony, meaning that some couples living in non-equality states are still not getting social security and veterans benefits they are entitled to.

But at least now, we no longer have to worry about being allowed to make medical decisions for each other. We never have to worry about being able to claim the other's body for burial should the unthinkable happen. We can inherit each other's property and pensions without paying inheritance taxes. We are no longer legal strangers.

And when people ask now if we are married, the answer is a simple yes, without qualifications.

Ch-ch-changes!

Head Uut Aastat Eestist! Happy 2014!

I know many friends who are happy to kick 2013 out the door. For them, I am glad the year is done and they wake today with all the possibilities of a new year and a new (better) start.

For me, 2013 was pretty good. I am the first to admit how blessed I am. I am thankful every day for a job that I love (most days) and that is secure and reasonably well paid (except when Congress shuts down the government). I have a wonderful wife who loves me and beautiful fur and feathered children.

And 2013 brought us the thing I barely dared to hope for: federal recognition of our marriage (and a doubling of the states with marriage equality).

Yes, I think when it is all added up, 2013 was a good year.

And I am an optimist. I believe 2014 will be a good year too.

For us, because we are Foreign Service Officers, it will bring the changes that are routine and yet never routine in our profession. The view from next January 1 will be different from this year's.

Different because with the arrival of January comes the inevitable countdown. Only 6 months left in Estonia. Six months until we pack up all our things once again and say goodbye to the friends we have made here...friends I hope to keep forever.

By the time we celebrate the arrival of 2015, we will have completed our tours here. We will have headed back to the U.S., had home leave (hopefully in the mountains of Tennessee), and traded in our suits for blue jeans and polos and started language training. We will have transitioned from diplomats to bureaucrats, as we all do when we go back to DC, and will be half way through preparation to transition back to diplomats again in Kosovo.

We will have hopefully settled into our new home, the one we have at this point not set foot in, and will hopefully have received all of our belongings from Estonia and storage. Our dog will hopefully have learned how awesome it is to have a yard again (after 10 years without) and our cats will have experienced the joys of a screened porch (because they are not allowed outside, ever. Did you know the life expectancy for a completely indoor cat is nearly triple that of an indoor/outdoor cat?). We will have been able to switch to running (for my wife) and biking (for me...stupid knees) outdoors on a local trail rather than indoors as we are forced by snow to do for much of the year here.

I don't make New year's resolutions anymore (I am profoundly bad at it and so I made a resolution one year to make no more resolutions...that has been one of the only ones I have managed to keep!) I don't even really set goals for the year, because I have proven sort of bad at that too.

But I do have hopes for the year, most of which I can have little impact on other to the degree that praying helps. I hope my family is safe, happy and healthy in the New Year. I hope to see them more when we are stateside. I hope to do well in language, or to at least have fun at it.

But my big hope for 2014 is more of 2013 in the march to equality. I hope more and more states choose to join the right side of history, especially some in my beloved south (I am looking at you South Carolina...I said I was an optimist, right?).

Here's wishing you the most amazing 2014 ever. Head Uut Aastat!

Quite a Year

A wedding happened yesterday.

Such a wonderful, ordinary thing.

Except that it was two men getting married. Legally. In Utah.

Yesterday I shared this picture on Facebook, courtesy of Freedom to Marry.

It really illustrates what an extraordinary year this has been for marriage equality.

In one year, eight states (EIGHT!) have been added to the number of states with marriage equality. LGBT people can now legally marry in seventeen states. And more importantly, the Supreme Court on June 26 overturned a key portion of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, meaning marriages in those states are legal in the eyes of the federal government. Meaning my marriage was legal federally and my friends who had married non-Americans could apply for their spouses to become American. And some of them are already in the process of doing so. Deportations of legal spouses stopped. And my friends serving this country could plan to come home when they retire, home to the country they love with the spouse they love.

And now, a majority of Americans support the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

Quite a year indeed.

And then I woke this morning to discover that the picture I shared last night was wrong.

Because last night, Utah's constitutional ban on same-sex marriages was found by the court to violate the U.S. Constitution. 

(Which is huge, because it could ultimately result in the overturning of all of the constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. According the to article:

"[Judge] Shelby writes the issue of same-sex marriage is “politically charged in the current climate” and more so because the current law is in place as a result of referendum. However, Shelby rules that even a vote of the people can’t defy the U.S. Constitution.

“It is only under exceptional circumstances that a court interferes with such action,” Shelby writes. “But the legal issues presented in this lawsuit do not depend on whether Utah’s laws were the result of its legislature or a referendum, or whether the laws passed by the widest or smallest of margins. The question presented here depends instead on the Constitution itself, and on the interpretation of that document contained in binding precedent from the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

The judge concludes by drawing on the 1966 case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state bans on interracial marriage throughout the country, saying the defense in favor of these bans 50 years ago is the same the state provided for Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage.

“For the reasons discussed above, the court finds these arguments as unpersuasive as the Supreme Court found them fifty years ago,” Shelby writes. “Anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia and elsewhere were designed to, and did, deprive a targeted minority of the full measure of human dignity and liberty by denying them the freedom to marry the partner of their choice. Utah’s Amendment 3 achieves the same result.”")

And that court ruled there would be no stay, and LGBT people could marry immediately.

And one hour later, two men were married in Utah.

A simple, ordinary, beautiful, wonderful thing. In Utah.

The 18th state!

Once again, love wins.

So Much DOMA News!

It is like every time I look at Facebook, I see something else related to the demise of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

Much of it is good news. Just the other day, the IRS announced that it would recognize the place of celebration rather than the place of residence for filing income taxes. That means that even if my wife and I were still residents of Virginia, we could file our federal taxes as married.

