Got my flu shot at the MinuteClinic

There are now two things you can do in Massachusetts that you can't do in Rhode Island: marry your same-sex partner and get a flu shot. Two reasons why the Bay State has it all over the Ocean State.

This morning, I took a half-hour drive to lovely Fall River, Mass., to get a seasonal flu shot at a MinuteClinic in a CVS pharmacy. I just filled out a form with my insurance information and another form with some basic medical information and I was out of there in about an hour.

I thought I could get a flu shot from my primary-care physician in Rhode Island, as I do every year. I prefer it that way. Unfortunately, the vaccine is in short supply here. My physician's office ran out and suggested I call drugstores to see whether any of them were offering flu-shot clinics.

It's ironic that the doctor's office would direct me to a drugstore for medical care and that I ultimately ended up getting my flu shot at a MinuteClinic, because the Rhode Island Medical Society has opposed allowing them in the state.

Dr. Frederic V. Christian, formerly head of the RIMS, said “To the extent that MinuteClinic has the effect of diverting patients from primary care, MinuteClinic will become a disruptive player in Rhode Island, potentially undermining doctor-patient relationships, and contributing to the fragmentation and ill-coordination of health care services.”

I understand the need to develop a relationship with a primary-care physician and I have a good one. But what happens when your doctor can't provide the health-care service you need - and the MinuteClinic can? (And how does CVS obtain the flu vaccine that Rhode Island can't get?)

Thank goodness I live near another state that's more forward-thinking and I have the ability to get in my car and drive there. What happens to people who don't have that ability?

It's Write to Marry Day

Today is Write to Marry Day in the blogosphere and I'm proud to be a part of it. Also, please click over to this beautiful contribution from the very happily married Modern Fabulousity and check out Amanda at The Ramblings of A Hopeful Artist, truly a fellow fighter for truth, justice and the American way.

If I were writing this blog post 10 or 15 years ago it would have sounded much different - less personal, more theoretical. Back then, I hardly knew anyone who was openly gay. But times have changed. Like just about every other straight person I know, there's someone openly gay or lesbian in our lives - as a friend or acquaintance or neighbor or coworker or family member.

So even though I'm not in California and I don't know anyone who would be affected by Proposition 8, the debate is more personal now than it would have been at an earlier point in my life. When we talk about the rights of same-sex couples to marry, we're talking about my friends, people I work with, people I love and respect and admire. On their behalf, I urge you to vote "no" and protect the civil rights of every California citizen. While I've never lived in California, I've visited a couple of times and one of the things I love about the state is the incredible diversity, both in terms of its geography and its people. I've always believed that the things which unite us as Americans are so much more important than the things which we believe divide us.

As wonderful as my friends are, I'm not asking you to do this because they're nice people. I just believe that it's the right of every American to receive equal treatment under the law, to live life openly and without fear or discrimination, regardless of race, sex, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. While I don't think religion should enter into the debate, to me it's as simple as the Golden Rule.

Proposition 8 would overturn a recent state Supreme Court decision paving the way for same-sex marriage. I understand that supporters of the ballot measure say they don't have anything against gay people personally, they're just against "redefining" marriage to include gay and lesbian couples. They predict all sorts of dire consequences if the measure is defeated.

I would argue that if you look at the history of the United States, it's all about "redefinition." We've spent the last hundred years extending equal protection to people who have been historically disenfranchised, who were once thought undeserving of full citizenship solely because of the circumstances of their birth. It is time to finally extend those protections to include gay and lesbian citizens.

Two centuries ago in this country, women couldn't vote and most black people were slaves who could be bought and sold as easily as a piece of furniture. In some communities up until the middle of the 20th century, restrictive covenants kept blacks, Jews, Latinos and Asian-Americans from moving into certain neighborhoods. All of those things have changed. And, I would argue, we're a better country for it.

I live near Massachusetts and from what I can see, life there goes on as normal since same-sex marriage became legal. The only difference is, gay and lesbian citizens are more secure and better protected. And that only strengthens our society, just as the ending of legal discrimination against African-Americans did nearly 50 years ago.

If you question whether the gay-rights movement should be linked to the civil-rights movement for African-Americans, well the late Coretta Scott King spoke to that topic. Here's just one example:

“I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people.... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”

As Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said, "In five years now ... the sky has not fallen, the earth has not opened to swallow us all up, and more to the point, thousands and thousands of good people — contributing members of our society — are able to make free decisions about their personal future, and we ought to seek to affirm that every chance we can."

Finally, there was an interesting opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times a couple days ago by Jonathan Rauch on what's been missing from the public discussion over Proposition 8 - gay people. He points to a recent tv ad produced by opponents of the ballot measure that barely mentions marriage and never uses the word "gay."

Rauch says that when asked about the absence of gay couples, a senior "No on 8" official told KPIX-TV in San Francisco that "from all the knowledge that we have and research that we have, [those] are not the best images to move people." Rauch disagrees, arguing that the absence of gay people "leaves voters of good conscience to conjure in their own minds the ads that are not being aired: Ads that show how gay marriage directly affects the couples and communities that need it most."

