One Week Later.

After getting the letters out, it was time for a break. I hopped in the car and drove up to Oberlin, OH to visit Andrew on Thursday morning. It turned out to be a wonderful trip, and being in a liberal college town with Andrew was just the ticket. We had too good a time, however, and couldn't quite say goodbye on Saturday. We didn't have to. One-way tickets aren't so expensive, so he accompanied me back on the 9-hour drive and flew back to school on Monday.

When we returned on Saturday night, I had four letters waiting for me, and they - along with Andrew's presence - made coming back to Danville a lot nicer than it otherwise would have been. They were all positive (I've put them at the end of this post), but I didn't think that was to be the end of it.

Sure enough, the negative reactions came during staff meeting on Monday. The minister asked what others had heard, and some of the staff members had been confronted with angry phone calls and encounters in town. Not all of the comments were from church members, so the letter has clearly continued to circulate. Comments like, "What is going on at that church? Did I hear that the minister knew about it and allowed him to send it?" were common. More interesting, though, were men who called and asked: "Why did he send it to me? Does he have gaydar and think that I'm gay, too? Is that why he sent it?" I had never considered that, and the tone of the letter is really aimed at a straight audience, so I was definitely surprised that several people called with this concern.

From my perspective, though, the reactions have continued to be positive. A woman with whom I had never spoken much came to my office today and talked for about twenty minutes. She has several unmarried relatives living in committed relationships and shared her concerns with me over this amendment. It's been interesting to see how the letter has opened up communications between people I have otherwise had little to do with.

People loved the Debussy pieces I played at church on Sunday, and several came up to tell me they loved my music and appreciate ME. This little emphasis was really quite comforting to hear.

Without any more random blogging, here are the letters I received:

*****

October 25

Dear Brett,

Thank you for your letter.

I commend you for having the courage to send it and for your very well-written communication. I was an English teacher - I would give you an A+!

I had already decided to vote against the amendment.

Best wishes,

*****

10-24-06

Dear Brett,

Thank you for sharing you letter with me. I have shared it with [my children] even though they can't vote. :) One day they will though so as a parent I hope they will be cognizant over how our government must not be allowed to dictate our private lives.

You may laugh, but I voted by absentee ballot to ensure my vote would be counted correctly - not so sure about those machines!

Fondly,

*****

October 27, 2006

Dear Brett,
I have always been a very "traditional" person.. My seven college pals and I have marriages to one man apiece that exceed forty years.

Your letter caused me to stop and think. I had decided that I would abstain from that vote to avoid taking either side after reading it.


Then I talked with ... my daughter-in-law who truly is an angel! Her opinion was why not if this does not affect my family. She has persuaded me to take your side. I think I have influenced [my husband]... so I think you have three sure votes because of your efforts.

We value you and your music at [the church].

Most sincerely,

[with the letter was a $10 gift certificate to a local restaurant]

*****

Dear Brett,

Just a few quick, gentle words - written in the spontaneity of the moment - to thank you for your moving, eloquent, heart-felt letter. I am touched beyond words by your courage, compassion, and sense of justice.

From the beginning, it has been my intention to vote against any proposed amendment to our constitution that would ban gay marriages - that would deny equal rights to all our people. Like you, I am baffled by the foggy logic that was a threat to true family faith and values in any honorable commitment to love and cherish and nurture. I should think any good marriage would be strengthened and enabled by the community of all other kinds of good marriages.

But I have to admit, Brett, to some apprehension about the climate of opinion in which we live. You may find yourself in need of steadfast friends; please know I am one.

Namaste,

*****

October 30, 2006

Dear Brett,

Thank you for your letter of October 23. I admire you for your straightforwardness and honesty, and you have my wholehearted support. You already know that I am thrilled with the outstanding music program you are providing [the] church, and I am so grateful you are with us. And I must comment on the sermon you gave us recently - it was the most inspiration and well-done sermon I have heard in a long time. I asked [a friend] to see if she could get a copy for me - hope she can!

Brett, I already knew that I was going to vote "your way" before I received your letter.

All good wishes to you and most sincerely,


*****

I'll post more as they come. Thanks for reading!