But of course, we'd still have to file our state taxes separately. I predict some headaches where that is concerned.

Health and Human Services announced that all beneficiaries in private Medicare plans have access to equal coverage when it comes to care in a nursing home where their spouse lives. New Mexico counties willing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples are popping up like popcorn. Some in Pennsylvania too. The Secretary for Veterans Affairs announced that same-sex spouses would NOT be eligible for benefits, and a federal judge promptly issued an injunction. Even my beloved home state of South Carolina is getting sued to recognize a couple's legal marriage!

But it is not all good news.

The Texas National Guard is still refusing to extend benefits to married same-sex couples despite a Pentagon directive to do so.

And there are still challenges for some of us serving abroad. An article in the Washington Post talks about some of those challenges, such as dealing with antiquated Status of Forces agreements that don't recognize marriage equality. One married couple in Japan is unable to live together because they can't get a visa for the non-employee husband. And work-arounds have proven too cumbersome.

Even for those of us in the State Department, which has been the most forward-leaning of the federal agencies thanks in no small part to the efforts of former Secretary of State Clinton, sometimes have problems. Only about a quarter of the posts where we serve will give diplomatic visas to same-sex spouses of Foreign Service personnel. In the rest, we have to come up with work arounds of be separated for as long as three years. And how hard to push a country to recognize a relationship and give diplomatic status to a spouse can depend on everything from unrelated political issues to the willingness of the leadership at post to be helpful.

My wife and I have been lucky. We have had excellent Ambassadors who recognized our marriage. And even if we hadn't, because we are both officers, we come with our own diplomatic immunity. So we don't have to rely on a country's willingness to recognize our marriage in order to be together (we just have to be able to get tandem assignments...but that is a whole other issue that doesn't relate to our being a same-sex couple as much as to our being married employees...we share that headache with our straight tandem-couple colleagues!).

Did I mention it is bidding season....

Anyway, it seems like each day brings a new thing to be thankful for even if each week shows us there are still battles to be fought.

And they will be fought. And won.

Equal

So long, Virginia.

Yesterday, a day before our eleven year wedding anniversary (and two and a half months before our 14 year anniversary together and four year anniversary of our legal marriage), we closed on a house in Maryland.

Isn't equality cute?

Don't get me wrong Virginia. I really like you. We both do. We especially love Northern Virginia...so close to work. So close to FSI. So many cool restaurants and dog parks and jogging trails. Your power company that isn't Pepco.

But it has felt like a one-way street.

Oh you were content enough to take our taxes. But you didn't like the money enough to make us full citizens. You didn't like us enough to let us file our taxes jointly. Or inherit from each other like spouses instead of like strangers. Or make burial arrangements for each other.

So we decided that we would become residents of Maryland instead.

Because it just seems like they want us more. Heck, they even offered to recognize our marriage as legal before same-sex couples could get married there.

I know things are changing. I hope that soon, you too will be on the right side of history. I just don't want to keep giving you money for discriminating against my family. We work hard and we serve our country, for pete's sake! We just want to be treated like everyone else.

And I know there are those who say that nothing will change if people leave instead of fighting. And I will keep fighting, just like I have since I first came out in 1986. That's right, I have been out and fighting for nearly 30 years. It is just that now, I can do it from a place of safety for my family. And I think I have earned that. And I support the fight of those who stay and fight, whether because they can't move or don't want to. I recognize that I am fortunate to have the choice.

So, see ya later Virginia. We are taking our tax dollars, our housing dollars, our retail dollars, elsewhere.

To Maryland, where we are equal.

And This Is Why We Are Moving To Maryland...

After the Supreme Court overturned the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, certain benefits were extended to married same-sex couples regardless of their state of residence. President Obama said at the time that there were two possible standards for determining marital status, place of residence and place of ceremony. he hoped that the latter definition would be used, extending marital protections to legally married couples regardless of where they currently reside.

And this is in fact the standard many agencies have been using. For example, the State Department recently began issuing visas to married same-sex couples, and DHS stopped deportation proceedings against legal spouses regardless of their state of residence.

But an article in the Washington Blade demonstrates that this is not what is happening for every agency.

For example, the Social Security Administration is putting a hold on applications where the applicants do not live in a state with marriage equality. Likewise, married couples will still have to pay state inheritance taxes should one spouse die if they live in a state without marriage equality. And the family medical leave act may not apply to couples who don't live in marriage equality states.

All of these issues can be dealt with by a simple policy change, and hopefully it will happen soon. But it isn't there yet. This affects us directly. We are currently residents of Virginia, which has a constitutional ban on our marriage. So if I died, my wife couldn't claim my body and make burial decisions for me. She would have to pay inheritance taxes on our home, and she would not be able to claim my social security.

And this is why we are moving to Maryland. With any luck, we will close on our new home in a couple weeks and soon thereafter be able to establish Maryland residency. And Virginia will have lost two taxpayers.

And we are the lucky ones. Because we work for an agency based in D.C., it is easy for us to say fine, we will just move across the border. Others aren't so lucky. Their jobs tie them to place, whether by virtue of being unable to work at the same job in another location or unable to afford to move.

We need to fix this for them. For the country. So we can all be full citizens.

Announcement on Visa Changes for Same-Sex Couples

We will be treated equally. It is all we have ever asked. Thank you, Secretary Kerry (and thank you SCOTUS, and especially, thank you Edie Windsor!)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesperson
For Immediate Release August 2, 2013

REMARKS

Secretary of State John Kerry
Announcement on Visa Changes for Same-Sex Couples

August 2, 2013
U.S. Embassy London, United Kingdom

[...]

