Articles From Our December, 2004 Newsletter

HEARTLAND MEN’S CHORUS

A final reminder of the HMC concert, this coming Sat., December 4th, at 8pm, and Sun., December 5th. at 4pm. at the historic Folly Theater.

Entitled “With Bells On” the concert will feature a “bevy of bell-friendly holiday classics, featuring the crystalline tone of the Carillon Choir from Grace United Methodist Church, Olathe, KS. And, by audience demand, for the first time ever, our own holiday sing-along.” And, of course, expect a few surprises!!

To order tickets, call 816-931-3338

From Our President

Happy Holidays All !!!

I'm having random thoughts so let's see if they flow a little better on paper. First, let me say that I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving weekend.

Paul D., David W., Richard and I went to the Thanksgiving dinner at Passages (Kansas City's only LGBT youth organization). We met lots of young people from around the metro area. How glorious to see them being "genuine" and having such fun--in spite of the old folks hanging about.

After having eaten our way through the last few days, it was time to get back to work which means putting up the Christmas tree and all of the other decorations. Like you, we have Lee family traditions--like stringing popcorn and cranberries for the tree and playing our favorite music. It was then that I discovered "missed clue" number 2,683 that our John was gay. I was putting the skirt underneath the tree when I remembered how he used to put it around his waist when he was a little boy and wear it while hanging ornaments on the tree. We laughed till we were in tears. I'm grateful that we can share a good belly laugh over the smallest things. John happened to call seconds later because he and two friends were stuck in a traffic jam on their way back to college in Oklahoma City…..sooooo….of course I shared with him the revelation of our latest "clue". I could almost hear him smile (yes, you can hear a smile) when he said "Oh my God, I'd forgotten all about that. You made my day!

"Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or something else, laugh much and hold on tight to those you love. The older I get the more I realize how precious those gifts can be.

See you at the next meeting!

Our Traditional Non-Traditional Wedding
by Steve Silberman 

reprinted from http://levity.com/digaland/married/

My sweetheart and I got married two summers ago. In many ways, it was a traditional ceremony. Our families and friends joined us from all over the world to celebrate. We took a vow to love, honor, and cherish each other till death do us part, and our mothers wept with joy. With a minister presiding, we made an exchange of gold rings, followed by dinner for over 100 people at a beautiful restaurant, with a cake, dancing, and champagne toasts.

But in one obvious way our wedding was a non-traditional event: My beloved is a bright, softspoken, handsome science teacher named Keith. We got married half a year before San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom took the stand that all people have the right to equal protection under the California constitution. Matrimony was not a radical step for us, as Keith and I have been loving, honoring, and cherishing one another for ten years. True, our marriage does not confer upon us the same rights that most of our wedded friends have, but we didn't get married to gain tax advantages or earn such basic privileges as being able to visit one another in the hospital. We got married for the same reason that most people do: to make a public vow that our two fates, from that day forward, would be merged into one fate, one heart, and one life.

As I read through the post-mortems of the 2004 election speculating about whether the gay marriage issue cost John Kerry his presidency -- with many Democrats supporting this view -- I have the disoriented feeling of reading about my sweet, ordinary life with Keith distorted through funhouse mirrors. When writer Bill Bennett places gay marriage in opposition to "ethical values" and a "decent society," as he did in the National Review the day after the election, does he mean us? Apparently so. By now, the concept of marriages like ours has been twisted into such an abstract threat to so many otherwise fine and compassionate people -- and so divorced from the humble blessing of two souls caring deeply for one another -- it's time for a national reality check.

Keith and I are not political activists. His family has traditionally voted Republican, and his parents voted for Bush in the recent election. Until recently, Keith's father was the mayor of a small town in the Midwest; the first time I met him, he took me aside and said, "I know that you are very special to Keith, so that means you are very special to us." There was such simple, human, Midwestern forthrightness in that statement. No banner-waving, no Biblical injunctions, no soapboxing. Just a clear and compassionate message: We love our son and trust his ability to make the most personal decision of all.

Keith and I didn't get married to commit a pioneering act of civil disobedience, to "redefine marriage" as President Bush claimed during his campaign, or to outrage the religious right. We took our vows because getting hitched seemed like the sane next step of our commitment. We figured the best way to defend the sanctity of marriage was to have one and live up to the promises we made to one another.

As we were making preparations for our ceremony, Senate majority leader Bill Frist equated same-sex marriage and "prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home." Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia unleashed a 21-page torrent of warnings from the highest bench in the land, comparing homosexuality to "fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity." Soon after we were wed, President Bush declared his support for a Constitutional amendment banning marriages like ours, warning the nation that we were out to "change the most fundamental institution of civilization." Now even some Democrats are saying that the President rode that threat into a second term. They insist that to get real and get elected, any future candidate must distance himself from the issue entirely.

These grave declarations from the guardians of our public welfare have a familiar ring. They bring to mind the statements made in support of laws against interracial marriage that were on the books in 16 states until 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned them in a case memorably named Loving v. Virginia. The couple in question, a white man named Richard Loving and a black woman, Mildred Jeter, drove to Washington to say their vows, because their home state of Virginia banned mixed-race marriages. For this offense, they were exiled from Virginia for 25 years by a trial judge who declared, "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."

Overturning the judge's decision, the High Court ruled, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men... Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

A lot has changed since Loving v. Virginia. These days, the trial judge's statements about race seem sad and a little silly. I'm confident that in 20 years, the fulminations of those currently exploiting marriage to mobilize the evangelical vote will seem equally silly and sad, even if doing so proved effective as a campaign tactic. I believe that Vice President Cheney knows this in his heart too, as he made clear during his debate with John Edwards. Only a very cruel father would want anything less than the happiness and soul-tempering challenge of matrimony for his own children. If Republicans from the Midwest like Keith's family are able to welcome their new son-in-law into the family with open hearts, the culture war is already over, and the loving people won.

Several months after our wedding, my own father passed away suddenly. The celebration of our betrothal turned out to be the last time that my friends and my sister Hillary got to see him. I'm glad they will remember my dad as he was on that day. He was glowing.

The young voters of the near future already know that love does not discriminate. The laws against marriage passed in 11 states on this past Election Day will not stand and will be recognized for what they are -- ugly, fearful steps backward on the long climb toward democracy and respect for everyone. To couples like me and Keith, I say, keep getting married, proudly and publicly, even without a license, in the face of any cynical attempt to exploit misunderstanding of your lives for short-term political gain. A sane, ethical, compassionate world has to start somewhere.

Our country was founded on the principle that certain truths and liberties are self-evident. If there's anything in life that's self-evident, it's love, particularly on a wedding day. When Keith and I said our vows, we weren't thinking of overturning laws and changing society. We were thinking of our families, our friends, and most of all, our love for one another -- a rare and precious thing between any two people.

What could be more traditional?

PFLAG SUPPORTS REAL FAMILY VALUES