Andy Lien

I’m writing this the Friday after the Minnesota House of Representatives passed the marriage bill with a vote of 75-59 on Thursday, May 9. The next issue of Lavender will hopefully be one full of triumph, with a special section covering all-things-marriage at the Capitol.

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to interview ex-Vikings punter, Chris Kluwe, for the second time as Editor of Lavender. As of press time, he had been released by the Vikings but his next venture is not yet known. I do hope whoever picks him up knows they’re getting a football player with a halo-effect of decency, intelligence, wit, and empowerment. I know I’m not alone in feeling fortified by that guy; his example made it easier to speak up for the community, whether using our own words or his. His were usually more colorful and to the point, no more so than when he speaks of empathy.

In the interview later in this issue, Kluwe talks of how civilizations who lack rational empathy inevitably fall. Societies war with each other, societies splinter and war within themselves…but if we were to put ourselves in each others’ shoes and see how an action could negatively affect someone, we will be better prepared to not explode or implode as a civilization. We can see how this works on macro and micro levels; particularly, on the macro level, the GLBT community is fighting for rights in the workplace, in the state, in the nation. Helping the fight is telling stories, humanizing the issues, and forcing empathy. I use “forcing” in terms of evoking empathy as there can be a daunting level of denial in our society–a refusal to acknowledge another’s situation as being similar enough to mean that the playing field should be level. Sometimes, this forcing of empathy happens because the tables turn and the person who refused to put him or herself in the position of others is suddenly in that position–as when someone’s family member comes out and it’s suddenly not okay to discriminate against GLBT people. And, sometimes, there’s no forcing of empathy required, it comes by way of leading by example and well-worded messages.

I received a Letter to the Editor as our last issue went to press, it’s hand-written by Nancy Hauer of White Bear Lake. It’s short, poignant, and hits home the point that people need to have empathy for each other, that our state needs to have empathy for its people:

It’s astoundingly wonderful that couples who want to be legally married but currently can’t in our state may soon be able to do so.

Not having the basic human right to marry the consenting adult of one’s choice also deeply affects the level of well-being of every currently single person who knows that if they do marry, the marriage will not be legal.

Although not nearly as extreme as when African Americans had no rights and were legally considered 60% of a person in slave states, our not having the basic human marriage choice right that everyone else has in our state makes us, perhaps, 95% human in the eyes of our state. Everyone wants to be considered 100% human.

Letters like this are the equivalent to a speech made on the floor of the House of Representatives. Eloquence in ink on a college-rule sheet of paper. I am thrilled for Nancy–and so many others–that this community is on the cusp of being considered 100% human, at least on the basis of marriage equality. May we never forget that we need to continue to bring others with us who are treated as subhuman, which will be a continuing and evolving struggle.

Some of us were able to follow the debate as it happened in the House of Representatives, in the gallery or on TV, online or streaming. Twitter was very effective for following the debate and it was clear when something that was said struck a chord across the listening audience. Memorable pieces came from Rep. Laurie Halverson who levelled the parenting experience by mentioning how we all know “how it hurts to step on a Lego” and Rep. Rena Moran made it clear that she was seeing through the community’s eyes as she thought of her ancestors and their fight for civil rights: “Either we are equal or we’re not equal.”

Rep. Steve Simon spoke of empathy in a calm, assured way during the debate. A vocal supporter of the rights of this community, he took us all to a place of being taught how to be empathetic:

So, this is about freedom and love and commitment. It’s about live and let live, live and let love, you might say. But, it’s also about compassion. And I know it’s most difficult sometimes to be compassionate where the object of the compassion is someone who you maybe don’t know. You don’t know who they are or what they are or what they hope for. But in that vein, there’s a story I love from my own religious tradition about a rabbi who was meeting with his students in a religious school and the rabbi asked his students the question, “What is the precise moment when night ends and a new day begins?” 

One of the students said, “The moment when night ends and a new day begins is the moment when there’s enough light that I can tell the difference between a cedar tree and an olive tree.” And the rabbi said, “No, that’s not the answer.” Another student said, “Well, Rabbi, I know. The moment when night ends and a new day begins is the moment when there’s enough light that I can tell the difference between a sheep and a goat.” And the rabbi said, “No, that is not the answer.” The rabbi said, “The moment when night ends and a new day begins is the moment when you look into the face of a stranger and see the face of your brother. Until that moment, no matter what time it is, it’s still night. But at that moment, that’s when the new day begins.” I like the sound of that, a new day. I hope we can all go there together and I urge you to vote yes.  

Our society as a whole is leaning toward tolerance and equality for the GLBT community, using empathy as either its catalyst or its fuel–or both. We need to take the momentum of these historical moments and carry them further. We should look to our future and consider the prophetic possibilities of catastrophes that can end our civilization according to a brash book called Beautifully Unique Sparkleponies, and hope that we’ve got our proverbial shit together before such catastrophe strikes, so that we survive it. But, whether there’s a doomsday on the horizon or not, let us learn from what the empathy of others has given this community, and what we can pay forward to those less fortunate.

