Tell me again why a legal contract is sufficient?

I think this speaks for itself. A legal union removes questionability. I am sure the ruling that is expected in October will be a test of the “legal contracts” agrument of the amendment supporters and that Virginia’s so-called marriage amendment would still protect those, unless of course an activist judge disagrees.

Man fights partner’s family over gravesite. Case shows consequences of marriage inequality.

Parents want gay son’s body moved to family plot

By JOSHUA LYNSEN
Friday, September 29, 2006

Kevin-Douglas Olive still remembers talking to his partner Russell Groff about his grave.

Groff wanted to be buried in a cemetery along the gentle slopes outside Knoxville, Tenn. It was a reasoned choice. The land is close to where both were raised and large enough to accommodate a second plot.

“We had this romantic notion of being buried next to each other,” Olive said. “Forever and ever.”

But that dream is now in jeopardy. Groff’s parents, Lowell and Carolyn Groff, are trying to overturn their son’s will and move his body to the family cemetery in Severe County, Tenn.

Groff’s parents, who could not be reached this week by the Blade, have argued in court that the 26-year-old man didn’t know what he was doing when he completed his will. Olive said Groff had been estranged from his parents when he died.

Olive, a 34-year-old Baltimore resident, disagrees. He said Groff knew precisely what he was doing. And to move the body now, nearly two years after Groff’s death, is something Olive can’t bear to imagine.

“Moving him is not honoring who he was,” he said. “It’s really – it’s really disturbing.”

A Maryland court, which has jurisdiction over the dispute because Groff’s will was signed in the state, heard the case Sept. 25 and 26. A ruling is expected in October.

Olive said he’s hopeful, but increasingly anxious about the case that’s cast a shadow over his life.

“You just don’t know,” he said. “You never know how a judge is going to rule. And we won’t know for three more weeks.”

No matter the ruling, though, the case isn’t expected to end in October. Olive said if he loses, he’ll appeal, and if he wins, Groff’s parents will appeal.

And even after the appeals are exhausted, the case could continue. Groff’s parents would have to overturn separate burial instructions before they could move the body.

Olive said the legal redundancy was intentional, and encouraged by Groff.

“We drew these up because we knew if he died before me, that we would be fighting like this,” Olive said. “These documents were to protect me from his parents.”

Instead, the documents triggered a prolonged legal battle – one that has left Olive with no time to mourn the passing of the first person he “really loved.”

“I miss him so much, and I wish they would leave me alone,” he said. “I wish they would go away.”

‘He was the wisdom’

Olive and Groff met the week after Valentine’s Day in 1998, when Olive was 25 and Groff was 20.

“He was amazing. He was brilliant,” Olive said. “I was the voice, he was the wisdom.”

Their relationship bloomed, and the two moved to Baltimore together in July 2000. Three years later, they were married according to local Quaker tradition.

Olive said the blissful marriage was interrupted in 2004 when Groff, who was HIV positive, fell ill.

Groff was hospitalized in October 2004, but seemed to recover. Olive said Groff was transferred to another facility to help his recovery, but soon developed new problems.

Groff was transferred to another hospital, where Olive could only watch as his partner faded.

Olive said Groff became so weak that he couldn’t leave his bed to urinate. To best help the man he loved, Olive would hold the bedpan for him.

“This is my soul mate, so I just did it,” he said. “You don’t even think about it. You just do it.”

Eventually, a staph infection that originated in Groff’s gall bladder spread throughout his body, and on Nov. 23, 2004, he died.

“I just collapsed on the floor of the hospital, face down and shrieking,” Olive said. “Part of me knew that was entirely inappropriate, but part of me didn’t care.”

In keeping with the burial instructions signed Nov. 18, Groff was interred in the West Knoxville Friends Cemetery outside Knoxville, Tenn.

Olive said the grave, located about 30 minutes from Groff’s childhood home, was to remain simple and clean. But Groff’s mother, Carolyn, made changes.

“She made it into this shrine that really offended the sensibilities of the Quakers,” he said, “because we’re all about simplicity.”

Olive said Carolyn routinely decorated the grave. At one point, she posted a picture of Groff with his female prom date, plus a poem Carolyn wrote wherein her son essentially apologized for being gay.

“I was so insulted by seeing this,” Olive said. “She was trying to paint him as this repentive person who was heterosexual, really.”