Love,
Brett

The First Day - Tuesday, October 24th

So far, so good. The first encounter I had was the most touching. A choir member came to my office and thanked me for sending such a touching letter. She went on to talk about gay friends she has had in the past. One committed suicide and several others died of AIDS. Although I had not considered this when I sent the letter, by outing myself, I have also made myself known as a safe person to talk to about gay issues. It is difficult not to know a gay person today, but it is also difficult in the south to know with whom you can speak openly. I was honored that she would feel comfortable enough to confide in me. Although there will inevitably be some darker moments in the next few weeks, this was a beautiful way to get things started.

When the secretary saw me, she told me she read my letter and gave me a hug. This, too, was touching.

Several choir members called in the afternoon, and both told me they thought it was a great and brave thing I had done. They wanted me to know they were 100% behind me and would be there if I needed support.

While having dinner at a local Italian dive, a member of the church called out to say she received my letter and was in complete agreement.

So. Things are off to a good start. I have found it to be a bit awkward when someone starts by saying, "I read your letter." What is the appropriate response? "Thanks"? What if the person hated it? I think I'll adopt an, "Oh, good," response for now and play it by ear from there.

This kind of entry could get real boring real fast. I'll play around with different formats until I decide what the best way is to keep family and friends updated without just having a bulleted list.

On Monday, October 23rd, I sent 97 copies of a letter to friends and acquaintances in VA, the majority of them being members of the church where I am employed. With the November 7 election approaching, I needed to do something to speak out against the proposed "marriage" amendment, and writing a personal letter was my chosen avenue. It was a difficult choice since I live in a conservative city with a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to homosexuality, and in writing the letter, I unambiguosly and unapologetically outed myself.

Before sending the letter, I met with several church members, including my boss and the minister. Although some individuals voiced concern, they all gave me their support. The minister brought the letter to a higher authority in the church, just to make sure there were not unforseen issues. Provided I am doing this as an individual and not as a member of the church, there should not be any major problems. I am not a member to begin with, and this is not something I am doing as the music director; it is simply an individual writing to community members whom I know through the church.

Sunday night was the addressing party. Three good friends came over to help prepare the hand-written envelopes. It was the first time I was involved in an organized activist group, and though small, it felt good. The letters went out on Monday morning, and as of this afternoon, they have reached their destinations.

Because many people have asked to be kept updated on the status of the reaction, I decided to start a blog. This prevents me from sending the same e-mail out to dozens of people. I will try to keep this as up to date as possible, although it is likely that the first few days will be only positive feedback. Those who take issue will likely wait until they have talked amongst themselves, voiced their concern to the minister, and done whatever else they need to do. Will hate mail come? Will parents take their children out of the choir? Keep posted on the site to find out!


Here is the letter:


Dear friends, family, and loved ones,

I recently awoke to a smooth voice coming in over my radio alarm clock, saying, “I now pronounce you man and wife.” This was unusual. The voice proceeded to tell people that if they value their marriage and American values, they must vote to protect their families from the Hollywood values that threaten to destroy them.

As a gay person living in America, it is impossible not to observe the frequency of these notices. All around are warnings to people that if they don’t vote against gay marriage on November 7th, their families and marriages will be harmed or even destroyed. That radio advertisement was just one example of the mantra I have been hearing everywhere: protect your families – vote against gay marriage.

It is painful to hear this because I simply cannot understand what the message means. How does my ability to marry the person I love, committing to a life of caring and nurturing one person, threaten my parents’ marriage? How does it weaken my sister’s family? Why are people being told that to protect their families, they must vote for a constitutional amendment that, in its discrimination, will prevent a group of people from participating in one of humanity’s core relationships?

The first time I was in a loving relationship I was on top of the world. I could not recall ever having been happier and more at peace. Most of all, I remember wanting everyone else to be as happy as I was. This newfound empathy changed my life. When a friend told me that she had recently fallen in love, I was exuberant over someone else’s good fortune in a way I had never been before.

Being in a caring relationship made me want to be a better, kinder person, and it was only with a man that I was able to experience this kind of transformative love. It was never a matter of choice. With every fiber of my being, I wished it could have been a woman who gave me this feeling. I prayed, I anguished, I struggled, and finally, at twenty years old, I recognized that it was not meant to be. I decided to stop lying to myself, and instead, vowed to live my life honestly.

