Spokane7
59°
January 8, 2012 in Opinion
Gays deserve same rights
Last summer Dean Lynch and Michael Flannery decided it was finally time to plan their commitment ceremony. After all, Lynch’s mother was 79 and his grandmother 98.
So in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the day they met, Lynch and Flannery invited friends and family to a fairly traditional ceremony on the terrace of their South Hill home in August. A harpist played before the ceremony. Lynch brought in his grandmother; Flannery escorted Lynch’s mother. During the vows, the couple turned to the two older women for the rings.
And then Lynch and Flannery slid the bands onto their right hands, in recognition of the fact that they still cannot legally marry in the United States.
On Wednesday both men felt proud when Gov. Chris Gregoire made a heartfelt announcement of her support of same-sex marriage and the legislation that would legalize it in the state of Washington. “That was gutsy,” Flannery said. “She didn’t just quietly say to Lisa Brown, ‘If it comes to my desk, I’ll sign it.’ ”
It was July 26, 1986, when Lynch and Flannery met in Coeur d’Alene Park in Browne’s Addition. Lynch was taking a walk through the neighborhood, and Flannery was riding a bicycle. Six weeks later, Flannery says, “I was pretty sure he was the man I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.”
Through the years, the differences between a gay partnership and a legal marriage have been sharp. Lynch and Flannery point out that same-sex partners can’t count on an apartment lease applying to both of them equally, a house belonging to them jointly or their relationship being respected during a critical illness.
They haven’t added up the extra costs of the legal help they’ve received over the years. “I know we had to jump a lot more hoops living as loving, caring men than if we were married,” Flannery said.
Lynch, a retired social worker and a former Spokane City Council member, and Flannery, a retired stockbroker, have decided not to register as domestic partners in Washington. They’re waiting for same-sex marriage to be approved nationally. They see its legalization in Washington as an important next step.
“I wanted to wait until I had all the rights,” Flannery said. “I didn’t want it to be ‘married lite.’ ”
Flannery doesn’t expect churches to change their stances on same-sex marriage, but he does believe government should treat everyone equally.
So does Susan Hammond, a Spokane nurse. Late Wednesday night, after Gregoire’s speech, Hammond posted on Facebook a letter to her legislators. She invited her friends to forward it as well.
She wrote, “I am counting on your leadership and humanity to do the right thing so that my young adult son, who is gay, can live in a society that affirms who he is and allows him the same right his brothers already have: to marry the person of his choice.”
The opposition to same-sex marriage baffles Hammond. “I honestly don’t get it,” she says.
After all, the strongest argument against changing the law is that marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman. But that’s like using a long-standing definition of slavery as an argument against emancipation.
This is, as Hammond says, “the civil rights issue of our time.”
Lynch, 61, and Flannery, 57, believe they’ll be allowed to legally marry in this country before they reach old age. When they do, they’ll finally move their wedding bands to their left hands.
Hammond believes her 21-year-old son’s life will be different than those of older gay men. “I hope in my lifetime that I go to his wedding, and I meet his husband,” she said.
Gregoire wisely evoked the image of gay couples and their children and their desire to be treated equally as families. She might also have addressed the needs of their mothers because the benefits of same-sex marriage ripple throughout extended families as well.
One day soon, every woman with a gay son in this country should have the chance to become, complete with a marriage license, the proud mother of one of the grooms.
Jamie Tobias Neely, a former associate editor at The Spokesman-Review, serves as an assistant professor of journalism at Eastern Washington University. She may be reached at jamietobiasneely @comcast.net.
MAC firing begs explanation 
horse_feathers on January 08 at 7:41 a.m.
I remember in the sixties when just about every hippie was going around minimizing the state of marriage by saying it was only a peice of paper and we should do away with legal marriage. Yes FREE LOVE is out there and this peice of paper called a marriage certificate should not a marriage make. We have all seen how well that worked.
Now today attacks on the sanctity of marriage comes at us from another direction.
License our FREE LOVE and except us, let us get married.
The whole thing is about exceptance and it is the same mindset but with a different angle to get the same result. No matter what we do we should not be set aside we should be accepted for the poor choices we make no matter what.
Well I do not accept the premise that your poor choices have changed anything. With todays twisted morality prevailing, that probably makes me the bad person in a lot of peoples eyes and I can live with that.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on January 08 at 7:43 a.m.
Professor Jamie… thank you for your kind and caring article about these two fine men…I am proud to know them, and to have their bond over time as Exhibit A in a case for not having “Church” policy drive governmental rules and regulations.