After seeing that picture and poem, Olive said he could tolerate no more and cleaned his husband’s gravesite.

“When I cleared the grave, that was the final straw for her,” he said. “She filed the caveat and challenged the will.”

Not of sound mind?

The petition to caveat, filed in July 2005, says Groff didn’t know what he was doing when he signed his will.

It says Groff’s will was “not read to or by him, or known to him” before it was signed. The petition also says Groff was not of sound mind when he signed his will.

The petition, signed by both of Groff’s parents, asks the Maryland court to invalidate the will.

Olive said he initially thought the legal challenge was baseless, and posed no threat.

“Everything was valid, and I thought that would be enough,” he said. “But it wasn’t.”

Groff’s parents initiated a substantial legal challenge in an effort to move their son’s body to a Baptist cemetery.

Olive said he attended mediation with Groff’s parents, but the meetings served little purpose.

“They kept saying that Russell should be buried in their family plot,” he said. “I kept saying ‘It’s on paper.’ They kept saying ‘It’s not valid.'”

At one point, Olive said Groff’s parents offered to end their challenge.

“They believe they came halfway because they said they’d move him to their plot and then allow me to be buried next to him,” he said. “That’s all well and good, but that’s not what Russell wanted.”

As the dispute dragged on, a trial was scheduled and Olive was deposed. He said that step, in which an opposing attorney grilled him, was a difficult one.

“It really was hard,” he said. “They were making me feel like I was a liar and a thief, and that I manipulated my partner. It just made me feel low.”

And the focus of the discussion, Olive said, was entirely inaccurate.

“It was made into my wishes versus their wishes,” he said. “The fact that this was really Russell’s wishes was being ignored by everyone.”

At the trial this week in Baltimore, Olive twice took the stand. But even so, he said he didn’t get the opportunity to say everything he wanted.

“I didn’t get to talk about the relationship at all,” Olive said. “It was all about the will.”

Case shows consequences
of marriage inequality

Several people are helping Olive defend Groff’s will in court.

One of the witnesses, Rebecca Pickard of Baltimore, submitted a letter saying Groff was of sound mind when he signed his will Nov. 20, 2004.

She noted the will’s contents were read to him, “and he acknowledged full understanding of it before signing the document.”

Groff’s brother, Walter Groff of Salem, Ore., also has sought to protect the will. He submitted a letter saying Lowell and Carolyn never accepted Russell’s relationship with Olive.

“It is my fear that this litigation has been brought about from the emotional distress that my parents have experienced with my brother’s untimely death,” he wrote, “and problems between them that were never resolved.”

Olive said the letters have helped him defend the will and burial instructions.

“If I didn’t have all this stuff, I’d be screwed,” he said. “I’d be totally screwed.”

But even with the paperwork, Olive said the court battle has been difficult.

“I’ve learned that just because you have the documents,” he said, “it doesn’t mean too much.”

Olive said the experience has given him a new appreciation for activists seeking full marriage equality for gays.

“Our relationship was supported by so many,” he said, “but it never occurred to me how important it is that the law supports us.”

If the couple had been legally married, Olive said, he wouldn’t be talking about a court battle. He’d be talking about how much he misses his husband.

“He took care of me,” Olive said. “He really did take care of me. And I hope I gave him something equal, something close.”

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2006/9-29/news/localnews/gravesite.cfm

Like I said before, there so many things about the “effects” of spousal unions that are taken for granted. Activist judges can redefine how people protect themselves and interact through legal contracts outside of the framework that legal unions provide. We already have proof of this in Ohio by allowing women to remain exposed and vulnerable to relationships that are life threatening situations. Which, in and of itself, is not a characteristic of a healthy society and has been shown in other countries to be a detriment to economic development and alleviation of poverty.

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Sinister?

This morning’s read of the latest marriage equality news left a smile on my face that will last all day. Hat tip to to Melissa McEwan from the AlterNet blog, who reviews a couple of speeches by Governors Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee at the Family Research Council’s (FRC’s) “Washington Briefing”, and sums them up with

Same hateful rubbish; different day.

You wonder why these folks can’t engage in principled debate – and the reason shines through pretty clearly when they use Scripture to frame a complex public policy argument. Everything they need to know is there in Genesis 1:27-28:

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply”

And there, folks, you have our public policy on marriage. “in the image of God He created him; male and female..” You’d think that a governor would know that sex and gender are a little bit more complicated. In this Genesis framework, gay people have nothing to say, people who are genetically, hormonally or morphologically intersex don’t exist, and anti-gay activists have no incentive to listen to arguments outside of that framework, end of debate.

