“You Are Loved”

Sep1 by D Gregory Smith

I’ve written about the importance of Rural Pride Celebrations before- but if you want to see it firsthand, or if you ever wondered what the 2011 Montana Pride Celebration was like- well wonder no more.

Wet Paint Studios beautifully chronicled the event with this amazing piece of film:

From the Wet Paint Studios’ description:

“You Are Loved” is a documentary chronicling Montana Pride- celebrating the diversity of all walks of life.

The documentary explores what it means to be an LGBTQI in Montana, a rural state of not even a million people. The response from the community in Bozeman, MT was overwhelming, and without it, this documentary would not be possible. Enjoy the show!

Shut The (Bleep) Up

Aug29 by D Gregory Smith

We watched a little bit of the VMA’s last night- just until the latest episode of Torchwood reran- and I was amazed at all the bleeps that were happening. It almost made the show unwatchable.

Not because I’m a prude, but because I have a hard time with interrupted continuity. I hate distractions.

Ask anybody who has ever sat next to me in a movie theater- or watched a movie with me in my living room; I hate talking, interruptions or distractions. Ken has learned to sit on the aisle, and, if he doesn’t remember, I remind him to use the restroom before the movie. I don’t like talking or noisy crowds in the theater, either. I paid my good money to watch a movie, not listen to your conversation and commentary. For me, a movie is like a roller coaster- I pay my money, I get in the car and I don’t get out until the ride is over.

And I don’t bring my colicky baby.

But when something is continually interrupted, it starts to concern me. I have a hard time tracking. Maybe it’s advancing age and/or deafness that’s making me less tolerant of distractions, but it seems to be having its own manifestation in politics. Candidates are actively interrupting scientific communication in this country. Blatantly standing up in the middle of the show and making factual inferences with fantastical statements. Distracting people from the reality hiding behind the curtain with a little folksy humor or superstitious nonsense.

And I’m annoyed.

Thank God that I’m not alone. Paul Krugman today has an excellent article about the trending GOP tendency to deny science, knowledge- and maybe, common sense- in favor of the popularly held beliefs of uneducated, superstitious people. My words, not his. These are his:

According to Public Policy Polling, only 21 percent of Republican voters in Iowa believe in global warming (and only 35 percent believe in evolution). Within the G.O.P., willful ignorance has become a litmus test for candidates, one that Mr. Romney is determined to pass at all costs.

So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.

And the deepening anti-intellectualism of the political right, both within and beyond the G.O.P., extends far beyond the issue of climate change.

Lately, for example, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page has gone beyond its long-term preference for the economic ideas of “charlatans and cranks” — as one of former President George W. Bush’s chief economic advisers famously put it — to a general denigration of hard thinking about matters economic. Pay no attention to “fancy theories” that conflict with “common sense,” the Journal tells us. Because why should anyone imagine that you need more than gut feelings to analyze things like financial crises and recessions?

Now, we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect.

And if you want more proof that the GOP is pandering to the uneducated you don’t have to look much farther than Michele Bachmann. Her blind-to-the-facts manner is starting to leak holy water as well:

Speaking to a crowd in Florida over the weekend, Bachmann said the historic earthquake and massive hurricane that rocked the East Coast last week was a message that God is upset with the way politicians in Washington have been doing things. The interview with the St. Petersburg Times…:

She hailed the tea party as being common-sense Americans who understand government shouldn’t spend more than it takes in, know they’re taxed enough already and want government to abide by the Constitution.

“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.”

Emphasis added. Bachmann’s comments put her closer to Pat Robertson’s take on the week than her most prominent rivals for the Republican nomination.

Part of me wants to yell “Shut the (bleep) up!” The same part of me that was annoyed in the theater during Schindler’s List when that woman with the whimpering and complaining kids (kids around 5, 6 and/or 7 from what I could tell), who kept telling them loudly to sit still, be quiet and stop whining throughout the whole movie- instead of taking them out the door and across the hall to watch Beethoven’s 2nd. In my frustration, I threw a dirty look and a kernel or two of popcorn her way.

