This story truly brightened my day

Natoma

Veteran
It's in today's NYTimes, though not online. After reading their story, I've come to realize that it is indeed important for gays to be able to marry, and not just have civil unions. For someone who is 26 years old, my bf is 23, and has been in a deeply committed relationship for the past 3+ years, I didn't think that it would affect us as much just as long as we had the governmental recognition and rights protection. And then I read this story, how for 6 decades they struggled together in hiding their love for one another and their relationship. It really makes me appreciate where we, as gay youth, are today in the struggle for true equality in this land of the free, and that we can't just settle simply because that would be easier.

They Held Out for Marriage
After 6 decades of Decorum in Public, Gus and Elmer Eloped

In the language of their generation, Gus andElmer were friends. They worked together, took cruises together, and sang in the same church choir. They lived together for nearly six decades but never held hands in public.

Then, last month, Gustavo Archilla, 88, and Elmer Lokkins, 84, crossed the Canadian border near Niagara Falls and were married. "We eloped," Mr. Lokkins said in his Manhattan apartment one recent afternoon, before breaking into song. "To Niagara in a sleeper, there's no honeymoon that's cheaper." Then he paused, and his tone shifted, "We waited a long, long time."

Mr. Archilla and Mr. Lokkins did not marry for political reasons, financial reasons or legal reasons. Through their 58 years together, they mostly stood by as others fought for rights like civil unions or domestic partnerships. Marriage meant more to them. It was something sacred, they said, an institution they cherished even as it shunned them.

The couple capture what some in the gay rights movement say is an essential but unappreciated point in the argument for same-sex marriage: it offers something more basic and profound than survivor rights or shared health care. For many gays and lesbians, the power of marriage lies in the sanctity of its tradition, its social legitimacy -- the very thing opponents of gay marriage are mobiling at the highest levels to protect.

For Mr. Archilla and Mr. Lokkins, the need for an official blessing was so basic that until they married, they could not make their relationship public. It was only on the evening of November 12, after they wed, that they embraced in front of others for the first time.

"What we did was finally cap it all up -- make it seem complete," said Mr. Archilla, the son of a Puerto Rican Presbyterian minister. "It was about fulfilling this desire people have to dignify what you have done all your life -- to qualify it by going through the ceremony so that it has the same seriousness, the same objective that anybody getting married would be entitled to." For years, each man attended the weddings, funerals and baptisms of his partner's family, but felt he lacked an official link. "I wanted to marry into his family," Mr. Lokkins said. "I wanted to be an Archilla also."

The lives of Mr. Lokkins and Mr. Archilla have traced an arc in gay history: they came of age at a time when gays and lesbians could be jailed and the medical establishment deemed their sexual orientation a mental illness, treatable by electric shock. They now live in a transformed country, where the word "queer" pops up on daily television listings and gay characters are a staple of Hollywood. They have seen changes they never imagined possible, from the Supreme Court's striking down of the sodomy laws this year to the ruling by the highest court of Massachusetts in November to legalize same-sex marriage. Canada had legalized it several months earlier. "It's been a period of wonderment," Mr. Archilla said.

Although Mr. Lokkins and Mr. Archilla have remained largely at the margins of gay activism, they have been leaders in other realms: Mr. Lokkins was the registrar of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and Mr. Archilla was his assistant. Mr. Archilla was the chairman of the board of their co-op in Morningside Gardens. As the eldest siblings, they consider themselves the heads of their respective families: their annual Christmas letter has 415 recipients. Being gay, they say, is not a significant part of their identity. They acknowledge it in a quiet way: they donate money to gay rights organizations, but they socialize mostly in heterosexual circles. They are, in part, a product of their time -- a time when people hid their sexual orientation as a means of survival. "It was like a secret society," said Terry Kaelber, executive director of SAGE, a gay rights organization for the elderly in Manhattan.

It was dusk on September 16, 1945, when Mr. Lokkins first spotted Mr. Archilla walking through Columbus Circle. Mr. Archilla was on his way home from voice lessons at Carnegie Hall. Mr. Lokkins had just been honorably discharged from the army and was visiting from Chicago. "I had never seen anything so handsome," Mr. Lokkins said.

They chatted and then agreed to meet the next evening to hear a live performance of the radio show "Town Hall Tonight." After the show, they walked the streets and finally retreated quietly to the hotel room where Mr. Lokkins was staying. There, he boyishly unpacked a bag filled with keepsakes from his wartime military duty. "What appealed to me was the childlike manner of him," Mr. Archilla said.