Today is one of those days. I’m very pleased to be able to announce that effective immediately, when same-sex spouses apply for a visa, the Department of State will consider that application in the same manner that it will consider the application of opposite-sex spouses. And here is exactly what this rule means: If you are the spouse of a U.S. citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. If you are the spouse of a non-citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. And if you are in a country that doesn’t recognize your same-sex marriage, then your visa application will still be treated equally at every single one of our 222 visa processing centers around the world.

Now, as long as a marriage has been performed in a jurisdiction that recognizes it so that it is legal, then that marriage is valid under U.S. immigration laws, and every married couple will be treated exactly the same, and that is what we believe is appropriate. Starting next year, that will include same-sex couples from England and Wales, which just this year passed laws permitting same-sex marriage that will take effect in 2014.

...

So those of you working today in the consular section will make history when you issue some of the first visas to same-sex couples, and you will be some of the first faces to welcome them to the United States in an always – a country that obviously is always trying to tweak and improve and do better by the values around which we were founded. You share in the great responsibility of making our country live its values, and you make possible the journey of those who want to visit our country for that reason and many more.

Reuters: U.S. says visas from gay spouses will get equal treatment

An article by Reuters,U.S. says visas from gay spouses will get equal treatment, brings very welcome news for those who have been waiting for official department guidance.

The article said:

"The United States will immediately begin considering visa applications of gay and lesbian spouses in the same manner as heterosexual couples, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday.

Kerry made the announcement at the U.S. Embassy in London.

"When same-sex couples apply for a visa, the Department of State will consider that application in the same manner that it considers the application of opposite sex spouses," Kerry said shortly after his arrival in London.

"If you are the spouse of a U.S. citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. If you are the spouse of a non-citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. If you are in a country that doesn't recognize your same-sex marriage, then your visa application will still be treated equally at every single one of our 222 visa processing centers around the world," he added."

I checked our Department's official guidance, and yes, in fact: "Beginning immediately, consular officers should review visa applications filed by a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed by an opposite-sex spouse..."

Welcome news indeed!

GovExec: Same-Sex Spouses Eligible for Benefits Regardless of Residency

One of the questions arising from the Supreme Court's finding of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional is whether legally married couples living in states where their marriage was not recognized would be eligible for federal benefits.

President Obama said that he hoped that the government would use "place of ceremony" rather than "place of residence" in determining residency, and indeed, the first green card was issued to a legally married couple in Florida, where their marriage was not recognized. Definitely a good sign.

Government Executive has a piece today that suggests that the "place of ceremony" will be applied to all federal benefits. In their piece, Same-Sex Spouses Eligible for Benefits Regardless of Residency, they cite new federal guidance from the Office of Personel Management regarding health benefits that says that "Same-sex spouses of legally married feds and retirees are eligible for health and retirement benefits regardless of which state they live in."

The guidance reads:

"Coverage will be available to a legally married same-sex spouse of a Federal employee or annuitant, regardless of his or her state of residency. This decision does not extend coverage to registered domestic partners or those employees or annuitants in civil unions."

Because we already knew separate was not equal.

This is exceptionally good news for people like us who (until we can find a house in Maryland to buy) live in states like Virginia, which does not recognize our marriage.

The other part of the guidance I like: "OPM sent letters last week to insurance carriers about extending health, dental and vision coverage to same-sex spouses and children of feds and annuitants, underscoring the need for equity. “Carriers will be cautioned against imposing any new rules in response to the Supreme Court’s decision that could be seen as having either the purpose or effect of creating barriers to enrollment for legally married same-sex couples,” stated the July 3 benefits administration letter from OPM’s John O’Brien, director of healthcare and insurance."

You can read the entire Government Executive piece here.

What the SCOTUS Ruling on DOMA Means to Me

The Government Accountability Office estimated there were 1,138 rights, privileges and responsibilities that went along with federally recognized marriage. The Supreme Court ruling that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as it pertained to those rights being denied to legally married same-sex couples, means that those rights are no longer denied to me and my wife simply by virtue of our being a same-sex couple.

We were on vacation in Norway when the ruling was first announced. I had been waiting for it for what seemed like an eternity. I expected it to come at 10 am Washington time on Wednesday, and it did, but I had not told my wife that this was when we would hear. She had already chastised me for watching SCOTUSblog over the past few weeks for fear I would jinx it. So I watched the clock anxiously that day and never told her I was watching the clock.

We got back into our hotel room around 4:20, or 10:20 DC time, and I immediately jumped on Facebook to see what had happened. She sat on the bed, and did the same thing, only she wasn't looking for the results. She thought we would hear the next day, because she thought the rulings were issued at the end of the day. As tears welled up in my eyes, I heard her say, "Wait, what? Did they? No..."

I said, "Honey, we are full citizens."

I didn't get up...I didn't want her to see me crying...and then she came over to me, tears streaming down her face. Neither of us had expected to cry. She had expected them to rule against us...and I had figured they would do what they did but was at the same time afraid to hope for it. I expected I would scream or dance or both.

But we both cried together. Together, apparently, with thousands of other LGBT people who felt finally accepted by their country. Who felt they were finally full citizens. Within minutes, I saw several proposals online, including one from one of my closest friends to her partner of more than 20 years. They had always considered themselves married, and she asked if her partner if she would now marry her legally. Of course she said yes. And I cried again.

What this means for us is that we no longer have to worry about being allowed to make medical decisions for each other. We never have to worry about being able to claim the other's body for burial should the unthinkable happen. We can inherit each other's property and pensions without paying inheritance taxes. We are no longer legal strangers.