It’s how I feel when people, jockeying to be the most powerful person in the world, blatantly disregard science in favor of folksyisms that appease- and get votes. This guy/gal is just like me. They should be president.

Huh? Whatever happened to the drive to be intelligent in our culture? When did it become evil? Haven’t we learned our lesson about folksy presidents from Texas?

I guess not. Just like the lady in the theater didn’t know-or didn’t care- that bringing small children to Schindler’s List would wreck the movie for almost everyone else in the room. But this time, I’m not going to just sit there, fuming. I’m not keeping my mouth shut.

Consider this the opening salvo.

Buttered.

Court Orders Prison to Keep ACLU Client Out of Solitary

Aug23 by D Gregory Smith

Raistlen Katka much improved after being returned to general population; Suit over unconstitutional conditions will continue

HELENA, MT — District Court Judge Jeffrey Sherlock has ordered the Montana Department of Corrections to refrain from placing teenage prisoner Raistlen Katka in administrative isolation and from imposing behavior modification plans on him until his release or February 2012 trial.

“The Court does this for a couple reasons. First, it is clear that Plaintiff is doing well under the current specialized treatment plan,” wrote Sherlock in his decision, adding that he has concerns that Raistlen could suffer irreparable harm (up to suicide) if placed in solitary confinement again.

“Since we were able to secure his release from solitary confinement last year and get him mental health treatment, he has done far better than he did under the prison’s ‘behavior management plans.’ He’s earned his GED and is learning a vocational skill,” said ACLU Legal Director Betsy Griffing of Raistlen’s current conditions. “He was prohibited from receiving real educational instruction and vocational training in solitary confinement.”

The ACLU of Montana filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana and the Montana Department of Corrections in 2009 over the illegal, inhumane and degrading treatment Raistlen was subjected to by being placed in solitary confinement when he was a juvenile and when it exacerbated his mental illness. Those conditions violated the Montana Constitution’s right to human dignity, and were particularly objectionable because they were imposed on a minor child with mental illness.

Raistlen was Tasered, pepper-sprayed, deprived of human contact, punished by torturous ‘behavior management plans,’ stripped in view of other inmates and traumatized to the point of attempting multiple times to kill himself.

Raistlen has a history of childhood abuse, and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental illnesses. His incarceration in the Montana State Prison’s restrictive “Special Housing Unit” began in March 2009 when he was just barely 17 years old. In the ensuing year his condition seriously deteriorated.

The ACLU was finally able to secure Raistlen’s release from solitary confinement, mental health treatment and a return to the general population after several more suicide attempts.

Though the most pressing goal of the ACLU’s litigation – to ensure that Raistlen would be removed from inhumane conditions – has been achieved, the lawsuit will continue.

“This lawsuit is for Raistlen, but it’s also for all the other adolescent and mentally ill prisoners subjected to these harsh, punitive conditions. MSP’s use of solitary confinement and BMP’s violates contemporary correctional practices as well as Montana’s constitutional guarantees,” said ACLU cooperating attorney Andree Larose. “As a society, we must be concerned not only about whether the treatment of inmates is humane, but also about what long-term effects such inhumane treatment has on these prisoners. When we ignore the core humanity of a prisoner, we not only violate the Montana Constitution, we make our community less safe in the long run.”

Michele Bachmann, (Submissive) Theologian?

Aug19 by D Gregory Smith

Michele Bachmann has championed the “Christian” cause, sprinkling her speeches with scripture and holy buzzphrases. But one in particular caught my ear.

During the Iowa Republican Debate, Bachmann was asked about whether she would be submissive to her husband. She slipped right out of her earlier statements (and any fundamentalist credibility) when she basically said, “in our house, submission means respect”.

But what did Paul mean when he wrote, “Wives, submit to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord” in his letter to the Colossians? Or Peter, when he wrote “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands…” in the First Letter of Peter?

It comes from the tradition which Paul amplified in his letter to the Ephesians:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (NIV) Ephesians 5.22-24

Pretty clearly not simple, mutual respect. Maybe another translation will help. Let’s try the King James:

²²Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ²³For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.²⁴Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Nope, still clearly hierarchical. Paul is speaking from a clearly patriarchal tradition here- one where the husband is the head of the family, the boss, the Pope, the King- those are the images he uses here.