Well, we don't hear nearly enough about ordinary, everyday Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian. Their lives and their struggles also embody family values and the American Dream. They can make the case for themselves far more eloquently than I ever could. So I want to leave you with some of their stories, in their own words:

"Taking advantage of California's recent same-sex marriage ruling we "tied the knot" in San Francisco on August 25th. A simple ceremony which took maybe 10 minutes. We told everyone and, on the 17th of October, went to stay for a couple of days with his brother and wife. They very kindly put on a small "do" in honor of our wedding and, as we were leaving on Tuesday the 21st of October 2008 I heard these words for the first time in my life: "Welcome to the family".

"I was married on Monday. In a small, private ceremony, my beloved and I stood with a few family members, looked into each other’s eyes and promised to love each other, to look out for each other’s best interests, and to care for and support each other for the rest of our days, no matter what obstacles life puts in our path. We want this marriage to last a lifetime. But we are afraid if too many Californians listen to lies and fear-mongering and vote “yes” on Proposition 8, our marriage might last only 23 days."

"California's constitutionally legalizing same-sex marriage is so exciting and important; and as we all know, so threatened by Proposition 8, which would remove that right by adding an amendment to discriminate against lesbians and gays who want to marry. Yesterday, we were able to affirm that what we want in the right to marry is all about LOVE and EQUALITY, not about re-establishing two classes of citizens."

"Two months ago, I married the man I love to the great acclaim of our families. Paul and have been married in all but name for six years. We are contributing, tax-paying and law-abiding members of our community. We live active, positive lives. We are well thought of and live in peace with our neighbors. Despite this, some people think the fact that we are both men is the only thing of importance. It invalidates our love, our commitment and especially our claim to equality before the law. Some will go so far as to call us a threat to family, children and faith. We’re not a threat to anyone or anything. Nor is our marriage. We’re just Ben and Paul. And we want to stay married."

Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited''

I missed this editorial in Sunday's New York Times, but it's pretty terrific for the way it gets to the core of the argument in favor of marriage equality.

The Times is urging California residents to vote "No" in November on Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. The ballot measure would overturn May's state Supreme Court ruling that enabled gay and lesbian couples to marry.

(The Times also notes that similar discriminatory measures are on the ballot in Arizona and Florida, and says that they also should be rejected.)

Here's the key paragraph from the editorial:

"Opponents of giving gay couples the protections, dignity and respect that come with marriage are working furiously to try to overturn the court ruling through Proposition 8. It is our fervent hope that Californians will reject this mean-spirited attempt to embed second-class treatment of one group of citizens in the State Constitution."

In its news articles, the Times can sometimes be a little dense and wordy. But the editorial gets to the point succinctly: this is about protection, dignity and respect. And the ballot question is mean-spirited. While I don't live in California, as an American, I don't want to see anyone's civil rights taken away or any group of people treated as second-class citizens.

And this part made me smile because it's so matter of fact in the way it states what should be perfectly obvious but needs to be said anyway:

"The proponents of Proposition 8 make the familiar claim that legalizing same-sex marriage undercuts marriage between men and women. But thousands of gay and lesbian couples have been married in California since the May ruling and marriage remains intact."

Although the Times doesn't mention it, just for the record, I'm pretty sure the sky hasn't fallen in California either.

While there have been some high-profile weddings in California, I think what's most interesting, and crucial, is to read the stories of couples who aren't celebrities but just normal, everyday people - your neighbors or friends or coworkers or family members.

So, just in case you're a California voter and you happen to stumble across my blog, please read about these couples who've tied the knot in Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal since 2004. (And where heterosexual marriage remains intact!) While you won't recognize their names, I'm sure their stories will resonate.

And at The Wicked Stage, Rob Weinert-Kendt has posted a sweet two-minute anti-anti-gay-marriage proposition video by Dave Barton from Rude Guerrilla Theater Company in Santa Ana, Calif., that also gets to the heart of the matter. (I'll definitely be adding Rude Guerrilla to my list of clever theatre names.)

Equal means equal

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick today signed a bill repealing a 1913 law that had been used to prevent out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts.

At the signing ceremony, the governor said repealing the law, which was originally designed to deter interracial marriages, shows that "equal means equal" in Massachusetts. Simple, eloquent and to the point. Really, I couldn't have said it any better myself.

He also took note that it's been five years since a ruling by the state's highest court that paved the way for same-sex marriage a year later.

"In five years now ... the sky has not fallen, the earth has not opened to swallow us all up, and more to the point, thousands and thousands of good people — contributing members of our society — are able to make free decisions about their personal future, and we ought to seek to affirm that every chance we can."

Exactly.

From the Battles of Lexington and Concord that signaled the start of the Revolutionary War, to the abolitionist movement of the 19th century that helped end slavery, Massachusetts has always been at the forefront of the struggle for liberty and equality. I'm thrilled that today, the state adds another chapter to that illustrious history.