With gratitude,
Andy

Have the votes happened at the Capitol? Do we have marriage equality? This issue went to press without any movement happening at the Capitol, yet. In the week between hitting “send” and it hitting the stands, we may have found out if all Minnesotans will get the Freedom to Marry in 2013.

I feel just as I did before Election Day in 2012: Anxious and optimistic, but protective. I am optimistic that the legislators will do the right thing and be on the right side of history by voting for marriage equality. I am protective of this community, whether or not it passes (or has passed).

This topic has not left my mind and heart since November 6, 2012, when victory in defeating the amendment turned into “What’s next?”

Are we celebrating today, are we waiting with hope in our hearts, or are we pointing fingers? You know the saying, “Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is but an orphan.” The victory in November of 2012 was shared by many and there were clear sides: you vote no or you vote yes (and have a direct impact on the outcome). This campaign for marriage equality (that does not rely on our votes on a ballot) is less easy to categorize or conceptualize. As a community, we have grappled with it. We have looked for as easy of an answer as the two options we were given in November, but it’s not that simple. It’s not that easy. There is more to it than all-or-nothing and looking at what that might constitute does not make someone against equality, it makes someone against nothing. It’s up to our legislators to decide the future of this community’s rights; they are the sole people who have the power and they will be held accountable.

And that’s how we do this. We explore the ideas and we challenge the people in power to do their jobs.

We’ve published all of the Letters to the Editor we’ve received to date–there have been very few. There have been some Facebook posts on Lavender’s page but, again, very few. These facts indicate that the community is also considering various scenarios, I’d say, while still largely wanting marriage equality. A while back, there was a comment on a Facebook post that was critical of Lavender talking about civil unions. I paraphrase, but it was something about how accepting civil unions because we don’t deserve better is abusive and this community has had enough of that kind of abuse. I disagree with the assessment that saying civil unions are better than nothing is the same as saying civil unions are what the community deserves, instead of equality. Such an idea that the community doesn’t deserve full equality has never been published in Lavender. But I can understand how even raising the option can also raise hackles.

My own hackles haven’t relaxed since 2012. I have hated being media because I have hated being objective, to be honest. To be objective means that I have had to challenge my own ideas and thoughts and be open to looking at others. At first, when civil unions were mentioned to me, I treated the concept like Voldemort in Harry Potter–as if the mere mention of the term had power and that power was evil–and I wanted the term to never be uttered again. I lost that argument. As the weeks progressed, I came to see that civil unions are an option, but I will still argue that they are not an equal substitute for marriage. Civil unions are not marriages of a different name  or equal to marriage, because civil unions aren’t granted with uniting in mind; they’re designed to appease a group while making sure that they’re not allowed to become legitimized and “normal.” That is abusive, especially for people who haven’t come out yet or for young people who are trying to figure out who they are without hating themselves.

I worry about what constitutes more abuse for this community. Silencing each other is abusive. Shaming each other is abusive. Being told by legislators that they’re not going to vote this year about whether this community gets marriage equality is abusive…that this community’s lives can just be on hold for another year and in limbo. Being told that a party has this community’s best interests in mind but that they won’t make equality happen is abusive.

I hope that this article is irrelevant because marriage equality has already happened by the time you read it. Regardless, I want to thank the legislators who unquestioningly supported this community and those who took risks to do so. I hope you have had the opportunity to go on the record with your support so that your credibility with the community is beyond reproach. I want to thank you for your action as well as your words. I want to vote you back into office.

If we haven’t reached that point yet in the legislative session, I hope that the people in power see how important it is to remain credible with this community. Words are one thing, actions are another…and actions will give this community what it deserves: equality.

With you,
Andy

This is a time of high anticipation. So much has happened in the past two weeks, so much will happen in the next two weeks. By the time this issue is on stands, it’ll be Lobby Day at which the community will hopefully have shown a tremendous display of support for the Freedom to Marry at the Minnesota State Capitol. Perhaps we’ll be moving toward the marriage bills being heard on the floors of the House and Senate. I hope things will be full of passion and optimism. Maybe even celebration. Hope.

I’m well aware of the fact that the discussion of the topic of civil unions in the community has not been met with open arms and support by some. In this issue, we’re looking at both marriage and civil unions as they are relevant and pertinent to the bigger conversation. Marriage equality is the goal; but, stepping back a moment, what a historical event that was when four GOP lawmakers in Minnesota held a press conference to introduce civil unions for same-sex couples. When the only earlier GOP response to same-sex couples had included a parade of people arguing against the existence of homosexuality (as a concept, really), to see this happen was pretty monumental. Being that the civil unions press conference with the legislators also included each of them saying that they would not vote for marriage if the vote came up, it’s not entirely helpful to the greater goal of equality, but it did serve a purpose in shifting the discussion away from nothing.

Away from nothing.

Sit with that a moment.