And they are meant very specifically and clearly: wives are the subjects of their husbands, as the church is subject to Christ. As a serf is subject to a king. Not partner, not even helpmate. Subject.

Not that I think this is right, proper or correct. My understanding of Christian scripture is quite different- and I take an anthropological/interpretive approach- not a fundamentalist one. But if you’re going to proclaim to have fundamentalist Christian leanings- you have to be consistent. The first century church was a product of its time- patriarchy was all the rage- and I think we’ve evolved beyond it. Well, mostly. But if Michele Bachmann is going to quote scripture, she can’t just pick and choose what it means. She can’t back off of it and maintain any integrity with/for her Christian base.

But she did. And she has. And the media is letting her. CBS News:

AMES, Iowa – Appearing on “Face the Nation” Sunday, Rep. Michele Bachmann stood by her comment in Thursday’s Republican debate, insisting that when she said wives should be submissive to their husbands, she meant that married couples should have mutual respect.
In 2006, Bachmann said her husband had told her to get a post-doctorate degree in tax law. “Tax law? I hate taxes,” she continued. “Why should I go into something like that? But the lord says, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'”
Asked about the comment by CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell Sunday, Bachmann reaffirmed that to her, “submission means respect, mutual respect.”
“I respect my husband, he respects me,” she said. “We have been married 33 years, we have a great marriage…and respecting each other, listening to each other is what that means.”
O’Donnell asked Bachmann if she would use a different word in retrospect.
“You know, I guess it depends on what word people are used to, but respect is really what it means,” Bachmann replied.
“Do you think submissive means subservient?” O’Donnell asked.
“Not to us,” Bachmann said. “To us it means respect. We respect each other, we listen to each other, we love each other and that is what it means.”

Look at the story she uses to illustrate her point: Marcus Bachmann told her to get a degree in something she hated– and she did it because- according to a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture- she is his subject. She must submit to him. She later rejected this, saying it equals respect.

Well, maybe in the way a serf respects the King who holds power over him/her. But let’s keep looking. Hey! Maybe the dictionary will mention respect.

submissive
sub·mis·sive
–adjective
1.inclined or ready to submit; unresistingly or humbly obedient: submissive servants.
2.marked by or indicating submission: a submissive reply.

Okay, that didn’t do much for her case, either. Hey, maybe the Greek will help! What was the word in the Bible the writers actually used? Maybe that means respect…

“In the first instance, then, hupatassomai does not mean so much ‘to obey’—though this may result from self-subordination—or to do the will of someone but rather ‘to lose or surrender one’s own rights or will.¹³⁶ In the NT the verb does not immediately carry with it the thought of obedience … ¹³⁷

The idea implicit in the term is “to place under” (in the active voice).¹³⁸ As it is found in our text, the idea would be, “to subordinate oneself” or “to place oneself under.” In general terms, submission is the placing of oneself under the one to whom we submit. Since we are commanded to submit ourselves one to another, we are to place all others above ourselves. (source)

Whoops. Even worse.

Sorry, Michele. Looks like if you want to maintain scriptural consistency- and your fundamentalist/evangelical/christianist street cred, you’re going to have to say submit, subject to, submissive, surrender.

Presidential words, indeed.

Majority Of Australian Christians Support Marriage Equality

Aug17 by D Gregory Smith

By Brody Levesque | SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA — A national opinion poll conducted by the Galaxy research group released Monday, ahead of a rally against same-sex marriage in the Australian capital city Canberra, finds a majority of Australian Christians support same-sex marriage.

The results showed that 53% of Australians who identify as Christians support same-sex marriage, while 41% oppose. 67% of non-Christians support it.

Australian Marriage Equality spokesperson, Malcolm McPherson, himself a Christian, said the poll shows church leaders and Christian lobbyists who oppose same-sex marriage are not representative of the feelings of most Australians on the subject of same-sex marriage as evidenced by the poll’s results.