Within days, Mr. Archilla took Mr. Lokkins home to meet the family. Mr. Archilla's parents had died, and he was in charge of his eight younger siblings. He introduced Mr. Lokkins as a friend. Neither man ever considered discussing his sexual orientation with family. Mr. Lokkins was engaged to a woman in New York. "Living a lie was the hardest part," Mr. Lokkins said.

Mr. Lokkins returned to Chicago, broke off the engagement and, several months later, moved into a vacant bedroom in the Archilla family's Washington Heights apartment. No one suspected anything at first. But soon, Mr. Archilla's siblings began to wonder. "We noticed that he didn't date too much at all like my other brothers," said one of Mr. Archilla's three sisters, Idalia Chimelis, 83.

The two men kept their relationship a secret. But as Mr. Archilla's siblings moved out, one by one, and Mr. Lokkins remained, the unspoken truth began to emerge. He and Mr. Archilla stayed there until 1957, when they bought a sunny top-floor apartment in Morningside Gardens high rise. With time, they became "Uncle Gus and Uncle Elmer" to members of their families. They rarely missed a family gathering. They doted lovingly on their neices and nephews. But they never doted, publicly, on each other. "They were never demonstrative," said Mr. Lokkins's sister, Helen Thrun, 81. Their discretion was essential to maintaining good relations with the family, she said.

Still, acceptance was something hard won. For 40 years, Mr. Archilla and Mr. Lokkins remained estranged from one of Mr. Archilla's brothers. This year, when the man fell ill with Alzheimer's, Mr. Archilla called him and they reconciled. Mr. Lokkins spent half of his childhood in an orphanage in Normal, Ill. He has a hard time talking about the brother who never accepted him, or about a love letter from Mr. Archilla that would up in the hands of an aunt. "I just wiped those things away," he said. "It was terrible. I don't remember."

Only once did Mr. Lokkins and Mr. Archilla take an active part in the gay rights struggle: in 1993, they held a banner for SAGE during a march in Washington. "It made me appreciate the big job that other people have done for us," Mr. Archilla said. "It made me feel some shame that I had not done more." But he and Mr. Lokkins told only a few friends about the march.

Their wedding, 10 years later, was a very different kind of act, they said. "The emotion was different -- it was spiritual," Mr. Archilla said. The idea occurred to them when they heard about Canada's legalization of same-sex marriage. In November, they planned a trip upstate to Depew, N.Y., to visit some ailing relatives. The night before they left, Mr. Lokkins and Mr. Archilla began talking about following through with the marriage. "I couldn't sleep," Mr. Lokkins said.

At 6 a.m., they called Mr. Archilla's nephew, a lawyer who lives in West Seneca, N.Y. He tracked down some phone numbers in Canada and, two days later, the couple were driving with two witnesses -- Mr. Archilla's sister-in-law, Buelah Archilla, and her brother -- across the border.

They got their marriage license at Niagara Falls City Hall and were married in a 20-minute ceremony at the home of Dr. John R.A. Mayer, the chaplain of a Unitarian church in St. Catherine's, Ontario. They were the oldest couple ever married by Dr. Mayer, who performed only six or eight marriages a year until the new laws were passed. Since July he has performed 50 ceremonies -- 40 for same sex couples.

After the ceremony, Mr. Lokkins and Mr. Archilla and their two witnesses stopped at Denny's for a Grand Slam breakfast. "They were flying high," said R. Archilla, 40, the lawyer who helped arrange the wedding and saw them at their evening celebration in Depew.

Some of their older relatives were still getting used to the notion of same-sex marriage but seemed ready to put the couple's happiness first. "I'm a Christian," said Buelah Archilla, 75, who was the host for the party. "It wouldn't work for me, of course. Whatever works for them is good."

As newlyweds, Mr. Lokkins and Mr. Archilla say they feel a novel freedom. "I feel a sense of relief," Mr. Archilla said. "The maximum is getting married."
 
Marrige is a religious term. There should be no marriages in the eyes of this country . Only unions. I think i should sue the goverment from not seprating relgion and goverment . Like they are supposed to
 
jvd said:
Marrige is a religious term. There should be no marriages in the eyes of this country . Only unions. I think i should sue the goverment from not seprating relgion and goverment . Like they are supposed to

Coincidentally, I found myself thinking that very thought earlier today. It had just occured to me to question why marriage is not purely a religious institution. Of course I know the general historical answer is that the law followed the social institution, rather than vice versa. But in this day and age, if you distill the underlying reasons for marriage - (ideally) love, mutual commitment and support, and usually child rearing - then why not abstract those principles into the law and apply legality to them instead? Isn't it possible that there could be other formal and/or informal social institutions besides marriage that reinforce the same principles? Doesn't the legal rights granted to marriage potentially discriminate against other similar institutions by allowing government to favor religion over any alternatives?

