For links to the WY related news accounts mentioned in this diary, please visit my blog posts, here and also here.
Needless to say, I am quite happy to wake up today and find not only a personal letter in my email in-box from the brave Wyoming legislator, who just happens to be straight and a member of the GOP, who stood up for gay marriage equality and civil rights for all.
Again, Dan Zwonitzer, you are worthy of much praise and thanks from gays, not just in the Equality State, but across the United States of America.
This is his letter:
In a message dated 2/23/2007 8:02:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, dzwonitzer@wyoming.com writes:
Thank you for your positive message. It's appreciated to get some positive feedback, you can imagine some of the feedback I've received here in Wyoming hasn't carried your sentiment.
There were 10 other legislators in the room in the crowd of 60 listening to debate, and when one of the proponents of the bill said some very infuriating things, it triggered something in me, and I went a bit overboard in my off-the-cuff speech, but so many people came up to me afterwards to than me.
Of course, I made the newspapers and both TV stations here, and everyone wanted a copy of my impromptu speech, so I typed up what I remember saying. It wasn't anything brilliant, but I was passionate and I think it swayed a vote or two.
I'll attach a copy so you get a better understanding of my thought process. It was a speech more of society and history, than specifically for this issue, but it accomplished what it needed to.
Dan
No, Dan, it is not I who deserves thanks from you, but you who are very worthy of gratitude and a big pat on the back from the entire gay and civil rights communities. Thanks for sharing both your letter to me and the speech you made in the WY legislature, before the voted was taken.
Here's the text of Dan's speech:
Thank you Mr. Speaker and Members of the Committee.
I am not going to speak of specifics regarding this bill, but rather talk about history and philosophy in regards to this issue.
It is an exciting time to be in the legislature while this issue is being debated. I believe this is the Civil Rights struggle of my generation.
Being a student of history, as many of you are, and going back through history, most of history has been driven by the struggle of man against government to endow him with more rights, privileges and liberties to be bestowed upon him.
In all of my high school courses, we only made it through history to World War 2. It wasn’t until college that I really learned of the civil rights movement in the 60’s. My American History professor was black, and we spent a week discussing civil rights. I watched video after video where people stood on the sidelines and yelled and threw things at black students walking into schools, I’ve read editorials and reports by both sides of the issue, and I would think, how could society feel this way, only 40 years ago.
Under a democracy the civil rights struggle continues today, where we have one segment of our society trying to restrict rights and privelges from another segment of our society. My parents raised me to know that this is wrong.
It is wrong for one segment of society to restrict rights and freedoms from another segment of society. I believe many of you have had this conversation with your children.
And children have listened, my generation, the twenty-somethings, and those younger than I understand this message of tolerance. And in 20 years, when they take the reigns of this government and all governments, society will see this issue overturned, and people will wonder why it took so long.
My kids and grandkids will ask me, why did it take so long? And I can say, hey, I was there, I discussed these issues, and I stood up for basic rights for all people.
I echo Representative Childers concerns, that testifying against this bill may cost me my seat. I have two of my precinct committee persons behind me today who are in favor of this bill, as I stand here opposed, and I understand that I may very well lose my election. It cost 4 moderate Republican Senators in Kansas their election last year for standing up on this same issue. But I tell myself that there are some issues that are greater than me, and I believe this is one of them. And if standing up for equal rights costs me my seat so be it. I will let history be my judge, and I can go back to my constituents and say I stood up for basic rights. I will tell my children that when this debate went on, I stood up for basic rights for people.
I can debate the specifics of this bill back and forth as everyone in this room can, but I won’t because the overall theme is fairness, and you know it. I hope you will all let history be your judge with this vote. You all know in your hearts where this issue is going, that it will come to pass in the next 30 years. For that, I ask you to vote no today on the bill. Thank you.
If Dan Zwonitzer is any indication of the new generation of state GOP lawmakers who happen to be straight, but fair and tolerant and speaking for gay equality, American politics and all of us will greatly benefit from their views on civil rights for gays.
And this is what I posted on my blog yesterday night:
Over at John Aravosis' Americablog on Thursday, night he linked to an AP story from Wyoming about an unnecessary new law under consideration that would have banned the state from recognizing gay marriages performed in Massachusetts, or any other state that may grant marriage equality. Aravosis asked if anyone knew the reason why the GOP speaker in WY cast the vote killing the legislation, a good development for gays.