We are house hunting in Maryland now, because although we now have a federally-recognized marriage, Virginia still does not have marriage equality. And they could still go things like charge us inheritance taxes on our own home. And force us to continue to file separately at tax time. And it is unclear whether the federal government will use the place of residence or place of ceremony to determine our marital status (the President is pushing for place of ceremony), so it is even possible that as Virginia residents, we would not have our marriage fully recognized by the federal government. So we move north. Besides, as much as I love Northern Virginia, I don't want my taxes subsidizing a state still intent of keeping me as a second-class citizen.

When I head to work tomorrow, it will be with a copy of our marriage license in hand so I can start the process of having the Department recognize us as a married couple and not as "domestic partners" (which we never were). Because we are both employees, this will mean less for us than for some of our friends. Friends who, like many of our straight colleagues, fell in love overseas with non-Americans. They can now petition for green cards and expeditious naturalization for their spouses. I am over the moon happy for them. To say nothing of our friends in the military, who will now get housing appropriate for their families and will have their spouse and not possibly estranged parents and siblings receive notification if they are killed in war. The world has just become fundamentally more fair.

The fight is of course not over. We still can't retire to my beloved South Carolina because they don't recognize our marriage and I won't leave our family unprotected again. And even in my own family, there are still hearts and minds to change. One of my aunts, who I always felt was more like a sister, commented on Facebook that she was sick of hearing about gay marriage and she hoped they all knew they were going to hell anyway. I was devastated...I never knew she felt that way and I have no idea what to say to her. She has always been one of the more supportive of my family members, so I felt really blind-sided by it.

Regardless, for now, I celebrate. For now, I feel like my service to my country, my keeping faith with it when it didn't keep faith with me, was worth it. I am ready to fight the next battles, because they are skirmishes at the end of a war that has already been won.

And those who "lost," lost nothing. This is not the end of freedom in the U.S. It is the beginning of freedom. No state has been forced to recognize marriage equality (though I think they should...76% of the country "wasn't ready" for interracial marriage when the court ruled on that issue in Loving v Virginia, and the court did the right thing anyway. And the sky did not fall). No minister will be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. No person will be forced to marry a person of the same sex. But people who do choose to marry someone of the same sex, as I and thousands of others have, in states that have chosen to make those unions legal, will finally be able to protect their families.

And that means everything.

Remarks at the Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) Pride Event

Remarks at the Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) Pride Event

John Kerry
Secretary of State
Dean Acheson Auditorium
Washington, DC
June 19, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. Please, please, please, please. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very, very much. Ken, thank you for a generous welcome. Thank you all. Secretary Pat Kennedy and Director General Linda Thomas-Greenfield, thank you for being here, and others. We appreciate it. Tara, everybody, thank you for being here.

And Ken, when I heard you say you could talk forever about my efforts on behalf of LGBT, I was sitting there, like any formerly elected person for 29 years, and I said, “Go ahead, keep talking, keep talking.” (Laughter.) But no such luck today.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here with all of you, and very, very special to welcome just some super special guests here, and I want them to stand up and I want everybody to say thank you to them and recognize them. Judy and Dennis Shepard are here, and we’re so grateful for you being here. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

I remind everybody that it is amazing to think, but it has been nearly 15 years since we mourned the tragic murder of their son, Matthew. And I can remember very clearly meeting them previously and speaking to the crowd gathered on the National Mall in front of the Capitol building at a vigil that was held two nights after he was killed. Thousands of people came together to share their grief, but also to share their sense of outrage that such an act could be carried out, such a senseless, violent, terrible heartbreak. And we were all standing with Judy and Dennis on that dark night, and frankly, since then, they have helped to lead the way through darkness and into the light, and they’ve turned their pain and their loss into a remarkable global message of hope and of tolerance. So, Judy and Dennis, make no mistake: You really do inspire us and we are very honored to have you here with us today. Thank you.

I also want – I know Congressman John Lewis was here a little bit ago, I think, and he had to leave to go vote. There are few members, few people I’ve met in life who I admire as much as John Lewis. He was almost killed on that day down in Selma, and he led, at the side of Martin Luther King and others, to break the back of Jim Crow in this country. John is just without doubt one of the most self-effacing, beautiful human beings I have ever met and an amazing person of courage who demonstrates what you can do against, as Bobby Kennedy said, the enormous array of the world’s ills. So we thank him for being here today, and most importantly, we thank him for standing up on the front lines of fighting for people’s rights for all of these years.

I also want to thank Mara Keisling from the National Center for Transgender Equality. Thanks for being here and for your contributions. And I want to thank Acting Assistant Secretary Uzra Zeya from our Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. We’re very, very grateful also to the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington for that wonderful rendition of our national anthem, and thank you for their performance.

As Ken said, I have had the privilege of being involved in the struggle for rights, for LGBT rights, for a long period of time. And it is a privilege. Coming from Massachusetts, maybe we inherently know something about fighting for rights from the inception. But it wasn’t that long ago, as I recall, and many of you, I’m sure, do too, when things looked very different from the way they look today. If you want an amusing read before you go to sleep, go get the transcript of my testimony before Strom Thurmond on the Armed Services Committee 20 years ago, when we first pushed for an end on the ban on gays in the military. If you want to read a Senate hearing that is actually literally like a Saturday night skit – Saturday Night Live skit, that is it. And I won’t go into all the questions that Strom and his inimitable accent posed to me – (laughter) – but I walked out of there thinking that I was truly on a different planet, or he was; one or the other. (Laughter.)

But we ran into a wall of misunderstanding and of misperception. But as we are learning even today, as we look at various places in the world where homophobia raises its ugly and frightened head, we see that there is fear and that a lot is driven by fear – always has been – not always with respect to LGBT issues, but with respect to people generally, with respect to race and religion. And this is an ongoing battle for all of us, and believe me, not just for us; it is an ongoing battle in hidden parts of this planet, in dark corners where there is no light, where people are thrown into jail, or worse, beaten brutally, tortured and even murdered because of who they are or what they believe.