The repeal takes place immediately, so if you're coming in from out of state to tie the knot in Massachusetts - mazal tov! Here are a few places to help you start planning your wedding.

Another vote for equality

I'm very happy to report that the Massachusetts House this afternoon followed the lead of the Senate and voted to repeal a 1913 law that had been used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the state. Gov. Deval Patrick has said he'll sign the measure.

The 1913 law was originally intended to prevent interracial couples from getting married in Massachusetts if the marriage was illegal in their home states. It was passed at the height of the scandal over black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson's interracial marriages.

A spokesman for Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi told The Boston Globe: "This, like the protection of same-sex marriage before it, is a matter of basic civil rights and fairness and one the speaker felt was important to get done before formal sessions end."

I know that some opponents say that they're against "redefining" marriage to include gay couples. Well, if you look at the history of the United States over the past century, it's all about "redefinition." We've extended equal protection to people who have been historically disenfranchised, who were once thought undeserving of those rights solely because of the circumstances of their birth.

Two centuries ago women couldn't vote and black people were property in this country. Restrictive covenants that barred Jews from moving into certain neighborhoods were perfectly legal. Who would even have thought that a black person could be a citizen, much less a presidential candidate? The history of this country is about inclusion, about expanding civil rights for everyone. And marriage equality is just as much a civil-rights struggle.

I don't see how allowing gay and lesbian couples to get married threatens anyone. If anything, same-sex marriage strengthens the family simply by creating more, stable families, which adds to the social fabric. That's what we need - more examples of two people who love each other, are committed to each other, care for each other through thick and thin.

As I wrote when the Senate approved the repeal, I'm glad Massachusetts lawmakers, and the general public, realize that the sky hasn't fallen since gay marriage was made legal in 2004. Giving gay and lesbian couples their rights as Americans hasn't taken away rights from anyone else. I believe that the opposite is true - a more just society benefits everyone.

And these are not abstractions we're talking about. These are our friends, our neighbors, our coworkers, our loved ones. They're in loving, committed relationships, and they are entitled to the same rights as any other American citizens. Today, Massachusetts took another step toward ensuring those rights.

Repealing a shameful law

The Massachusetts Senate today passed a bill to repeal a 1913 law that effectively barred out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from getting married in Massachusetts. The bill already has the support of the House speaker and Governor Deval Patrick.

"There are very few laws on the books that I can say that I'm ashamed that they're on the books," state Sen. Mark Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat, says in a Boston Globe story. He said he opposed the law because of the "immorality of discrimination."

That was the comment that really struck me. I'm glad that someone stated the matter simply and clearly. Discrimination is immoral.

The 1913 law was originally intended to prevent interracial couples from getting married in Massachusetts if the marriage was illegal in their home states. It was passed at the height of the scandal over black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson's interracial marriages.

"This is a very simple law, contrived in shame, and it exists in shame and we ought to wipe it off the books," Montigny said.

I'm glad Massachusetts lawmakers, and the general public, realize that the sky hasn't fallen since gay marriage was made legal in 2004. Giving gay and lesbian couples their rights as Americans hasn't taken away rights from anyone else. I believe that the opposite is true - a more just society benefits everyone.

The road to equal rights for all Americans has been a long and tortuous one and progress doesn't happen nearly fast enough. But we're getting there. And today is one of the good days.

Update: At Media Nation, Dan has a great post that points out just how far we've come in the debate over gay marriage.

Freedom to Marry

We love one another more than anything in the world and want nothing more than to share that love with one another, and know that we are each protected and recognized as each others' spouse. We don't need the validation of the government to make our love or relationship real, but we do need the recognition of the government to protect our rights.
Jeffrey Brunelle
Boston

Today is Freedom to Marry Day. Freedom to Marry is a gay/straight partnership working for marriage equality across the United States. Every year, the organization holds a week of activities designed to engage Americans in the movement for fairness and equality. On its Web site you'll find stories from families relating how marriage discrimination affects their everyday lives.

On May 17, 2004, same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts. In the Bay State, MassEquality works to promote and defend marriage equality. On that organization's Web site you'll see the flip side. You'll find hundreds of stories from gay and lesbian Massachusetts residents, such as Jeffrey Brunelle, talking about what being able to marry has meant to their everyday lives.

Too often, the subject of gay marriage is used as a wedge issue by politicians to divide us, or as a way for hatemongers to stir up fear. We don't hear enough about the very real love stories of ordinary, everyday Americans, the men and women whose relationships truly embody family values.

As someone who lives next door to Massachusetts, knows many people there and goes there all the time, I can tell you that there is nothing to fear. No heterosexual marriages have been harmed. Nothing has changed in the state, except that having the right to marry has made our gay and lesbian friends, neighbors, coworkers and family members feel happier, more secure and better protected. And that only strengthens our society, just as the ending of legal discrimination against African-Americans did nearly 50 years ago.

There is nothing I could possibly write, no argument I could make, that would be as poignant, as clear, as eloquent, as these stories. So please take five minutes to read a few of them.