Millions of other Americans – estimates range from 9 million to 15 million – have endured this same struggle. For hundreds of years, they suffered in silence. Recently, however, gay people have started to emerge publicly and form life-long bonds with each other, finding happiness together in spite of all the hardships they must endure without being able to marry. If you don’t believe that marriage is necessary to lead a happy life, consider these three real-life stories, taken from Jonathan Rauch’s book Gay Marriage, that illustrate how difficult it is to live with another person without the protections that only marriage provides:

- Ronnie in New York City developed a grave illness and needed her partner of over twenty years, Elaine, to assist her in getting to medical appointments. Ronnie would suffer blackouts walking in the street. Elaine requested family medical leave from her employer to cover the periodic appointments, but the employer said no because Ronnie was not a “spouse.” Elaine had to turn to friends and neighbors to cover the appointments, and worried about how long the help would last.

- Bill and Robert considered themselves “soulmates.” When Robert fell fatally ill, the admitting Maryland hospital knew through his accompanying medical records—and Bill’s statements to hospital staff—that Bill was Robert’s family and legal agent for health care decisions. But the hospital blocked any communication between them, saying that only “family” was allowed access to patients. Bill was forced to watch with mounting anguish and humiliation as families of other patients arrived and quickly were escorted in to see their loved ones. Robert slipped into unconsciousness, alone and without comfort, support, and solace during his final hours. He never saw or spoke with Bill before his death.

- Ivonne and Jeanette have two children who lived with them in a studio apartment in a subsidized housing project in New York. The landlord denied their application for a larger apartment because the two women were not married and therefore not considered a “family.” Then the landlord turned around and tried to evict them for “overcrowding” because the studio was too small for a couple with two children… The moms had to find a lawyer to protect them from eviction because they could not get married.

Can you conceive of being denied access to your dying wife in the hospital? Imagine not being able to leave work even though your husband was sick with cancer. These are just a few examples of the uncertainty and angst gay people must endure without having access to the legal protections of marriage.

The proposed amendment strives to block not just marriage from gay people, but any of the rights that flow from marriage as well. The most damning part of it states: “This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

I am filled with dread when I read this. In plain and simple language, this amendment says that no two gay people shall enter into any kind of relationship that would grant them a legally secure life together. I wish I could understand how people believe they are protecting their families by filling the lives of gay people with hardships and obstacles.

Many of you know Andrew. He and I have been together for two years now, living and loving each other as I imagine many young couples do. We have had to work through disagreements and cope with distance after I moved to Virginia, but we have done so because we love each other and enhance each other’s lives in countless ways.

One of the most touching moments in our relationship came when I was preparing for a major international organ competition in France. The week before I was due to leave, I became sick with an ear infection. I lost my voice, vomited frequently, and lacked the strength to go upstairs to our bedroom. Andrew was busy at work on a school project, yet he put it aside when he saw how sick I was. I remember lying in bed as he held a cold washcloth against my forehead in one hand and held my hand with the other. Just knowing that my loved one was there beside me, holding me in my time of sickness, gave me a strength that no drug ever could.

I won that competition. Despite not practicing for an entire week, I played the best I had ever played in my life. I didn’t just win first prize, but I took the prize of the audience as well. Were it not for Andrew, I probably would not have even boarded the flight for France. The reality of our love gave me the strength to do my absolute best.

Isn’t this what marriage is all about? When two persons promise each other that they will stay together in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, they are making the most solemn commitment a couple can make. It may be difficult, yet the many rewards make the challenge possible.

No matter what differences there are between straight and gay relationships, they do have one decisive common bond: two committed people are able to provide each other the kind of loving care that makes life’s harder moments endurable. Isn’t this why married people live longer than single people? They know they have a caregiver who has promised to be there until death do them part.

Our country is standing at a crossroads as we consider the definition of marriage. Such a consideration is going to make many people uncomfortable. However, nearly every major change has caused discomfort, yet society has moved ahead because it was the right thing to do. There was a time when people were uncomfortable with women voting or interracial marriage. Now the issue is about gay marriage.

This proposed amendment to our constitution will determine if over nine million Americans will be denied the right to marry. As you mark your ballot, ask yourself: are you upholding the justice and equality of all people?

Please think hard before voting to deny me, and the millions of others like me, the right to marry.

Respectfully,
Brett