That night, across social media and websites and newscasts, the future of rights associated with relationships for this community seemed less of an “if” and more of a “how.” I have to commend KARE 11 (the local NBC station) for quickly addressing the issue. Did you see the coverage? They delineated the difference between civil unions and marriage, and made it clear that civil unions were the lesser of the two–that the rights are not equal, that civil unions would likely not be acknowledged for federal rights should the federal DOMA be repealed, and other reasons. More than that, KARE 11 interviewed two couples from the community who gave faces to the fact that civil unions don’t mean what marriage means. But, what was not mentioned was anything other than civil unions or marriage–it’s as if there was no longer a third option: nothing.

The buzzkill of the day was that though plenty of DFLers came out saying that the concept of civil unions is lesser to the status of marriage for this community, there was still no promise to make marriage happen. Yes, I’ll hand it to Speaker of the House Thissen for pre-empting the civil unions press conference by a matter of minutes to say that civil unions are outdated and not acceptable to those who, like him, support marriage equality. We still get the answer that there hasn’t been a vote yet, and there may not be the numbers to pull off the freedom to marry in a DFL-controlled legislature.

This is when I wish that I had taken more political science courses. I stayed in the area of communications and women’s and gender studies, but times like these make me feel like my knowledge of politics rely on “I’m Just a Bill” from Schoolhouse Rock! which actually predates me. Though, I suppose, my gender studies might have actually taught me more about what might happen in closed-door meetings between people in power, a little more knowledge of how lobbying works would probably help me feel more optimistic that marriage equality might pass in Minnesota in 2013.  As it is, though, shouldn’t we all be able to understand how our legislature works by virtue of something as simple as understanding what the parties stand for?

I realize that nothing is ever really black and white…politics, especially, have shades of grey. We see that separate Boy Scout troops, Catholic parishes, and individual voters might step outside of the larger umbrella organizations of the Boy Scouts of America, the Archdiocese, and the Democratic (or whichever) Party. People have choices and can fully or partially adhere to the platforms of their particular groups. But, as far as we Americans understand it, how closely do representatives of a political party have to align themselves to their party?

The reason I ask this is fairly obvious. You know what’s coming.

That’s right.  It’s that brand-spanking-new plank in the Democratic Party Platform about marriage equality that was voted into the platform in 2012, which is under the heading “Greater Together” and the subheading “Protecting Rights and Freedoms”:

Freedom to Marry. We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

I don’t want to sound snarky at this point. I ask in all seriousness, am I missing something here when I hear that outstate DFLers are resisting voting for marriage equality? When I asked Democrat Senator Baldwin about adhering to the party platform in my interview with her later in this issue, I understood her when she said that “party platforms and laws are very different things,” that a platform is a vision statement for the party.  So here we are. We are trying to turn a vision into a law and asking the representatives of that party to do it.

Even if the national party platform does not directly bind the state legislators, the DFL platform says under the heading “Civil, Human, and Constitutional Rights”: “We Oppose: Discrimination against any person on the basis of race, creed, religion, immigration status, sex, sexual or affectional orientation, HIV status, gender identity or expression, marital or homemaker status, disability or age.”

As members of the Democratic Party, DFL legislators are to strive to achieve the vision of the party, and that vision includes marriage equality. Not civil unions. Not nothing.

The DFL has the majority in Minnesota’s House of Representatives. The DFL has the majority in Minnesota’s Senate. The DFL Governor has said that he will sign a bill to legalize same-sex marriage should it reach his desk.

DFL, it’s on you.

Your party platform requires it of you. Your vision is clear. It’s time to earn the loyalty you’ve had for years, by default, by fulfilling your duties as members of the Democratic Party, according to your party platform.

Now.

With hope and gratitude,
Andy

During the two days of the Supreme Court hearings regarding Prop 8 and DOMA, those of us on social networking watched our News Feeds fill with red and pink equality symbols, a special redesign of the Human Rights Campaign’s usual blue and yellow iconic logo. People swapped out their own profile photos for the quickly claimed red and pink marriage equality logo and the feeling of solidarity was one that I hadn’t felt since the VOTE NO campaign. Whether on a computer or my iPhone, nine of every ten posts were that of people changing their primary personal online representation to be that of a uniform message of marriage equality.

Most of the changes were predictable, some weren’t. Some photos didn’t change, particularly of those friends who I know are against marriage equality (who I hope to influence in positive ways). Other photos that didn’t change to the marriage equality symbol were surprising; there were people who are online often and are very interested in marriage equality that didn’t adopt this red and pink symbol like the rest of us. Mysterious. One of them who is a student in law school came right out and said that she obviously supports same-sex marriage, but not the Supreme Court…so she wasn’t going to change her picture. Another friend sent me a private message, not because I said a single thing about her non-uniformity, but because she trusted me. She told me that of course she is a supporter of marriage equality, but she was having liberal guilt for being a conscientious objector to changing her picture for a reason that was important to her–reason enough to not join in the sea of red and pink.