The Galaxy poll found overall support for allowing same-sex marriage to 60%, which is unchanged from an identical poll conducted by Galaxy in October last year (the result of the October poll was 62%, which is within the margin of error of +/- 2%).

However, there has been a marked shift in how strongly views on the issue are held. Since October last year 5% of supporters of equality have shifted from “agree” to “strongly agree”, with a similar shift among opponents of reform from “strongly disagree” to “disagree”.

Religious leaders who have given their support to the campaign for marriage equality come from Uniting, Anglican and Baptist churches across Australia, and include Sydney minister and 2GB radio host, Reverend Bill Crews who said in an interview:

Today in Australia we all live in a secular non discriminatory society. Churches and other spiritual institutions exist within this society. It seems to me that in a secular and non-discriminatory society gay couples should be as free to marry as any other human couple. If people wish to be married within a religious or spiritual institution’s framework then they should accept the rites and rules of that institution. However it is the state that legitimises all marriages.

A Melbourne Baptist pastor, Matt Glover, said allowing same-sex marriages will benefit marriage as an institution:

When a couple want to be part of the institution of marriage, when they fully accept the same rights and responsibilities of marriage and treat marriage with the respect it deserves, why should they NOT get married? As a Christian minister, I believe that marriage is under threat from many angles, but also believe that recognizing same-sex unions will help return marriage to its rightful place in society.

An Anglican parish priest in Sydney, Rector David Smith was blunt in his assessment:

From a Christian point of view, marriage is an institution designed to serve two social needs:

1) contribute broadly to social stability

2)provide a stable environment for the nurturing of children.

If this is the case then the only questions Christians need to concern themselves with when it comes to the issue of gay marriage are these two:

1) Would gay marriage lead to greater social stability?

2) Would a married gay partnership be likely to provide a more secure environment for the nurturing of the children of a gay couple than an unmarried one?

I think the answer to both these questions has to be ‘yes’.

Buoyed by the poll results, Australian Marriage Equality has launched a Christians 4 Equality letter-writing campaign which has the endorsement of a wide range of Christian leaders and has already seen almost 10,000 letters sent to MPs from Australian Christians since the site went live last Friday afternoon.

The PinkNews UK reported that during a rally held yesterday in Canberra, the so-called ‘National Day for Marriage’ rally, an American anti-gay activist told the audience during her speech that gay marriage would lead to paedophiles marrying children. Rebecca Hagelin, a columnist for the right wing tabloid World Net Daily, also added that there is “no greater evil” than gay marriage supporters and that Christians are in a “war for the future of the human race”.

Australian Marriage Equality’s McPherson responded telling the PinkNews:

Christian groups that oppose marriage equality like the Australian Christian Lobby are entitled to their view, but they do not represent the majority of Australian Christians.

Clearly, most Australian Christians believe same-sex marriage is consistent with Christian values like justice, love, compassion and fidelity, not opposed to these values.

Bullied Youth Proposes LGBT Youth Advisor To President Obama

Aug17 by D Gregory Smith

Photo courtesy of Brody Levesque

An inspiring story for going back to school….

You may remember me writing about Caleb Laieski, a 16 year old bullied youth from Arizona. Caleb was revently invited to the White House to share his experience as a bullied teen. Laieski was one of a few youth chosen to meet with President Obama for a photo opportunity. When they met, he proposed to President Obama that the administration appoint an LGBT youth advisor to the President. The advisor would serve as a liaison between the Obama Administration and our nation’s LGBT youth population to specifically address anti-LGBT bullying and other major issues that LGBT youth face and seek appropriate and immediate solutions.

Laieski refused to accept bullying as a rite of passage for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) teens. Raising funds and creating awareness, he took his passion to Washington, DC where he used his personal experience to lobby Washington lawmakers on the Student Non-Discrimination Act. After meeting with almost 200 different legislators and various administrative offices in just 22 days, Laieski worked on Capitol Hill to promote a safe schools bill; The Student Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 998 – S. 999).