So we have an enormous challenge ahead of us, and all of you, every single person here, because you have the privilege of being here in this building, in this freedom, able to talk about this; it is because of that that you actually bear also a larger responsibility. When I voted, as Ken said, in 1996, I don’t claim any great act of courage. Maybe it was because I did represent the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but nevertheless I was proud to be the only person running for reelection that year in those 14 who actually voted against DOMA. And I am confident that if the Supreme Court adheres to the law and to precedent, that it must be found unconstitutional.

Now, we also know that we’ve made progress where – (applause) – now, if it isn’t, you can take that applause back in your home someday. (Laughter.)

Obviously, the landscape has changed remarkably fast. And every one of you here deserves credit for that. You all know your individual journeys in this effort, whether you are a member of the LGBT community or whether you are a supporter and a friend and here in solidarity with it. But everybody understands that things are changing because people have dared to stand up and show solidarity and speak common sense and talk truth to sometimes ugly power.

And the fact is that we have an Administration today that I am proud to say no longer defends the constitutionality of DOMA. That’s an enormous step forward. We also have a Senate that recently welcomed its first openly gay member, and we have a record number in the House of Representatives. I can remember when the first person came out in the House of Representatives within the service – time of my service in the Senate. We also have seen how “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is now a part of history, and that no American who wants to wear the uniform of their country that they love will be denied the chance to serve the country they love because of whom they love.

So we’re making progress. And that is the sort of change that we are seeing spread across the country, as state after state breaks down the barrier – the real barriers – to honest equality, not only in the workplace but throughout life.

But we have to say, as we gather here today, that we still do have a distance to travel. Far too many women and men and families are still denied equality under our laws. Two of my former constituents, just to give you an example – I got to meet them – a fellow named Junior and Tim, who were married in Massachusetts, but because of DOMA the Federal Government didn’t recognize their marriage. And so the law treated them differently than if they had been man and woman, married. And time after time, when I met with them – and I did frequently and learn how hard it was that they couldn’t choose the path that they wanted to for themselves – but they also reminded me in the course of their life history what, in fact, marriage is supposed to be all about, which is an enduring love, a love that actually keeps you together even when you’ve been separated and it’s as if you hadn’t been. And I’ll tell you why, because one of them was out of the country and couldn’t come back in and we had to go through hoops to be able to actually ultimately reunite them here in our country because of our immigration laws.

They’re not alone. A few weeks ago, I was standing right here in this room at my first town hall when a young FSO named Selim Ariturk stood up and told a similar story about his life and his partner, whom he’d met overseas during his first tour. And he had to jump through hoops to be treated fairly. I know that many of you have probably experienced very similar stories, or even experienced them individually.

So the reality is, even as we celebrate, we have to come here today and commit ourselves to the ultimate task of fulfilling equality under the law here in our own country, and we have to be clear-eyed about the challenges that remain. I believe that we are on an irreversible course, and I believe happily that the United States of America is helping to set a global example for how people ought to be treated in life. I think that – I make this commitment to you that as Secretary of State, I will continue to stand right where I have stood throughout my years of elected service, and that begins with how we treat our LGBT colleagues right here in the State Department.

And I think under Pat and Linda’s and other people’s stewardship, we are already doing an outstanding job. Same-sex partners and spouses at overseas missions enjoy the same benefits allowed by law as all of our employees’ families. And we’ve included a category for same-sex partners in our personnel system. It’s now easier for transgender Americans to change the gender on their passport. It may seem like a small thing, but it’s a big deal. And we’ve stated unequivocally that this Department does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

I’m happy to say that these steps reflect not just the Department view, but President Obama’s view, and President Obama’s commitment to full equality, no matter who you are or who you love. And as Americans send us out to show our face to the world in this Department, we will set an example through our respect for the rights of people everywhere. Having GLIFAA members as part of that American face, frankly, helps us demonstrate our leadership.

Our work, though, is more than just setting an example. We got to be out there showing up in places where progress on LGBT rights has been slower and harder to achieve, and where using our tools of development and diplomacy actually leverage our efforts forward in this endeavor. And we remain focused on this and will, because American leadership requires promoting universal values. That’s what this represents. This isn’t an aberration. This isn’t some step out of the mainstream. It’s actually the mainstream is out of step with what ought to be the mainstream. The mainstream represents the recognition of universal rights that have been true since humankind began writing about them and defining them, and as we have moved through the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries to this place in the 21st century, where we understand that dignity and equality and the rights of all people are at the center of what we ought to be espousing in our public and our private life.

When we see the abuse of those values that are directed at the LGBT community, we have a moral obligation to stand in pride with LGBT individuals and advocates. We have a moral obligation to decry the marginalization and persecution of LGBT persons. And we have a moral obligation to promote societies that are more just, more fair, and tolerant.

It is the right thing to do. It’s also in our country’s strategic interest. Greater inclusion and protection of human rights, including those for LGBT people and for their communities, leads to greater stability, greater prosperity, and greater protection for the rights of human beings. Stronger partners on the world stage are built out of this endeavor, and the truth is that in the end, it can actually help project peace and security across the whole region.

And that is why, in 2011, President Obama issued the first-ever Presidential Memorandum on the human rights of LGBT persons globally, directing that all agencies abroad must ensure that our diplomacy and our foreign assistance promotes and protects these rights. And I think we have accomplished a great deal on this issue.

With our support, the UN Human Rights Council passed its first-ever resolution affirming the rights of LGBT persons. Through PEPFAR’s blueprint for an AIDS-free generation, we are working to scale up HIV services for LGBT individuals, who are often at higher risk. Our Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration is expanding our effort to help LGBT refugees and asylum seekers. And we are providing LGBT travelers with information about countries where they may face prosecution or arrest – persecution.