My response was (paraphrased): “Good call, friend. No matter what, this is the symbol that’s been embraced by the community. It is marriage equality this week.” She didn’t ask for my approval. She didn’t ask for my advice. She simply wanted to state to someone her reason for being a conscientious objector and I turned it around to say to her that no matter what her reason was, it shouldn’t be talked about…that the easiest thing to do is just be quiet and go with the flow.

What I did was inexcusable. It doesn’t fit into my values to silence a voice that is being critical in a respectful, thoughtful way. Usually, my knee-jerk reaction is to debate the topic, not to debate that the topic was even raised. My standard operating procedure is that I’m going to tell you that I don’t agree with you–and why I don’t–instead of telling you to be quiet. With her, I threw in the towel on her behalf and conceded that she should follow her own gag order.

When did this become acceptable to me as an option? Why did I do it? When did I turn from leading by example to actively encouraging a voice to silence itself? I had to look into myself and my motivations. For one thing, I didn’t understand what she was saying. I didn’t have time to look into it–I just knew that it was against the popular sentiment. To explain it would appear to be in opposition to the equality. But, more worrisome, is that I’ve seen a wave of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” rhetoric lately, and it’s made me wary of expressing real, valid opinions.

The “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” rhetoric is easy to claim, but hard to defend. It’s isolating, by definition. It turns conversations into oppositional debates, needlessly. It’s a fallacy, because it can be untrue based on the conditions of what constitutes being “with” someone. And it puts fear where there doesn’t need to be more fear…implying that I should be afraid to be seen as against you. The peer pressure tactic is a poor one to choose, especially within a community that has been historically pressured to stay quiet and in a closet.

If you tell me that it’s good to present a united front when we campaign for the freedom to marry, I will agree with you. If you start putting conditions on what a unified front looks like, we’ll probably start disagreeing. If you then say that breaching those conditions of what a unified front looks like actually means I’m working against the campaign, I will reject that notion with confidence. You see, one can be critical of a movement one supports. It’s good to stay nimble in one’s beliefs. But, in our own community, there’s been a different model of intolerance that’s been rearing its ugly head, one that would place Lavender somewhere outside of wanting the freedom to marry, which is simply not the case.

I won’t lie. Controversy is not my favorite space to be suspended; it would be much easier to stick to the popular coverage and not defend any challenge or critique of what is popular and would mean a clear victory for equality. Freedom of speech isn’t easy and people will hear what they want to hear, regardless of what is said. Lavender’s printed 39 articles about marriage equality since Election Day of 2012. Of them, 29 have been easily pinpointed as being pro-marriage as the only option; 8 have been pro-marriage as the only option but critical as to how it’s being achieved; 2 have been pro-marriage, critical of the legislators and, therefore, positioning civil unions as a fallback if marriage isn’t going to have the votes. Really. I went back and read every single piece we’ve published and those are the most concise ways of describing the pieces and how they play a role in how we’re viewing the current campaign for marriage equality. Of these 39 pieces regarding marriage equality, 26 were written before the bills to legalize same-sex marriage were introduced in the House and Senate on February 28, 2013.

Between the beginning of November and the end of February, we were in limbo as a community, not knowing if we were going to have an organized campaign for the freedom to marry or who would be quarterbacking any legislation. We couldn’t not talk about what could be happening. So, we brought Brett Stevens on as a political columnist to push the topic. Being that the DFL is in the majority and has in its power to make marriage equality happen, a gay conservative columnist who is for the freedom to marry but critical of the party in power is a useful voice in the conversation. He may not represent 100% of us in 100% of our beliefs, but he represents a very real segment of our community and asks questions that many of us might prefer not to, despite wondering about them.  He’s asked when the will legislation be introduced. Will it be for marriage equality? Will DOMA be struck down on the state level regardless of the status of legalizing same-sex marriage? Will there be a contingency plan to get rights to this community if the party in power does not pass same-sex marriage this year? Will Minnesota step up and vote on same-sex marriage regardless of what the Supreme Court does?

It’s never been that the community deserves less than marriage equality. It’s that the party in power may not be able–or choose–to make it happen and, therefore, when and what will this community get?

We all have different opinions about the when, what, which, and how despite most wanting full equality. Please see each other as being with us, not against us, no matter how much critical thinking and second-guessing goes into the process of “continuing the conversation.” See each other for where we are, where we’ve been, and where we’re going. To question authority and doubt its success does not make someone a “self-hating gay.”  To believe that the DFL will do the right thing and pass the freedom to marry does not make someone “naive” to the history of the movement. We’re all in different places and have different degrees of faith in the system working for us or not; but we’re in this together. Moving forward.

With you,
Andy

This is the third comprehensive Wedding Issue that Lavender has published for the GLBT community; the theme is “Rewriting History.” History can be written, revised, and rewritten as it is reimagined or reconsidered. Or, history can be rewritten as it is revealed. As we continue this campaign toward equality in this community, new relationships between loving people of the same sex emerge as frequently as any other type of relationship. What is as important at this moment is that established same-sex relationships are emerging. Coming out. These relationships have existed for years, decades, scores of years–and, as the state and nation move toward legally recognizing same-sex marriage, history is being rewritten with inclusion at its core.

