The end of August brought two news stories centered on society's continuing struggle over gay rights and acceptance.
First, the resignation of Idaho's Republican Senator Larry Craig over allegations he attempted to solicit sex from an undercover police officer in a Minneapolis airport men's room.
And second, word that an Iowa county judge had overturned a state law banning gay marriage. The same judge later delayed further granting of licenses until the Iowa state Supreme Court decided whether to consider an appeal.
Reading the stories in the New York Times I experienced a range of emotions: Complete awe at Craig's arrogance to challenge the police officer who called him on his both overt and covert behavior, and sadness that this man still must hide his desires and resort to trolling in men's toilets.
The story from Iowa touched me in small and deep ways. I'd read about developments in Vermont, Massachusetts, California and all along both coasts. I'd experienced the excitement of hearing about same sex couples in Multnomah County, Oregon, getting married in November 2004 before the ruling was reversed.
And I knew about gay leaders' efforts here in Washington State to legalize gay marriage, which met with failure in 2006 when the Washington Supreme Court ruled against allowing same-sex marriage in this state.
But Iowa permitting gay couples to marry, even for a brief moment, made it so much more real to me. We aren't talking about the East Coast establishment or fringey left-coast types. If a judge in Iowa could see that preventing people who love each other from getting married is an infringement on their constitutional rights, then the tide really is beginning to turn.
I've lived on Capitol Hill nearly half my life, so I've become acclimated to the acceptance I've found here as an openly gay person. Sometimes I'm not even conscious that my lifestyle and whom I'm attracted to is any different from the majority of Seattle residents.
But I always felt the rest of the country wouldn't be so tolerant, and for that reason I personally felt gay marriage was an unrealistic option for activists to pursue. We should focus instead on other civil rights, like anti-discrimination or hate crimes legislation.
But the idea of marriage is so fundamental when two people are in love. Coming together in a union of households and finances, for richer or poorer, healthier and not so healthy, with the potential of raising children. Small protections under the law became possible for many gay couples in certain states in a matter of a short seven-year period.
Why shouldn't there be federal protection for committed gay couples so that wherever they choose to move, they are given the same advantages by the state as other couples?
The picture I saw on the New York Times national report page conveyed it all. In the early morning light two young men are embracing, kissing, underneath a shade tree, a picket gate in the background. A photographer behind the tree catches the moment while a young woman happily observes. The minister who performed the ceremony, his hands clasped and with a knowing smile, occupies the other corner of the photograph.
According to the report, only this couple managed to obtain a license and also marry before the judge issued the stay order four hours later. Timothy McQuillan, 21, and Sean Fritz, 24, are nobodies compared to the famous (or infamous) senator Craig. But their willingness to jump in headfirst for love's sake gave those of us in the gay community, who are more apt to think small and not rock the boat, reason to dream of bigger and better tomorrows.
If gay marriage can happen in Des Moines, there is hope after all.
Jack Hilovsky's column appears in the second issue of each month. He can be reached at editor@capitol hilltimes.com. Hilovsky is also the executive director of the Capitol Hill Chamber of Commerce.
[[In-content Ad]]