Overseas, we’re encouraging our missions to think about how do you best support these goals. And here at home, we’ve set up a Department-wide task force that will develop new approaches in order to try to better integrate LGBT policy into our foreign policy.

And through our Global Partnerships Initiative – I just met with members of it a few minutes ago – we have set up the Global Equality Fund, and that will support LGBT human rights defenders on the front lines. We’re working with likeminded governments, including Norway, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Iceland, and Finland. And we have partnered with private sector leaders, including the MAC AIDS Fund and the John D. Evans Foundation. I think they both are here. And we are especially grateful to the Arcus Foundation, which will match any corporate contribution that we receive up to $1 million. And we hope that additional partners are going to join us in this critical effort.

So all of this that I’ve talked about is a good start, my friends, but it’s just that. It’s a start. Last week, the President appointed three openly gay ambassadors to Denmark, Spain, and to the Organization for the Security and Cooperation in Europe. And they will build on the tremendous record and work by Ambassador Huebner and former Ambassadors Hormel and Guest. In fact, I remember the confirmation hearing for former Ambassador Hormel, which in itself was a kind of groundbreaking, difficult process which we ultimately succeeded in winning.

So we are committed to seeing more LGBT persons in senior positions in this Department. And I ask for your input and all of your ideas, so that in the coming days I can sit down and work with our team here to ensure that the Department is properly resourcing and prioritizing our international efforts for the next generation of LGBT progress.

I think everybody here knows this isn’t automatic, not always an easy path. There is fear, and from the fear, the hate that sometimes comes with it that translates too often into violence. We still see anti-propaganda laws in Eastern Europe that are targeting LGBT demonstrators. We still hear reports of violence amongst – against transgender persons in Latin America and Asia. We still see the enforcement of archaic sodomy laws in the Caribbean, and we see abuse and incarceration of LGBT activists in Africa.

But I believe, as I think you do, that today we come here in pride, with pride, to celebrate the fact that the winds of freedom are blowing in the right direction. We know that the intolerance towards LGBT brothers and sisters fades with each passing generation. And it is with a belief in our common humanity, in the fundamental worth of every human being, that we have to keep moving forward towards our goal of shared justice and equality here in our country and around the world.

So I especially join here today in saying to our GLIFAA members and to all of you, Happy Pride every day the world over. Thank you for the privilege of being with you. Thank you. (Applause.)

Please sit down. I gather we’re going to do a couple questions, so we’ll – I’ll do that.

MR. KERO-MENTZ: Great, great. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I loved what you said about where homophobia rears its ugly and frightened head, we’ll be there. I thought that was a really powerful statement, and demonstrates your long-held and heartfelt belief in equality and human rights for everyone. So thank you very much. Thank you as well for your mention of GLIFAA, and it’s great to know that we have your back – or you have our back, and you’ve got our back, and we’ve got your back.

SECRETARY KERRY: You’ve got to have mine too, folks, or I’m in trouble. (Laughter.) I’m counting on you.

MR. KERO-MENTZ: So – and thank you for answering a couple of questions. We asked our GLIFAA post representatives overseas – we’ve got about 100 serving in our embassies and consulates – to send us some questions that maybe we could pose to you. And you’ve got probably time for about two of them, if that’s okay.

SECRETARY KERRY: Sure.

MR. KERO-MENTZ: The first question from our GLIFAA post rep in Kyiv, Ukraine, Doug Morrow. He asks, “I’ve noticed a marked increase in anti-gay legislation and homophobic statements made by host country government officials and religious leaders in many countries around the world, including Nigeria, Ukraine, Russia, Uganda, and elsewhere. There seems to be a relationship between this sort of state-sponsored homophobia and increases in hate crimes against LGBT activists and individuals. Many of us have seen it firsthand. I know that the Department in our missions overseas are promoting human rights for everyone, including LGBT persons, but what more could we reasonably do to combat state-sponsored homophobia?”

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, that’s a great question. What we need to do is do things like we’re doing here today, where you speak out and where you show people what is appropriate as well as permissible. In a lot of places – I’ve seen it for years. I used to – when I was in the DA’s office, I used to be a prosecutor. I remember going and meeting with kids, young kids, because I wanted to find out why kids were falling into the criminal justice system at age – whatever, 14, 15, 16. And almost invariably, almost ninety-whatever percent it was, I found kids who came from very troubled families, from places where they didn’t have adult input. And like everybody in life, we all learn from people ahead of us.

And so this is going through a huge generational transformation where, in fact, today, we’re kind of learning from a younger generation where the kinds of things that older folks who lived in a different norm are not as in touch with, but where the younger folks coming up are realizing none of this really matters. They’re just growing up with a different sense of what’s important. And as kids have come out in high school or in college or whatever, and their friends are their friends, they realize this person isn’t any different, and it breaks down the barriers. So what you had is a whole transformation taking place that hasn’t taken place in many of these other countries.

I’ve never met any child – two and half, three years old – who hates anybody. They hate their broccoli maybe, or they hate – but they don’t hate people. They haven’t learned it yet. And so the issue is really one of teaching people, of setting up rule of law, of establishing a different norm where people begin to break down the fear and they recognize that they’re not, in fact, threatened. And I think – it doesn’t mean you’re going to change everybody’s minds overnight. There are people who hold a strongly held religious belief or cultural belief, and they may go to their grave believing that, but that doesn’t mean they have to be intolerant.

And that’s the key thing that I think America has so much more than almost any other place that I know. We’re not without fault. We’re not without ability to be criticized. But by and large, we are capable of showing more tolerance than almost any other people. Not exclusive; there are people in Europe and people in some other countries who also share that.