We’ve taken this theme of examining weddings and marriage throughout history and applied it to the contents of this issue. In his cheeky way, E.B. Boatner looks at nomenclature and the difference between “marriage” and “civil unions,” particularly as the Associated Press (AP) is rewriting its stylebook to include “husband” and “wife” as acceptable when speaking of married same-sex couples. Pam Colby experiences a wedding through her sons’ eyes and reconsiders her own historical aversion to weddings, both queer and straight. John Townsend examines the ever-changing institution of marriage as written by Shakespeare and performed by Propeller in the current stage production of The Taming of the Shrew and Twelfth Night at the Guthrie Theater. Not only do we see an archaic view of dowries and arranged marriage, but we also see how Shakespeare’s plays were performed originally (by all-male casts), further throwing “traditional” marriage on its ear.  Wedding planners at Style-Architects and Fabulous Functions give tips and advice as to how to make your event be perfect for you–making your own history.

Not just our articles are rewriting history, but who you see in these pages of this issue represent significant changes in this community. We’ve partnered with more wedding industry professionals than ever who are standing up for same-sex marriage by appearing in these pages and presenting this community in their work. Union Depot and The Bachelor Farmer are old spaces made new–and they welcome the community for same-sex weddings. You’ll see in our pages a very significant and history-making set of ads with a red bullseye on them, indicating that Lavender, this community, same-sex marriage, and the wedding industry are clearly going in the same direction, as business is indicating.

Look to our pages as a shopper of sorts–I’ll claim that label and run with it. We cover a number of topics in our Editorial Calendar and feature many businesses and professions new to Lavender, as well as some of our own advertisers. This publication–most apropos of any publications–showcases advertisers who believe in us enough to step up and put forth their dollars to reach you as a valid demographic group that is worthy of money and attention. When Nick and James (“Showmance Turned Romance” on pg. 68) came in for their photo session, I got a great reminder of how Lavender plays the role of a shopping guide. They’d just picked up their wedding rings from one of our advertisers, T Lee, and were very excited. Nick and James were quick to tell me that they chose T Lee to custom design their rings  because she advertises in Lavender. That was a big bright spot in the week…and the rings are stunning, especially on the hands of two handsome men in love.

History is not just being rewritten in our pages, but also on our Facebook page and Twitter feed through the links and information that we post and repost from others.  We follow the movers and shakers in politics who are at the center of the action and act as a megaphone when their news hits the social networking wires.

Our website now includes articles from more than three magazines full of the topic of same-sex weddings and marriage.  LavenderMagazine.com is a resource library that is rewriting the history of this community and building upon years of knowledge from the viewpoint of being a marginalized group that is now moving toward the center.  Topics we’ve already covered in previous wedding issues are numerous, you can click on the category “2012 Wedding Issue” and get a long list of articles to help you navigate your way: Changing your name; different versions of make-up (camera-ready, beauty, and transformative); recipes and tips for throwing your own wedding; the legality of marriage; wedding etiquette; wedding fashion; great GLBT bars for bachelor/bachelorette parties; kids and same-sex weddings; how to make a more perfect union; various venues and caterers; budgeting tips; love stories; and many beautiful real weddings…all for the GLBT community. All for you.

2013 is a year that will hopefully rewrite history for same-sex marriage on both the state and national levels. Hold this magazine in your hand proudly as you look toward your own future and plan it. Plan your future. Same-Sex Marriage will be a part of it.

With hope and gratitude,

Andy

My name is Andrea Lien and I am the Managing Editor of Lavender Magazine, the magazine for the community of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender (GLBT), and straight allies of the region which has been publishing since 1995. I directly manage the content of Lavender Magazine, lavendermagazi.wpengine.com, www.biggaynews.com, and the social media accounts involved with the different facets of Lavender Media.  I am not the official spokesperson for Lavender and my opinions are not official endorsements, but I write an article in each of our biweekly issues called “From the Editor” in which I usually examine what’s been happening in the two weeks since our last issue. As of press time, bills to legalize Same-Sex Marriage in Minnesota had been introduced in the House and Senate the day before writing this letter.

I am writing this letter to you because you will have very important decisions to make with regard to the GLBT community in our state in the upcoming days and weeks, from committee sessions to the floors of your chambers. You will be facing exciting opportunities and challenges as elected representatives of the State of Minnesota. I want to extend my gratitude and appreciation for you and what you do.

I understand what it’s like to work for a diverse population of people. The GLBT community is not homogeneous, but rich with different groups within groups that are unified by the common topics of sexual identity, gender, and orientation. I live in the area that I represent and walk into the restaurants, bars, co-ops, grocery stores, churches, parks, and other places where I run into our readership. I am a part of our readership and I am friends with many in our readership. I see the interactions on Facebook with people in the community and face the music of this magazine’s decisions just as you do as a representative in Minnesota. Like you, I know that we more often hear the points about how we can improve over how well we’re doing. Like you, I am privy to more information than ever–confidential, embargoed information–that makes it difficult to sort out what should be discussed and what should remain in the background. Like you, I imagine, I have never held as important a role as this.