With his personal experience on bullying, he was invited to speak with the Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, to discuss the effect that bullying has on today’s lesbian and gay youth and the dire situation bullying creates for at-risk youth. The story stuck with Secretary Sebelius – a few days later, Laieski was included in the Secretary’s speech at the first-ever Federal LGBT Youth Summit that was held by the Department of Education.

Bullying has taken many at-risk LGBT youth and a recent study shows, that LGBT youth who come from “highly rejecting” families are more than 8 times as likely to have attempted suicide than LGBT peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection. In a tragic event that struck too close to home, Laieski lost a close friend his age to suicide last year. This friend had endured similar bullying- and Caleb has had several other close friends attempt suicide due to the same systematic and sustained harassment in public schools.

Reluctant to create more pain from his experience, Laieski has begun channeling his inner pain in a positive way by becoming a strong personal advocate for bullied LGBT Youth- an inspiring story, especially as students head back to school.

We’ll keep you informed about the LGBT Youth Advisor to The President….

More about Caleb here.

Adventures in the Molly House (or what I didn’t learn in History)

Aug4 by growlingmutt

Not to knock my Central-Montana public education, but I think we skipped over some of the juicer parts of history.

Either that, or I nodded off when we learned of Princess Seraphina. An 18th Century Molly House Lady who brought a thief to court for stealing her clothes. Ahh, queerness in the 18th century. The complete transcript of a trial in 1732 offers a peek at a character who knew how to work it. In an act of sheer extravaganza eleganza, Princess Seraphina, having been robbed at knife point, bloody and bruised, didn’t back down or cower. Girlfriend sued Thomas Gordon for ” putting him in fear, and taking from him a Coat, a Waistcoat, a pair of Breeches, a pair of Shoes, a pair of Silver Shoe-buckles, a Shirt, a Stock, a Silver Stock- buckle, and 4½d. in Money…”

The adventure of the Chevalier d’Eon was also skipped. You’d think in a county named Chouteau (with two “U”s, thankyouverymuch) the story of a spy who sported elegant gowns, who fought and fenced like a man yet walked like a woman would have been a great educational opportunity to spark some farm kid’s imagination and get her to learn more about French history…and transgender politics.

Yep. It’s history lessons like this that certainly would have rounded out my education. But, Mr. H, bless his basketball coach’s heart, never ventured into this territory.

Oh well, there’s always wiki on the interwebs.

guest host with the most

Aug3 by growlingmutt

Hi, Ken here. I’m filling in for Greg for the next week. He’s off to ~~a foreign land~~ Canada to visit his girlfriend. I mean, she’s a girl and he’s her friend. But I digress. And digest.

I can’t promise to be entertaining or educating. I can’t even promise that I’ll floss everyday. But I’m up for a laugh or two and have promised Greg I’d ~~not fly the plane into the mountain~~ do my best.

So, Bandit, Phyllis and I are running the show this week. Fasten your belts. Loosen your ties. Apply lip gloss if necessary.

This made me giggle.
gods, bless us all.

Majority of Montana Voters Support Same-Sex Domestic Partnerships

Jul30 by D Gregory Smith

No, seriously- Welcome!

I mentioned this in passing yesterday, but a newly released poll shows that a majority of voters in Montana support domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. That poll, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the American Civil Liberties Union, found that 53 percent of Montana voters favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into domestic partnerships.

“Support of same-sex domestic partnerships is growing, and now we can quantify what our day-to-day interactions with people are telling us,” said ACLU of Montana LGBT Advocacy Coordinator Ninia Baehr. “It’s heartening to know that people understand that every loving and committed couple who pays taxes in our state deserves fairness.”

The change in attitude mirrors an increase in the number of same-sex couples in Montana reporting their households to the U.S. Census Bureau. Recently released numbers show 2,295 same-sex households in the 2010 Census – a 54 percent jump since 2000.