I was first married in 1966 to a Japanese woman and our marriage was against the law in 14 states until 1968. The parallels are obvious and solid. John
Diana on January 08 at 8:59 a.m.
Some people were just more comfortable when gays (women, minorities, etc.) knew their place.
Same sex marriage is no threat to society the institution of marriage and no one who has ever claimed it is has ever provided a shred of evidence. Know what is a threat to marriage? Unemployment and financial insecurity are real threats to marriage. Homelessness and hungry children are threats to marriage. Extended tours of duty overseas to engage in pointless military adventurism are a real threat to marriage. Troops coming home wounded, broken with PTSD and facing unemployment are threats to marriage. For those who really want to protect marriage and family, start addressing those issues and stop wasting your time worrying about gay weddings.
greenlibertarian on January 08 at 9:18 p.m.
Pray horse_feathers gets his mind right, otherwise, he’s burning in hell for all eternity for assisting in destroying the lives of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
Pigrobin on January 08 at 10:10 p.m.
Wow, another thread with people burning in hell…when will it ever end?!? At least there won’t be any energy shortages down there…c u there angry libertarian.
Dazzeetrader11 on January 09 at 1:32 a.m.
What’s the news? They DO have the same rights…as is heralded in the title of this contribution. Human rights….Constiution guarantees human rights. Beyond that, it’s a matter of choice… I suppose anyone could claim all sorts of “rights” when they aren’t rights at all…all subgroups confuse the definition of “rights” to their own benefit.
misjustice on January 09 at 6:44 a.m.
Hang on Dean and Michael, marriage equality is coming; despite the efforts of some to stop it.
A majority of Americans support marriage equality, proving that we’ve come a long way since Stonewall!
moveelvr on January 11 at 9:11 a.m.
The “FREE LOVE” argument above is as insulting as it is stupid. It doesn’t even make sense. Marriage is the exact opposite of free love. Committed gay couples want to be able to enter into legal partnerships with all the vows and promises that it entails. They want to stand up in front of friends and family and their community and commit their lives to each other, to have and to hold in sickness and in health until death they do part. The hippie movement was all about rebelling from society and saying no to what what was expected of them by society. Again, marriage is the exact OPPOSITE. Marriage equality is all about conforming to societal norms and expectations.
It has nothing to do with choices either. That argument is as dated as “free love”. Is heterosexuality a choice? Do you choose to be straight? Gay people don’t choose to be gay. It’s not a preference or a lifestyle. This notion that it’s a choice is simply a way for people to justify their bigotry and discrimination.
The couple in this story have been together over 25 years - what a great example of what love, commitment and family is all about yet still they are told no. Doesn’t make a bit of sense.
BarbChamberlain on January 11 at 3:07 p.m.
No, we don’t all have the same legal, contractual rights when it comes to the many, many things that have been tied to marriage by state law.
The rights guaranteed us under the Constitution have been interpreted and constrained in many ways over the years. After all, it says all MEN were created equal and women had to fight to get to vote and own property. And of course they really meant all WHITE men. I was born in Idaho, where remnants of anti-Mormon laws stayed on the books until as recently as 1982 even though we were the second nation in the state to elect a Jewish governor and gave women the vote in 1896, decades before the rest of the nation.
Saying everyone has the same rights doesn’t make it so. We’re not done until we all have the same access to legal contracts, which is what marriage is—a contract that brings with it many, many benefits.
Imagine you’re dying and your loved one can be kept away from your side by a family that never liked him/her anyway—because your long and loving partnership doesn’t legally exist.
Imagine you’re in a custody fight and the child you have helped raise isn’t “yours” because your status as a parent doesn’t legally exist. (I don’t assume all gay people who marry will stay married forever any more than I assume it about the rest of us, although I’m more than willing to bet on Dean and Michael!)
Imagine you consider yourself married because your church performed a ceremony binding you for life, but when your partner dies you aren’t entitled to the rights inherent under community property because you’re “not married.”
Sure, you can hire an attorney and create papers that establish all of these things and the hundreds of others that go with a marriage license, but I got them for free when I married a man.
State law presents plenty of reasons to fight for marriage equality. Unless you’re willing to unpack all the things heterosexuals get for free by saying “I do”—and I doubt anyone wants to do that—if you’re intellectually honest you will admit that there is a discrepancy between what some couples can get legally and others cannot.
That doesn’t require you to take any positions with respect to any other facet of this discussion, but don’t try to pretend away the inequality that does exist.