Like you, I have other things to do than talk about Same-Sex Marriage (I said “other,” not “other more important” things).  We put out 26 issues a year according to our Editorial Calendar and they cover an array of topics relevant to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Ally members of our state–and beyond, thanks to the internet. I work on my budgets, I hire and seek out talent, I talk to our readers, I research topics, I go to photo shoots, I attend fundraisers, I write correspondence and articles. I conduct interviews. I make countless decisions a day. Like you do. And, like you, I have been presented with the crucial topic to cover: Same-Sex Marriage. I make room for it. It is history in the making. And, like us, the rest of the GLBT community has other things to do, too.

Like us, the people of the GLBT community are busy living their lives. These lives might be those of single people who are looking for love, coupled people who have found it, or people who are indifferent to the subject of love. This community has people of different races, creeds, political parties, income levels, education levels, and any other demographic element that can be measured. This community is comprised of your constituents who pay taxes and have an effect on every industry and neighborhood of Minnesota.  There are more of us than you can see, as being open about being GLBT is still risky…but becoming less so each day that passes.

For the people who Same-Sex Marriage will not affect, it is an abstract idea–something unknown to fear or find threatening. You have the opportunity to help them form their opinions on the matter. No, conversations with people may not result in a “You’re right–I guess I hadn’t been looking at it that way” from people, but you will have led by example and assisted in making room for a broader consideration of the topic. Did you notice how Governor Dayton so effectively handled it in his State of the State address?  “Let me mention one other cause, which is controversial but consistent with my faith and my principles and, more importantly, consistent with this country’s founding principles and its Constitution. I believe that every Minnesotan should have the freedom to marry legally the person she or he loves, whether of the same or other sex.”  What he did there was to 1.) validate that it is controversial at this time, 2.) own that he has a faith and this position is in alignment with his faith, and 3.) make it clear that this is a matter of justice and rights as consistent with the Constitution. He did your heavy lifting by giving you clear leadership in this matter. Please pass that leadership and fortification on to the people you represent.

You must lead and educate your constituents in this issue, just as with any other issue that they may not be familiar with. Educate yourself so that you are confident when you respond to your constituents. This will not affect opposite-sex marriages. No clergy is forced to perform marriages that they do not want to perform. There is a separation between Church and State that isn’t just a suggestion, it’s a requirement. The Supreme Court may or may not address the rights of Minnesotans, so we shouldn’t wait for them to do the work for us. These are not “special” rights that are being sought. We won’t be wanting to legalize polygamy or bestiality if this legislation passes. There is so much out there in life for which there isn’t a gene, but is very real and valid, anyhow. Same-sex parents are already raising well-adjusted and healthy children.  And, if you’re really interested in educating your people, take it a step further to not only dispel rumors, but also tell them how allowing same-sex couples to join marriage will be beneficial to the welfare of our society and boost the economy. We’re talking about people and relationships that exist and deserve to be recognized as assets to our civilization. Stand up for this community and lead your people in the direction that society is already going.

Let me acknowledge that you might feel a bit like a lone voice in the wilderness. I understand this, too. Putting out a Wedding Issue for a community that can’t get married seems a little crazy, but Lavender’s been doing it for years. First, on a smaller scale with a few articles in a particular issue…but, as of a year ago, we’ve put out two comprehensive, single-topic issues about weddings for the GLBT community and we’re looking forward to the best one yet, coming out in two weeks. To be a leader is to look at the future and determine where we are going. Looking at the signs around us in our culture and forming a vision of what can feasibly happen is crucial to leadership. In this specific case of same-sex ceremonies and weddings, the signs are clear: people are already celebrating their relationships with these types of ceremonies. The laws will follow. That’s where you come in. And that’s where we need you to join us in this vision of legalizing Same-Sex Marriage.

To say that campaigning and voting for Same-Sex Marriage is an “overreach” is the same kind of thinking that diminishes a conversation to the same effect as “homosexuality is a choice.”  It stops the conversation where it is and doesn’t give it the attention it obviously deserves, the attention it demands. The people to whom social justice and equal rights is an overreach are the people who will never see its merit. They will never “be ready” for this. I’m guessing that they don’t know anyone who is openly gay or lesbian because, if they did, they’d know that the most effect this legislation would have on their lives is that they might have more weddings to attend.

To the GOP, let me encourage you that by voting for Same-Sex Marriage, you will be fully claiming both an existing and a new group of GLBT supporters who align with your conservative values but have been waiting for you to step up to take this liberty-furthering measure.

To the DFL, voting for Same-Sex Marriage aligns with your DFL values and those of your Governor. You are in control as the majority and will be held to a higher level of scrutiny and accountability if Marriage does not prevail. Claim your leadership role and bring your state to where it needs to be in this Civil Rights movement.

