It was by choice that Rep. Barney Frank came out of the closet 25 years ago — not the first gay congressman, but the first to announce voluntarily that he was gay.
On Saturday, he took another deliberate first step: By exchanging vows in Massachusetts with his longtime boyfriend Jim Ready of Ogunquit, Maine, six months before his planned retirement, Frank will spend the rest of his time in office as the nation’s first congressman in a same-sex marriage.
“I think it’s important,” he told New York magazine in April, “that my colleagues interact with a married gay man.”
About 300 friends and relatives gathered at the Boston Marriott hotel in Newton, Mass. (in Frank’s district), to see the veteran Democratic lawmaker, 72 — who has represented that district since 1981 — wed Ready, 42, the owner of a carpentry/welding/custom awnings shop and an avid outdoorsman. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, an early champion of the state’s first-in-the-nation legalization of gay marriage, was the officiant for the private (no media), short (less than five minutes) and rather personalized ceremony, according to the congressman’s office:
Do you promise to love each other and be each other’s best friend,
In sickness and in health,
In Congress or in retirement,
Whether the surf is up or the surf’s flat,
For richer or for poorer,
Under the Democrats or the Republicans,
Whether the slopes are powdery or icy,
Whether the book reviews are good or bad,
For better or for worse,
On MSNBC or on Fox,
For as long as you both shall live.
The couple (wearing matching Joseph Abboud tuxedos and colorful bow ties) exchanged rings selected by Ready — black diamonds set in tungsten, a welding metal. The dozen groomsmen wore Abboud suits (a gift from Frank and Ready because the company is based in Massachusetts).
Then Patrick offered a prayer — “Heavenly Father, thank you for this day and this joy. Grant Barney and Jim long life, good health, wisdom, patience, kindness, understanding, laughter, and loving family and friends” — and pronounced them married.
Otherwise, sounds like it was just your average Beltway power-broker wedding: After the outdoor ceremony, guests had cocktails on the banks of the Charles River, then went inside for a seated dinner and dancing. No first dance for the grooms, but they were hoisted in chairs during the hora, we’ve heard, and Nancy Pelosi cut a rug on the dance floor to some swing tunes. Other guests included Sen. John Kerry; Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Steny Hoyer, Bill Keating, Rosa DeLauro, Anna Eshoo, Eddie Bernice Johnson and Jim McGovern; and D.C. strategist types Hilary Rosen, Robert Raben, Steve Elmendorf and Frank’s sister Ann Lewis.
Frank did not invite President Barack Obama because he did not want the presidential security team to disrupt the small town, he told C-Span in May: “I don’t want to be accused of having shut down the entire region for a five-mile radius on a holiday weekend. I don’t want my guests going through a magnetometer … not to my party.”
The newlyweds met at a fundraiser in Ready’s home state of Maine in 2005 and struck up a friendship; after Ready’s long-term partner died in 2007, he and Frank began dating.
Frank announced last fall that he would not seek reelection this year, citing the rigors of the job and his desire to devote more time to his personal life. “I have a partner now,” he told Charlie Rose earlier this year. “I’m in love for the first time in my life.”
Befitting a politician’s wedding, guests received a campaign button, of sorts, in their gift bags: “Barney and Jim for Congress” — with “Forever” stamped across the word “Congress.”
A true pioneer. I hope they enjoy his retirement.
As individual citizens, homosexuals deserve their personal liberties and rights, like everyone else,
including the right to be treated with courtesy and respect. They deserve these conditions because they share with straights the purely inherent, immutable, and natural condition of being human.
However, while all human beings are equal, all human behaviors are not. Clearly, some behaviors are better than others, and some are appropriate in all settings, while others are not. Homosexuality clearly falls in the latter two categories for numerous reasons, which is why it shouldn’t be encouraged through government recognition of same-sex marriage or civil unions. A few of these reasons are as follows:
1. Homosexuality bears no resemblance to race or gender. Unlike these conditions, which
are purely genetic, homosexuality is a behavioral urge that’s no different than any other behavioral urge. Though many perceive as having little to no control of the urge, they can control the manifestation of the urge – behavior – because they can choose to engage in the behavior or not. Thus, homosexual behavior, like every other behavior, is not above laws passed by the people,
like race and gender, but is subject to these laws, despite what some illogical and politically-motivated courts may say.
2. Unlike race or gender, homosexuality can be triggered through social/cultural influences. This condition is because like every other behavioral urge, homosexuality originates from genetic, biologic, and social influences, which vary in significance among individuals, with some being more prone to developing the urge than others. Thus, even though these traits don’t guarantee
homosexuality, encouraging this behavioral urge through same-sex marriage or other forms of government recognition will encourage those with a tendency for the behavior to either develop and/or engage in the behavior, when they wouldn’t otherwise do so in the absence of said influences.
3. In comparison to heterosexuals, homosexuals are far more prone to bodily damage
and disease, much of which is serious and life threatening. Among the many diseases to which homosexuals are inordinately susceptible are HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, cancers, and gastrointestinal ailments.
4. Even in so-called “committed” relationships, homosexuals, primarily men, are notoriously non-monogamous, much more so than heterosexuals, which defeats the main purpose for marriage.
5. In jurisdictions that permit same-sex marriage, such as Sweden and Norway, homosexuals are far more likely to divorce than heterosexuals. This fact, including the one in item 4, above, would not enhance marriage, as some falsely claim, but would diminish it below its already weakened state.
6. In general, heterosexuals experience a higher incidence of emotional and mental illnesses, than heterosexuals, even in countries like the Netherlands, which is very accepting and tolerant of homosexual behavior. In fact, between the U.S. and the Netherlands, the incidence of emotional and mental maladies among homosexuals is the same.
7. Domestic violence is much more prevalent in male same-sex relationships than in heterosexual ones. Though the reasons are unclear, lesbians, who’ve been in at least one same-sex relationship, are more likely than heterosexual women to have experienced some form of domestic violence, even though females within an existing same-sex relationship are less likely to do so but may experience other forms of abuse. (such as verbal or emotional).
So for all of these reasons, the majority understands that government recognition of human relationships must be limited to marriage between one and one woman. To help keep it that way, please copy this post and read the essay on which it is based, which is entitled “The
Case for Limiting Government Recognition to Traditional Relationships.” You can do a web search to find it or do the same for “marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.”
Here, you’ll find a more detailed discussion of items 1 through 7, and citations to the scientific references (mainstream, respected, and apolitical references) on which the blog/essay is based. After reading it, please email this post and the blog to as many people as you can and ask that they do the same. Additionally, please post this information on blogs and in comments sections dealing with this subject; forward it to your elected officials; and call and/or email them, demanding that they vote against any law granting government-recognition to same-sex behavior. In this way, we can keep marriage and other forms of government recognition to between one man and one woman, as it needs to be.