Key Highlights of 2011 Polling

Most Montanans favor domestic partnership. By a 13 point margin, voters in Montana favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into domestic partnerships – 53 percent favor, 40 percent oppose. There is more intensity among those who favor; 35 percent strongly favor, while 29 percent strongly oppose.
More than half of Catholics (55 percent) favor domestic partnerships, including 36 percent who strongly favor allowing domestic partnerships. This measure also wins the support of nearly half (47 percent) of seniors, a majority of older women (54 percent), and blue collar women (52 percent).
Support for domestic partnerships seems to be increasing. A 2008 survey conducted by Lake Research Partners asked voters a four-part question asking them to choose between traditional marriage, marriage with another name, civil unions, and no legal recognition. The survey found that 33 percent of Montanans thought that gay and lesbian couples should have the same right to marry as straight couples, or should have the same right to marry but it should not be called marriage.2
Voters recognize discrimination against gays and lesbians. A 47 percent plurality believe gay people in Montana face a lot of discrimination; only 38 percent think that gays and lesbians in the state do not face much discrimination.

People understand that the lack of legal recognition of same-sex relationships leaves couples extremely vulnerable. In Montana examples of unfairness toward same-sex couples include a woman who was denied bereavement leave when her partner’s father died, and another woman who lost her home because she was ineligible for worker’s compensation death benefits when her partner was killed in an accident.

“Same-sex couples have told us time and again that they are meeting more and more people who sympathize with their plight,” said Baehr. “This polling reinforces the growing support those couples have been experiencing.”

While it’s not exactly marriage, I’ll take it. For now.

This shows the evolution of the Montana voter’s attitude is in favor of eventual, full equality-and this change in attitude has a cause. This is happening because more of us are simply visible as co-workers, neighbors, children, siblings and friends. We are not a threat, we’re just people.

I’m particularly impressed with the Catholics- and not surprised, really. This is about social justice for us- not particularly about morality. Even though the hierarchy is deeply out of touch on this issue, this is a reminder that the sense of the people in the pews is leading the church here. My mother would have agreed- I know the rest of my Catholic family does.

In the eyes of Montanans, “The Gays” are slowly changing from scary bogeymen into recognizable human beings. Never underestimate the power unleashed by broken closet doors….

More info here.

For Ted and Jack, Marriage Equality Came Too Late

Jul24 by D Gregory Smith

Ted and Jack

Crossposted at Bilerico.com

You may remember my friend Ted Hayes. He’s been a guest of the site, writing a column about fundamentalism and sexuality and the pro-choice-life rhetoric.

New York’s Hudson Valley Times Herald-Record profiled Ted today- on the day that marriage equality becomes a reality in that state- and it’s beautiful.

For many people outside the LGBT world, gay pride and marriage equality is too often seen simply as the cause of “radical” youth- the pierced, cross-dressing, politically and theologically liberal boys/girls/trans/men/women with their Harleys and glitter and rollerskates.

It is that- and I happen to love it and believe in the power and importance of self-expression.

But it’s also more.

Gay Pride and marriage equality are also about the people of advancing age who have struggled to live their lives with love and integrity in the face of hatred, anger, denial and oppression- the kind that many of us today simply cannot fathom.

Enter Ted:

This is a short story about a man’s long life as he stands on the brink of a day he never thought would arrive.

At the age of eight, Ted Hayes heard a kid in the schoolyard call another kid a queer.

Hayes asked a friend what the word meant.

“It means when boys like boys, not girls. My dad says anyone like that should be killed.”

The friend said he was sure glad he wasn’t like that. Hayes agreed.

“That was the day the lying began — years and years of lying,” Hayes, of Stone Ridge, recalled last week.

The state’s gay marriage law takes effect Sunday. Hayes, now 80, grew up in the South and has mixed feelings about it. He’s fought for gay marriage and he’s glad it’s finally come to pass. Yet, the law ends at the New York state border. It represents a battle won, in a war that’s still being fought.

The law’s passage came too late for Hayes to share its satisfactions with his partner of 26 years, Jack Waite, who died of cancer two years ago at the age of 94.

“Jack could never grasp how our being married would have harmed another’s marriage in the slightest,” Hayes said, dismay coloring his voice.

The harm that’s been done, as Hayes has experienced it, has not been done by those who have struggled for marriage equality but by those who would deny them, people who have tried all Hayes’s long life to keep him a fearful, uncomplaining second-class citizen.

Thanks, Ted. We owe you one.