As a leader in the media, it is my responsibility to make sure Lavender discusses the hard topics in addition to covering its usual editorial calendar. When you’re home for the summer with your constituents, I know that your job isn’t on hiatus–you’re still working.  Know that I will be, too, and we’ll be covering whatever transpired in these next few months; hopefully, with glory, laud, and honor.

There are always risks in any job, but I will never shirk away from doing the right thing because of those risks. I hope you can see your role in a similar light and do the right thing by voting to legalize Same-Sex Marriage in Minnesota.

With hope and gratitude,

Andrea Lien, Managing Editor
Lavender Magazine

_______

Related: Those of us from outstate Minnesota must go home and “be unapologetically normal.” More in
“Happy New Year,” Issue 434, January 12, 2012.

With all the talk of the freedom to marry, I can’t help but reflect on Lavender’s wedding issues.  This time last year, I was working on the first comprehensive wedding issue of my career. I was a basketcase over it. Everything in my life was about the wedding issue…wedding issue this, wedding issue that, I can’t…because of the wedding issue. I was pretty much a bride of a weddingless wedding. All things had to be considered: fashion, venues, caterers, bakers, accessories, etiquette, invitations, jewelry, politics, bars, photography, and family. The magazine was reorganized to span the different facets of weddings: Thinking, Planning, Making, Dressing, Celebrating, and Loving. The usual columns and coverage are only online for these issues, leaving the entire editorial space of the magazine to be all about weddings. I wanted to reinvent the wheel for this community; everything had to be considered.

We won awards for that first wedding issue. It was popular with readers and advertisers. One of my most cherished website comments came from that labor of love:

“Thank you for this issue! Seriously, perfect timing! My partner of nearly three years and I are having a commitment ceremony in May. Honestly, I have had a really hard time with the fact that it is not recognized legally, and it has been stealing my thunder. My friends (mostly straight) and family seem more excited than I am, and I believe it is for the simple fact that I feel like I’m having a dress-up day, not my wedding. My family is amazing and supportive, and all of my best friends are traveling here for the ceremony, and I’m ready to get excited! I guess my real reason for writing, is to say how wonderful and validating it is to see other same sex couples getting married, and to be reminded that it is not about the haters, it’s about us, and how much we love each other.” –Terra G.

While the articles, resources, marketplaces, and how-to guides in each wedding issue are important, my favorite section has been the Real Weddings section. This is where we showcase couples from our own community who commit to each other and throw a party for their friends and family to celebrate their love with them. Like Terra said in her comment above, it’s validating to see others doing what you want to do. I want people to see themselves in our pages…and the Real Weddings are the best way to do that.

We now publish two wedding issues a year; one in Spring for the warmer months and one in Fall for the colder ones. Very distinct styles and themes are necessary for very distinct seasons in Minnesota. That said, I am convinced that the subject of weddings deserves two issues (out of 26 a year) for a community that has be under-represented in the industry. Within a week of each of the wedding issues going to press, I’ve been contacted by someone asking if they could get a wedding into our Real Weddings section. We need two of them to keep up with the rate with which you’re tying the knot.

We need two of them to keep the GLBT community in front of the wedding industry as a reminder that this community matters, regardless of the legal status of the commitments.  We need two wedding issues in order to remind the public twice a year that two women or two men on a cover–who are clearly getting married–are visions that society

needs to get used to; marriage may not be legal yet, but that’s definitely not stopping the people in our pages. And, we made sure to take the opportunity to leverage the fact that we had thousands and thousands of fall wedding issues on stands throughout the state the days leading up to Election Day that said “VOTE NO.”  That was a pretty dang good reason to have two wedding issues, if I say so myself.

So, this year, I encourage you to participate in our wedding issues. If you’ve been married in the past year, please consider sending us photos of your wedding for the Real Weddings section (the specifics are on our website). If you have a company or service that is a part of the wedding industry, consider advertising in the issues to tell our readers that you are supportive and welcoming of our weddings and our business. Show me your same-sex wedding products in case I want to share them with the community. Send your love stories to me for the Lavender Love section, so we can read about your relationships. This is your community. This is your publication. These are your weddings.

This is the year when it’s crucial to show our legislators that marriage matters to this community. I pledge to do my part.

With love,
Andy

I took my own advice and talked to some people about the freedom to marry. Let me qualify that statement: I’m always talking about it, but I really talked…you know what I mean. As much as I dislike the phrase “continue the conversation,” that’s what I did. I continued the damn conversation to move from voting against that amendment to extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. You know what?

It was really hard.

I spoke with multiple people so that nobody is singled out in this piece. What I noticed in having the conversations is that there is a disconnect with people. A disconnect that I didn’t expect. It has to do with the gravity of the situation. This is pure speculation, but I have two theories about this disconnect.

