Still Married!
by: Craig Wiesner on August 4th, 2010 | 6 Comments »
April 8th, 1990
20 years and four months after our marriage in the First Presbyterian Church, and 2 years after the County of San Mateo issued our marriage license and the minister who had married us 20 years earlier got to sign our marriage certificate, a federal judge declared today that our marriage remains legal (we weren’t the plaintiffs in the case, but were married in San Mateo County during the brief window when California allowed gay marriage). And… he declared the ban on gay marriage passed by voters in California to be in violation of the United States Constitution.
Pass the chocolate cake – it is time to celebrate… and get back to work after the frosting is gone because there’s a whole lot of work to do.
According to the San Jose Mercury News:
In a 136-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker sided with two same-sex couples who challenged voter-approved Proposition 8, which embedded a ban on gay marriage in the California constitution and wiped out a prior California Supreme Court ruling that briefly legalized same-sex nuptials across the state. Walker ordered that Proposition 8 should be immediately voided, and same-sex couples be given the chance marry across California.
“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians,” the judge wrote. “The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples.”
Derrick and I are thrilled with this decision but we know the fight is long from over. Proponents of Proposition 8 are going to court to appeal, and the case will certainly find its way to the Supreme Court. Opponents of gay rights will start the cry for a Constitutional Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, again.
I wondered when we got our marriage license, and then had it signed by the minister who had married us 20 years earlier, if legal marriage would make any difference in our lives. It has. Whenever my husband or I are asked a question about our relationship, for contractual purposes, when calling the credit card company, filing for a new mortgage, or when one of us is assisting the other’s aging parent, when we use the words “spouse,” “husband,” or “son-in-law” the people with whom we are dealing ask no further questions. People understand marriage and they understand our relationship when we use the language they are used to for married couples.
There are literally thousands of rights and responsibilities that apply to married couples and those rights are denied to gay people through marriage bans like the one the judge declared unconstitutional in California. Discrimination based on sexual orientation must end across the country. Derrick and I will continue our work for marriage equality and we urge everyone to join in this fight for civil rights. Visit Equality California or the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for ways to get involved.
Oh, and speaking of chocolate cake. Tomorrow’s my birthday. What a great present!
Thanks for this sweet post, Craig! I was just about to put something together on the ruling and was so happy to see you’d already shared the good news with folks on Tikkun Daily. Here are some other key phrases of note and legal language from the decision:
The conclusion of the ruling states, “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”
Some other key phrases as we are reading the decision…
“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.”
“Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.”
“proponents presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or the institution of marriage.”
“The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage.”
“None of the interests put forth by proponents relating to parents and children is advanced by Proposition 8; instead, the evidence shows Proposition 8 disadvantages families and their children.”
(from http://www.wehodaily.com/2010/08/04/victory-gays-lesbians-prop-8-case/)
Congratulations to you and to your Beloved!
It is a great victory. The language quoted above deserves to go down among the most memorable of judicial pronouncements.
But this case did not “declare your marriage is still legal”–that was done by the Calif Supreme Court over a year ago. This case was about folks who are NOT married but would like to be.
As to the flap that the judge is gay, a straight judge would have had as much relationship to the issue as a gay one. Are we saying that judges of color can’t decide discrimination cases, female judges can’t interpret Title IX, etc–of course not!
It’s about time that the Equal Protection Amendment was recognized as applicable to gays and lesbians! Another step toward the Light! (Licking the frosting off and rolling up sleeves because, yes, the fight is not over.)
Hi Craig! Thanks for this post and for sharing your story. It helped me to understand in a very visceral way, in a way that touched my emotions, what it means for gay people to have marriage equality and what I take for granted as a heterosexual married woman. No further questions, and your 20+ year marriage to Derrick, your very special relationship, understood and honored…that sums it all up. Especially since I’ve had the pleasure of knowing the two of you and seeing how you model the love and commitment that is indeed what marriage is all about–the two of you are a model for any couple, gay or straight!
I am straight, but not narrow. I congratulate you and yours! Thank you for your story.
My feeling is that marriage is a CHURCH issue in which the state has no interest whatsoever. The legal coupling that has been referred to as marriage from time immemorial is a legal contract that the state has an interest. It gives legal rights and obligations, property and inheritance rights, rights to make medical decisions, hospital visits, child rearing and adoption, etc. But none of this has anything to with whether the two people are of the same sex or different sexes. My feeling is that the two connections: Marriage and the legal contract are and should be completely separate. The state grants legal contracts that obligate the two to each other, and any religious authority who will bless the couple may do so.
Governments should LEAVE LGBT couples ALONE. LET THEM MARRY IF THAT IS THEIR WISH.