Using Google, I quickly found out some background on what led two other GOP legislators to cast votes favorable to gays in this matter, and a third to publicly think of supporting tolerance for gays.
From the Wyoming Capitol Outlook, a blog published by WY Public Television:
Some observers thought that a bill to deny recognition of same-sex marriages endorsed by other states would be a polarizing distraction to a legislature with more important business to take care of - one of those social issues that generates heat but not much light. The bill (Senate File 13) passed easily through the Senate, but had a difficult time moving in the House, where some folks on both sides of the issue hoped it could die quietly without debate.
Not so. It arrived this morning in the House Rules Committee, where 13 representatives had to decide whether to let it move forward. And there, to the surprise of those who expected the debate to grow ugly, it provided a moment of clarity, soul-searching and rich, real drama. [...]
Several citizens and legislators defended the rights of gay couples.
Rep. Pat Childers (R-Cody) spoke proudly of his gay daughter, "who was born that way," and Rep. Dan Zwonitzer (R-Cheyenne) said that his study of American history revealed an ongoing extension of liberties and freedoms, "and if it costs me my seat...I can say I stood up for basic rights, and history can be my judge."
Some legislators appeared to wrestle with their decisions right up to the end of the hearing. Rep. Tom Lubnau (R-Gillette), who had questioned the cost of extending recognition to out-of-state gay marriages, concluded, "Maybe the right thing to do is to stand up for tolerance."
But Simpson, surprisingly, voted for the bill. That left it to Speaker Roy Cohee (R-Casper) to cast the deciding vote, as the measure was killed by a 7-6 vote.
In a fairly lackluster session, it was a dramatic, revealing, and dignified, exchange.
What a magnificent development this is for us gays and our allies who endorse full marriage equality, that in Cheney's home state, we have not one, not two, but at least three straight GOP legislators to thank for delivering us some very good news!
Many thanks to both Rep. Childers in standing up for his lesbian daughter, and to Rep. Zwonitzer, who is willing to risk his seat for gay equality. If that ain't bravery, I don't know what is.
And what, pray tell, had the Democratic Party's gay wing, alias the Human Rights Campaign, been saying about the legislation and the debate surrounding it? Was the HRC framing the issue of unequal marriage laws properly and explaining that gay relationships and families are very legitimate concerns?
The answer comes from the AP's Cheyenne bureau, in a February 11 story:
Carrie Evans, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, echoed that: "Surely the Wyoming legislature has real problems to deal with." [...]
Evans says because the state typically elects conservatives, people are surprised to learn Wyoming is actually one of a "special few states that doesn’t already deny recognition to same-sex unions from other areas." [...]
"So there’s some good and some bad," Evans said. "Wyoming tends to be very measured. It’s not very reactionary in terms of social issues. There’s no horrific anti-gay laws on the books, but they also don’t have any laws banning hate crimes even after Matthew Shepard’s death." [...]
"There will be a discussion that probably won’t happen for decades about whether it is legal or not for full-faith-and-credit laws to extend to marriages between same-sex couples," Evans said. "It will take couples from Massachusetts moving around country, suffering harm and then taking it to court to say whether or not measures like these are unconstitutional."
Overall, HRC's Evans makes some good points, but I'm sick of her organization bending over backwards to deny that our committed gay partnerships and the absence of marriage equality are not "real problems" worth defending in state legislatures when these measure crop up.
HRC basically would rather not have any debate taking place at the state level, federal level too sometimes, that calls on them to fully advance the cause of gay marriage. I say this because of the underlying message in Evans' statement that there will not be a discussion on full-faith-and-credit laws for decades. In other words, HRC really would prefer to delay that discussion because the group just isn't capable of articulating a proud pro-gay marriage agenda and it's so much easier to dismiss these state battles as not "real problems."
If denial of full marriage equality for gays, right now, in America's states, is not a real problem, do we then need to keep funding HRC to tell us this lie?
Sure, I'm no fan of HRC's, so take this for what it's worth. I'd rather have a Dan Zwonitzer at my side fighting for real equality for gays than many of the HRC leaders.
Finally, I wonder how long it will be before the Veep and Lynn Cheney, not to mention good ol' lesbian daughter Mary, are asked to comment on the Wyoming gay marriage development. Care to wager any money that when asked, all of the Cheney's will duck to chance to applaud what's happened in the Equality State?