"Tying the Knot" received a $10,000 grant from The Jerome Foundation in 2001 and was shot over a three year period utilizing volunteers. The film had its World Premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in May 2004 and is being released in a very limited number of theaters on October 1, 2004.
Interview with Jim de Seve:
Have you won any supporters so far?
We’ve won supporters. We won a number of conservatives that I’ve met and shown the film to who have come up afterwards and said, “You know, I get this. I get this now. I understand what people are saying.” And it really is designed to pull people in and have people say that we can combat the right wing. And we’re opening on October 1st. We’re going to be opening in seven cities. We need to build a gay base first so that the film will succeed in those first three days. And if you could stress this, those first three days are so critical to the success of the film. And then we may be able to get, if the film is successful with the gay base, preaching to the choir who needs preaching to sometimes, then we need to get the film out to straight eyes, to show it to labor unions, to show it to police associations, to do all that sort of stuff.
Why is this even an issue? Why are people so afraid of it?
You know, I wonder that myself. It’s kind of nuts. I’m not sure why it’s an issue. I think it’s just that it’s a little bit of the status quo, people are scared of change. I think it’s different to different people for different reasons. You’ve got the bible thumpers, you’ve got George Bush who’s using it for his political advantage, you’ve got people who just don’t really think about it and are susceptible to the right wing rhetoric. And I think that’s the power of the film is that it helps give people reasons why they should support it and why there isn’t really a good argument on the right to deny it.
People cite 2,000 years of history. Since when is history so sacred? It’s not for other issues.
They cite 2,000 years of history because it’s convenient. They even cite 6,000 years of history. Bill Graham did that on the floor of the senate in 1996 in the Defense of Marriage Act. They’re citing it because it’s convenient to cite. It’s sophistry, they’re not really looking at the issue and I think that whole section of the film by E.J. Graff who wrote “What is Marriage For” really makes the point that marriage has always been an elastic institution. The one constant about it is that it has always changed and adapted. So I think it’s just that they use it for convenience.
If a gay man or lesbian had a sex change, could they marry their partner?
It depends state by state. There was a case, I want to say it’s in Texas, where there was a sex change operation. I always get confused when I start thinking about the variations here. I think it was…I’m not even going to try to describe it because I can’t remember the details of it, but basically it’s state to state, depends on how they define gender. If they define gender by someone’s self-described description of gender, which actually believe it or not in a couple of states does exist, then that scenario might prove real. If they define it by chromosomes, then no. If they define it by genitalia, then yes. So it’s a real strange grey area but I know there are… I met Reverend Maureen who’s part of one of the marriage coalitions in Massachusetts who was a male-to-female transsexual. Because in Massachusetts it’s based on chromosomes, she was able to marry her wife legally in Massachusetts 15 years ago. So it does happen and I love stories like that because it really undermines the simplicity that a lot of people want to make around this issue.