Our FRC governors have two lessons to impart to public policy makers:

  1. On matters of family, there shall be no innovation. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee: “I tell people I’m actually just for keeping marriage in the only manner for which it’s ever been known in any culture, in any civilization throughout all of history… Dear friends, until Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain saying we’ve changed the rules, let’s keep it like it is.” I’ll guarantee you that there was much hooting and sneering over the Brokeback line.
  2. Marriage shall be infantilized. It’s not about two adults entering into a lifelong commitment, it’s about inserting tab A into slot B to fertilize eggs, which from the moment of conception gain U.S. citizenship (unless their parents don’t have the proper documentation). From that moment on, the proud parents lose all agency. Their role is to turn those little zygotes into good consumers, or in Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s words: “The court focused on adult rights — they said if heterosexual couples can marry, then to have equal rights homosexuals have to also be able to marry. That court’s mistake was they should have focused on the rights of children — because marriage is primarily about the development and nurturing of children.”

So if there is no possibility that sperm will meet egg…Oh, I forgot about older or infertile people marrying…rewind…If there is no possibility that an observer can look at a couple and imagine them having “insert tab A into slot B sex” (whether they actually do or not), they shouldn’t be allowed to marry: sweet, simple, infantile, reactionary, and homophobic to the core. Works for me!

As McEwan said, marriage is about children for some people.

And for some people it isn’t — couples who want to remain deliberately childless, but still enjoy a lifetime commitment to one partner, or couples who are, for one biological reason or another, unable to have children and also can’t adopt, because one of them has a medical condition that precludes them or because they can’t afford it. So, right out of the box, Mitt’s categorization of marriage is flawed, at best.

In the meantime, our friend Ampersand over at Alas, a Blog demonstrates that the phony science of “family scholars” like Elizabeth Marquardt (who on occasion speaks to the FRC) is, well, phony. Her beef is discouraging divorce, but she and her fellow scholars at the Institute for American Values write talking points for the anti-gay industry. Her compatriot, Sara Butler Nardo even found the marriage equality movement in Loudoun to be threatening and she took pot shots at me and David over a Washington Post article. How dare we participate in a healthy marriage conference. How dare we believe that we have something to contribute. No, Family Scholars, your ability to discern motivations is on par with your scientific method. [This paragraph was corrected on 10/2/2006. The author of the Family Scholars Blog post was corrected to be Sara Butler Nardo, not Elizabeth Marquardt. For the record, on the question of marriage equality, Nardo claims to be undecided. Marquardt is anti.]
Today’s rant was spawned by a post from Jordan Fifer over at the Roanoke Times blog where he agrees with a post from Bill Garnett, but not the phrase “…as the bigots they are”. To drive the point home, I’ll relate a couple of personal stories of interactions with these not-bigots.

  1. Before the General Assembly vote on HB 751, I called Delegate Bob Marshall and talked to him at length. I disputed – with personal experience – his repeated claim that there is no such thing as a long-term monogamous same-sex relationship. He must have forgotten everything I told him, because Bob went on the WAMU Kojo Nnamdi show and again claimed that the idea of a long-term monogamous same-sex relationship is complete fiction.
  2. Bob FitzSimmonds made the same claim at last week’s Manassas forum. I challenged him, asking a two part question: a) Do you understand that you offended members of the audience and b) do you care? Before he could answer, a woman from the Concerned Women for America (CWA) strikeforce lit into me about my alleged “lifestyle”. When I asked her what exactly that is, she huffed off, unwilling to explain what she meant by my “lifestyle” in a public setting.

    All that talk of “lifestyle” flustered Mr. FitzSimmonds and he forgot the question. I asked again, and he claimed that a) yes, he probably did offend some people, and b) he cared, but public policy sometimes hurts people and that’s just too bad.

So while I can understand that people living in insular environments (they don’t know any gay people) may unquestioningly believe this rhetoric, what about the leaders, the people who are incapable of hearing real-life stories about the lives of gay people, but then turn around and claim that they understand the intentions of “the gay agenda”? What about people who claim they want to protect marriage, but craft talking points that focus exclusively on sex and procreation? If “bigoted” is the wrong word, what’s the right word? Sinister?