Another similar problem is that if marriage is supposed to be a religiously sacred institution, which is the only reason I hear against allowing homosexuals to partake in it, then why can anyone just get married at their local courthouse? There's nothing sacred, but everything legal, about that.

I think people generally have been unable or unwilling to separate religion from morality. The former does not necessarily imply the latter, and the latter does not necessarily require the former. Perhaps one reason for religion is that it gives people both a guide and a motivation for being moral, at least by the standards of those who created it. Ethics and morality are not easy to figure out, and religion provides a simple guide: do this and you'll go to heaven, do that and you'll go to hell. But I would hope that as time goes on, our legal system and institutions continue to separate religion from objective ethics and morality.
 
jvd said:
Marrige is a religious term.

That's not the case at all. Marriage exists in all cultures, regardless of religion or lack thereof. If you go into the deepest african jungle and meet people who have never seen civilisation, you'll find that they marry each other there too. It's not religious in any way, but rather something deeply human. The ceremonies differ, and religions have often added rules or moral on top of the concept of marriage, but the fundamental concept of marriage is largely constant across all cultures.
 
Whether or not our concept of marriage stems from religions is irrelevant. It is a since of unity which drives many individuals to become married. I see little purpose in viewing marriage as a religious schema souly because the last 20,000 years of human societies have been dominated by religiocity.
 
20,000 years?? :LOL:
I must have been wrong all these years in thinking that men were hardly even able to draw stylised figures on rocks then, if even that...
Let alone ackowledging a concept like religion... Unless you consider elementary concepts like "thunder" and "fire" as religious. Those days they might have been seen as "gods" or supernatural entities, however "religion" is a much more complicated concept than that.
 
london-boy said:
20,000 years?? :LOL:
I must have been wrong all these years in thinking that men were hardly even able to draw stylised figures on rocks then,

Many cultures have had religion without the need of a written language. (IE Incans).

This is a rather blatant overstatement of evolution. Do you really think people back then were far less intelligent then those who live now? If so what would be your point of reference?

Do you honestly think these people weren't aware of concepts such as spirits?

if even that...
Let alone ackowledging a concept like religion... Unless you consider elementary concepts like "thunder" and "fire" as religious. Those days they might have been seen as "gods" or supernatural entities, however "religion" is a much more complicated concept than that.

Religion is not more complicated then that. Modern religion is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
 
Yes Legion, that was what i was explaining, it depends on what you consider religion.
I was talking about modern religion obviously.
Still, were Incas a civilised society already 20,000 years ago? I'm not sure, that's why i'm asking.
I thought the first generally believed "civilised" society came up around 10-15,000 years ago...
Or are my numbers completely off? Or are we arguing over semantics again? ;)
 
Yes Legion, that was what i was explaining, it depends on what you consider religion.

pretty much what legion posted, effectively you may have a religion of one. tho the boundry between religion and emerging philosophy begins to blur a little.
 
Well so much for republican "inclusiveness", if it could ever be called that in the first place.

Here

Here

Here

Here

It will be a sad day in this history of this nation if the Constitution is twisted and defiled in order to discriminate against a minority sector of our society.
 
66% opposing same sex marriage? Yea that's about right. Polls like this are really meaningless though. I'm sure you would have gotten the same level of opposition 70 years ago if you asked the same question about interracial marriages and whether or not they should be allowed. :)
 
jvd said:
Marrige is a religious term. There should be no marriages in the eyes of this country . Only unions. I think i should sue the goverment from not seprating relgion and goverment . Like they are supposed to

Marriage as a religious term is just a semantic technicality. There are many couples that I know who aren't religious at all and, yet declare themselves 'married.' Just beacuse the word may have been rooted out of a religion, that does not mean it declares a couple seeking a 'union' as participating in a religious event when they call the event a 'marriage.' The same can be said for atonement. You don't have to be a religious person to 'atone' for your crimes in the eyes of your peers, and doing so won't imply that you are religious.

Plus, I think it'd sound rediculous to ask: "So, are you a union now?" than "So, are you married?"
 
Back
Top