But I think what we have to do is help people to feel they are protected in their ability to be able to stand up, as they have in France recently, against very bitter opposition, very divisive, but they won. And it changed things, and it will change things, and the next generation that comes along will see that. And over time – and I mean time, real time – we will break down in some of these more difficult places this notion that you have to actually hate people and punish them for who they are. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with them; it doesn’t mean you have to adopt that – or whatever, that you can give people space to live and live their life.

Now, interestingly, in a lot of these places where that challenge is particularly difficult, we also face the challenge of just getting them to accept democracy, or getting them to accept reasonable standards of rule of law and the ability of people to speak their mind and a whole bunch of other things that we value enormously as the defining assets of our nationhood and of our citizenship. Those things have to be able to be promoted elsewhere. So I think doing what we’re doing, going out and advocating, standing up against that injustice, speaking out in various countries about human rights as we will continue to everywhere we go, will over time allow the same evolutionary process to take place in some of these places of resistance as it has here and in other parts of the world, in other countries in Europe and elsewhere. And I think ultimately we just have to keep standing up for tolerance and for diversity, and I guarantee you under this Administration we certainly will continue to do that and, I hope, for the long-term future.

MR. KERO-MENTZ: Great. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, this next question comes from our GLIFAA post rep in Tijuana, Mexico, Victor Garcia-Rivera, who asks, "What preparations has the Department of State made for when DOMA is struck down, particularly with regards to expedited naturalization for our foreign national same-sex spouses? Should the court strike down DOMA, as hoped, can we all – can we expect all things to be equal, including immigration rights?"

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I should probably let Pat Kennedy and Linda tackle this question, because they’re the ones who are working this through, but we’ve talked about it in our meetings. We are planning for the expectation that DOMA will be struck down in some form, and we’re laying the groundwork for all the things that we need to adjust. And I will just tell you, frankly, we are looking forward to the opportunity of doing that, because it will define the road ahead for us much more easily, it’ll be far less complicated, and I think everybody here will breathe a sigh of relief if that ruling comes through the way we hope it will.

So we’re laying all the groundwork necessary so that every law or every practice or every – whatever process is in place by history and precedent here will be evaluated against the notion that that law is no longer the law of the land, and therefore that everybody is indeed fully equal and we have to apply policies accordingly. And you can count on the fact that that will happen. And I think we’ll probably get a decision before too long here. So Pat Kennedy is anxiously awaiting that decision, folks. He’s crunching down further in his seat right now. (Laughter.)

Thank you. Anyway, Happy Pride to all. Thank you for the privilege of being here, and I wish you well. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Thank You, Mr. President

I got teary-eyed twice yesterday.

The first time was from sadness. It breaks my heart to see North Carolina, a state I called home for years, the state where my wife and I were married in our church ten years ago, and a place which was on my short list of places to retire to, enshrined discrimination against me into the state constitution.

The second time was from joy. Joy at finally seeing the President of the United States say he supports my right to be married. To say that he believes I should be treated equally, be able to visit my wife in the hospital, make medical decisions for her should she not be able, claim her body should she die before me so I can bury her as she wanted, or leave our house and my pension and social security to her should I die before her.  Joy at seeing him say, without equivocation, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

We still disagree on one point. He still thinks this is an issue for the states, and I do not. The states no longer get to decide whether or not to recognize interracial marriages. The Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia ruled that marriage is a civil right that cannot be denied just because some people find it is distasteful. Because if you don’t believe in interracial marriage, don’t marry someone of another race. And if you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. (and don’t hand me that line about churches being forced to marry gay people because it isn’t true…I witnessed my own church refuse to marry a straight couple because that couple did not want to meet the church’s requirement of pre-marital counseling. And while I know it is a religious issue for some, it is for me as well. My church recognizes my marriage.)

What I find really stunning, and telling, is that the arguments used against gay marriage (or as I like to call it, marriage) are the same arguments used against interracial marriage, the first of which is that Americans “aren’t ready.” And yet, when Loving v Virginia declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional, more than 70% of the population opposed interracial marriage (in fact, when I voted in the late 80s to remove this unconstitutional provision from the SC constitution, nearly 30% were still opposed to it…we did what was right anyway). The latest polls show that 52% of Americans support the right of gays and lesbians to marry. So it is time to do what is right.

Let’s play a little game. I am going see if you can guess whether the argument was used against interracial marriage or same-sex marriage.  I will put the answers below…no cheating!

1.  These marriages run counter to God’s plan.

2. These marriages are “unnatural.”

3. The people entering into these marriages are from “the dregs of society.”

4. Allowing these marriages will open the door to incestuous marriages or polygamy.

5. These people already have a right to marry.

6. These marriages would be disastrous for society.

7. These marriages cannot produce children.

8. These marriages would degrade traditional marriage.

9. These marriages would cause a higher incidence of disease.

10. These marriages would harm the children.

So what do you think? Can you tell which arguments were used against same-sex marriage and which were used against interracial marriage? I’ll put the answers in the comments. Don’t cheat!

Second Verse, Same as the First

I found an interesting piece today thanks to Vermont Freedom to Marry. It had struck me how similar all of the arguments were against same-sex marriage to those made against interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia.

For those of you not familiar with the case, ultimately ruled on by the Supreme Court, Richard and Mildred Loving were an interracial couple married in D.C. and then arrested in Virginia in 1958 for being married and violating the "Racial Integrity Act." They were each sentenced to one year in prison, suspended if they moved out of the state. They did, but fought to get their criminal records cleared. There is a short piece in the UK's Daily Mail Online today showing some photos taken of the couple.