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

More on the Reston forum

See Equality Loudoun’s report on this forum.

Note: Claire Guthrie Gastanaga was actually replaced on the panel by attorney Leslie Nickel, a change the reporter didn’t catch. Also, I don’t think we squabble all that much. –David

Preaching to the Choir
Reston Connection
September 20, 2006
By Jason Hartke

Forum panelists opposed to the proposed marriage amendment find friendly audience.

Friends often tell Jonathan Weintraub that he and his partner bicker like an old married couple.

Weintraub, who’s in a 25-year monogamous gay relationship, takes it as a compliment. Other than by law, Weintraub of Loudoun County says he’s married in every way “” even by squabbling standards.

A proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on the ballot this November has Weintraub and other gays and lesbians fearing overt government-sponsored discrimination.

The second paragraph of the amendment bans the recognition of any “legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.”

“My relationship does approximate marriage,” said Weintraub of Loudoun County.

More»

Posted in News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on More on the Reston forum

Sunday evening humor

For those who missed it, here is a clip of Paul Cameron’s unintentionally hilarious appearance on The Daily Show. (Hat tip to Tom.)

You almost have to feel sorry for the guy. Almost.

Cameron is the disgraced fraudulent “reseacher” who was flown in, presumably at tax-payer’s expense, to testify in favor of former Delegate Dick Black‘s 2005 anti-gay adoption bill.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Sunday evening humor

Doesn’t Save Marriage

Loudoun Connection
September 20, 2006
By Tim Buchholz, Ashburn

Susie Chapman, in her letter of Aug. 30, seems to believe that voting for the so-called “marriage amendment” will do something to “protect marriage” and magically create more families in which children will be raised by married mothers and fathers.

It will do nothing of the sort. The reality is that many children are being raised by single parents, divorced parents in blended families and by same-sex couples, either through adoption or from a previous relationship. The proposed amendment wouldn’t change that. It would do nothing but hurt these children, by threatening the ability of the adults in their lives to provide them with necessities like health care and the security of enforceable custody agreements. Ms. Chapman sounds all too willing to sacrifice the needs of these actual children in the service of some fictional ideal of marriage. That’s disgraceful and irresponsible.

More»

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Doesn’t Save Marriage

What’s the rush?

Leesburg Today
September 19, 2006
By Thom Beres, Col., USAF, Retired, Cascades

This whole marriage amendment discussion makes me very suspicious. On the one hand, it is supposedly so urgent that it had to be put on the ballot right away, though even its own patron, Delegate Marshall, thought that the language wasn’t right. We are supposed to think that the sky is falling and that marriage as we know it will end unless we vote for this murky, unreadable bit of prose.

More»

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on What’s the rush?

Now we understand.

Hat tip to “conservative” blogger Spank That Donkey for sharing the real reason that the institution of marriage is in serious trouble. For solutions to this problem, we recommend taking a closer look at the values and attitudes about gender being taught in some heterosexual family environments.

Police are warning all men who frequent clubs, parties & local pubs to be alert and stay cautious when offered a drink from any woman.

Many females use a date rape drug on the market called “Beer”.

The drug is found in liquid form and is available anywhere. It comes in bottles, cans, or from taps and in large kegs. Beer is used by female sexual predators at parties and bars to persuade their male victims to go home and sleep with them.

A woman needs only to get a guy to consume a few units of Beer and then simply ask him home for no strings attached sex.

Men are rendered helpless against this approach. After several beers, men will often succumb to the desires to sleep with horrific looking women whom they would never normally be attracted [sic].

After drinking beer, men often awaken with only hazy memories of exactly what happened to them the night before, often with just a vague feeling that “something bad” occurred.

At other times these unfortunate men are swindled out of their life’s savings, in a familiar scam known as “a relationship.” In extreme cases, the female may even be shrewd enough to entrap the unsuspecting male into a longer term form of servitude and punishment referred to as ” marriage”.

Men are much more susceptible to this scam after beer is administered and sex is offered by the predatory females.

Please! Forward this warning to every male you know.

If you fall victim to this “Beer” scam and the women administering it, there are male support groups where you can discuss the details of your shocking encounter with similarly victimized men.

For the support group nearest you, just look up “Golf Courses” in the phone book.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , | 2 Comments