First, for the Democrats, it’s difficult to articulate that our chosen political party, particularly for the social liberals of the DFL, could prioritize civil rights to be addressed at an unknown date in the future. That shows a lack of priority. Talking to people, it’s too soon to do it this session, next session would be during an election year…and then the same two-year cycle starts again. There would be no convenient time, according to those parameters. Perfectly reasonable people (from legislators to laypeople) who believe in equal rights don’t see the immediacy and priority that should be given this situation–a group of people are being denied civil rights. Yes, there are other important issues to address in the state, but how much more important are they than civil rights? The budget? Jobs? Those are perpetual problems. Is asking legislators to multi-task too much of an overreach? Stop making excuses for the legislators. It doesn’t do anyone any favors. They’re big boys and girls and are paid to have the difficult job of representing their entire state of tax-paying citizens. Expect it of them, don’t ask it of them.

Second, I speculate that the Allies need a little nudge. I could get a fair bit of flak for this, but it’s critical to reiterate that civil rights affect this community every day. Allies were crucial to the VOTE NO campaign. Where we need to focus is moving Allies from voting no to supporting the freedom to marry…to supporting the freedom to marry now. Those who identify as Ally have all the best intentions for this community, but don’t walk in the shoes of this community.

I had a voicemail message that reduced me to tears a few weeks ago. A gentleman was expressing his frustration after contacting politicians about this issue and was met with some ambivalence, some resistance. Per Michael’s voicemail message (pg. 50) and our follow-up phone conversation, I heard and felt his frustration and fear. Recently, he and his partner had experienced a health-related issue for one of them that brought up medical issues and all sorts of “what ifs” in terms of what could happen to them today, now, next month. Because rights are tied up with marriage, this community is affected every day. It’s not necessarily only about having the right to get married as it is the right to be married and die married. People who aren’t living it can look in on it and feel empathy, but don’t really know what it’s like to feel helpless in doing something so basic as being allowed access to one’s beloved. Next year is not as crucial as this year, though both are necessary. And, I think that it’s something to gently mention to the Allies. Everyone could use the reminder, really.

Apparently, the legislation is going to be introduced this session to push for the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. In a two-prong approach to this issue, the legislators need to do their jobs and keep it on the table; but the public also needs to step up and show obvious and unquestionable support for legislation to allow same-sex couples to join marriage.

This brings me to a question: Where’d everybody go?

Remember when we could see a sea of orange and blue? I still see the bumper stickers as I’m driving around both here in the Twin Cities as well as in Duluth and up the North Shore. I’m sure they’re still in St. Cloud and Rochester and all sorts of cities and towns. Heck, when I’m visiting my parents, there’s at least one VOTE NO bumper sticker in Cokato. People still wear their t-shirts. Lawn signs are still up (even though it’s against the rules to have them up this long after an election…just so you know). We are still showing our disdain for that damned amendment, but where’s our support of the freedom to marry?

Maybe the Freedom to Marry Day at the Capitol on Valentine’s Day will bring with it some demonstrative swag.  I’d like some bumper stickers that look like the “VOTE NO” on top of “DON’T LIMIT THE FREEDOM TO MARRY” ones, but say “I DO” on top of “SUPPORT THE FREEDOM TO MARRY.”  I’d slap one of those on my Jeep faster than you can take the money that I’d pay for it. The same goes for t-shirts, as long as you make my size. Give me a Twibbon for Twitter and Facebook that says “I DO” right beneath my smiling face. By claiming “I DO” as a slogan, it’d subvert the traditional notion of marriage, but in a gentle and innocuous way–a way that’ll make sense to the future generations.  Need help designing the swag?  Let me know; one of my previous lifetimes was that of a graphic designer. I could design and get those to press in an afternoon. Well, almost any professional could. All you need to do is say, “Go.”

Why am I stuck on swag and promotional items?  For one thing, they’re obvious signs of support for the legislators. But, perhaps more importantly, I’m stuck on swag because people need something to speak for them. And I don’t blame them. The signs and t-shirts and politicized profile pictures do a lot of our heavy lifting for us. They’re like amulets. They give us strength. Message-wise, a change in logo also helps to fortify a change in mission: It’s no longer VOTE NO, it’s now all about supporting the freedom to marry. Become a card-carrying member of the movement. Wear your heart on your sleeve. Be a safe zone for those looking for strength in numbers. As voraciously as we bought up and gave out the VOTE NO items, the freedom to marry pieces could go just as quickly. And, with them, we can have more of those conversations.

I’m not going to tell you that these conversations are easy (not that the VOTE NO ones were). We still need to talk to people who don’t believe same-sex couples should join marriage. What’s different, though, is that the talks have to also happen with people we see as friendly, our allies in either political affiliation or Allies in self-identification. Talking to people about the importance of the freedom to marry and the priority of civil rights usually involves telling people they’re wrong. If it’s not explicitly said, it’s implied. It’s saying that by thinking the freedom to marry should be put off until after the important stuff is handled, you are incorrect in not seeing civil rights for what they are: priorities.

With you and with thanks,

Andy