At any rate, 45 years ago, in my lifetime, interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states. But the Supreme Court overturned those laws in 1967 (some states, including South Carolina, kept them on the books until into the late 80s, early 90s...I actually got to vote to remove the ban from the SC constitution...shocking that it was still there, more shocking that nearly 30% voted AGAINST removing it).

Even when I got to vote on expunging this shame from my state's constitution, some of these same arguments were being trotted out. Which is why I find the arguments below so interesting...is there anyone out there who still thinks interracial marriage is going to bring about the apocolypse (don't answer that), or is this just second verse, same as the first?

Same-sex marriage runs counter to God's plan:“If God had intended for same-sex couples to marry, he would have made Adam and Steve, not Adam and
Eve.” (Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)

Interracial marriage runs counter to God's plan:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”(Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3(1967))

If we allow “gay marriage,” then the next thing you know we'll have brothers and sisters wanting to marry each other, or demands for legalization of polygamous marriages. (Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)

“[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.” (Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
“[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.” (Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage)

Gay people are free to marry just like anyone else, as long as they marry a member of the opposite sex. (Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)

“Each [party seeking to marry a member of a different race] has the right and the privilege of marrying within his or her own group.” (Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

Same-sex marriage would precipitate the breakdown of society.(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)

“Civilized society has the power of self-preservation, and, marriage being the foundation of such society, most of the states in which the Negro forms an element of any note have enacted laws inhibiting intermarriage between the white and black races.” (Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

Allowing same-sex couples to marry would degrade “traditional” heterosexual marriages. (Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)

Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.” (Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May 19, 1996)

Same-sex marriages have adverse effects on the parties' children, and those children are apt to suffer stigma.(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)

“It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 26 and n.5 (summarizing the State's argument in favor of ban).

And this is just a sample. You can read the rest of the arguments here.

And one final thing to keep in mind, one argument they didn't mention. Those against marriage equality say the majority of the country opposes marriage equality (not true anymore, actually, the lastest polls show a slight majority favor marriage equality). In 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a civil right, that denying it denied due process, and that the distaste of the majority was not reason enough for the state to prohibit a marriage, more than 75 PERCENT of the country opposed interracial marriage.

And the Supreme Court did the right thing anyway.

Nine years (plus nearly another three)

Today is our anniversary.

Nine years ago, we were married in our church, United Church of Chapel Hill. We had, at that point, been together for nearly three years.

Of course, we had another wedding, and another wedding anniversary, marking both our time together and our legal wedding. We were legally married that day.

But this was our real wedding. The other was important, and we honor that date too, but this was the day that we promised, before God and our community, all of our tomorrows to each other.

It really sucks that we have to be apart today. And because someone tried to fraudulently use my credit card on the day I flew to Tallinn, I am still waiting on the replacement. So I couldn't even send flowers. And she mailed me a present, but it hasn't yet arrived.

But I shouldn't complain. I am lucky to have what I do. I will just be a lot happier when my family is back together in one place.

I am happy about being here...I have been super busy, hence the lack of blogging, but I will try to catch you up.

Noostie and I took a tram over to a friend's place. Yes, they allow dogs on the tram! Our friend lives closer to the shore than we do, so we took a nice walk along the shore.


The area was interesting. Not a place many tourists go. In case you were wondering what the picture at the top was, check out this interesting art feature constructed of shipping containers that was down there. If you look to the right of the picture below, you can see part of the piece above.

After our walk, we went to the friend's house to meet her cats. Noostie liked them...it was not mutual. Her girl cats, to their credit, were brave. I never caught sight of one of the boys, and the other I saw only for a moment. Clearly they are not as into dogs as Noostie is into cats.

The rest of my weekend was spent figuring out (successfully!) how to use the washer and dryer and figuring out what was wrong with my computer (I had flipped the wireless off when pulling it in and out of my suitcase). And worrying about my wife and kitties, who were in the hurrican (they're fine...no damage...which those who know about our ceiling drama/trauma last year will understand how thankful I am for that!).

I can't even remember today what I did on Monday, except that I have been super busy. I did discover that the box I mailed myself before I left is now back in Virginia. Apparently they entered the zip in wrong at the UPS store, so my box took a tour of Amsterdam before heading home. I'm really disappointed. It had some decorations for my office, including pictures of my wife, nieces and nephews, plus some king sheets so I don't have to hunt through my HHE for sheets once my bed gets here.

I went to Tartu yesterday...the taxpayers got their money's worth yesterday! I went to work early because we have a staffdel in town (Congressional staffers) who I needed to brief, and I left after lunch for Tartu, about a 2.5 hour drive. We met with the Rector of the University of Tartu and then with our Fulbrighers (good group of folks we've got!). We got home about 9:30. So the taxpayers got 13.5 hours out of my for the 8 hours they paid for. On my "short" days, they only get 9.5 hours for their 8 hours.

Today was filled with meetings and with me trying (unsuccessfully) to register for a conference I have to attend. I did succeed finally in sitting down with my APAO so we could map out our responsibilities. He works really hard, and I would like to see him work a little less hard (don't worry taxpayers, you are getting your money's worht out of him and then some...he is a workhorse and a great officer. He is going to do really well in the service if I can keep him from burning himself out).

So slowly but surely, I am getting a handle on things. And I am really liking it. Even the putting out fires parts!

This is what I joined the service to do. One of the staffers came by my office (ours is the only bathroom near where they are meeting) and I asked how things were going. We ended up chatting for a minute about dogs and how she had been afraid to join the Foreign Service because she has a dog. I told her all about Noostie and how we travel together. And how you shouldn't give up all that makes you who you are, including your pets, because the point is to show the world the diversity of America by the diversity of those of us who serve overseas.

And she looked at me and said, "You're a Public Diplomacy Officer, aren't you?"

Yes I am.