Gay-Married At Last

When I was finally pronounced legally married, I wasn't in a church, nor a garden, nor at City Hall. I wasn't with any of my loved ones. In fact, I wasn't even with my wife.

I was on a conference call. My wife Angela was at work; our daughter Norrie was at preschool. That's when the California Supreme Court announced its ruling on Proposition 8, last fall's initiative to ban same-sex marriage. The court ruled that Prop. 8 is valid, but it also validated the more than 18,000 gay marriages that took place between June and November. What this means: Angela and I are legally married, and will remain so.

For us, it looks like the 4th time's the charm.

Angela and I met in 2000. I loved her honesty, her passion for nature, and her capacity for self-exploration. She fell in love with my strong sense of justice and wide circle of friends. And we both loved that we both wanted kids.

Our first foray into legally recognized status was in 2001. We were planning a formal wedding for 2002, but when we came upon a domestic partner registration booth at the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco, we jumped at the opportunity. I look back at the Polaroid from that day, and my first thought is how young and thin we were. Thanks to California's first domestic partnership law, passed in 1999, if I got sick, Angela could visit me in the hospital, but we had few other rights.

We exchanged vows again in 2002 on a warm fall afternoon in Sonoma. We had 85 guests and five bridesmaids in matching dresses; our parents walked us down the aisle to Canon in D. Dozens of professional portraits show us grinning broadly. This was our "real" wedding, but legally, we were in exactly the same place. The state legislature had added various benefits in 2001 and 2002, so we now had the right to sue for wrongful death and to inherit a portion of each other's separate property. Lovely.

The third time: February 13, 2004. "They're marrying same-sex couples at City Hall!" We agreed to meet up on BART. Angela stuck her head out of the train car and I leapt to join her. This was a week after we found out that I was pregnant with Norrie. The timing felt magical -- ordained, even. We joked that our child would one day look at the date on the marriage certificate and say, "Wait a minute...." Friends snapped photos of us beaming as we were pronounced spouse and spouse. A state law passed in 2003 had granted domestic partners not just rights but responsibilities -- but our 2004 marriage was about so much more: love, acceptance, and community celebration. Seven months later, it was ruled invalid. Thus began the battle that would lead to the state Supreme Court declaring same-sex marriage legal in the spring of 2008.

So last fall, surrounded by forty friends and their twenty kids in our backyard, we tied the knot. Again. As I primped, a four year old at my feet, Angela looked at me and with all seriousness said, "We're a lot older now." We don't have a single photo where we're all looking at the camera. And we admitted to each other that the whole thing felt like a largely political act. Call it marriage fatigue.

Soon after our wedding, pro-Prop. 8 protestors started showing up in liberal Oakland, right next door. People prayed for our souls on the front page of the paper and on TV. We fundraised, held signs, phone banked, but in the end it wasn't enough. For days after the election, I would look at people on the street and wonder, "Did he vote to take away my rights? Did she?"

There's another reason the months after our latest wedding weren't a honeymoon. Angela was newly pregnant and we had hoped our 2004 and 2008 weddings would have a certain symmetry: get pregnant, get married! But instead she suffered the 2nd of three miscarriages. Each time, we've convinced ourselves that it'll work for sure the next time. But I'm only starting to realize how much Angela has grieved every loss. She has a deep desire to bear a child, while I'm ambivalent about adding to our family. It's been hard for us to find common ground.

I suppose it's appropriate that we're finally truly married now. Because after the last rose petal has been swept away, isn't a marriage about everything that comes after, the joys and the struggles? Legal marriage softens the rough spots that make up a life together. If the worst happens, at least when you're married it's clear who will make medical decisions, who will care for the kids. Marriage also binds couples together, making it harder to throw in the towel.

I wanted Angela by my side the night of the latest ruling, as I marched in protest. But Angela has a tender heart. And we were in agreement that for now, we want to shield Norrie from the knowledge that some would have her family disbanded. Our marriage is now bigger than both of us.

Before the rally, I looked through our photos and chose one where we were all smiling, then printed the words "Our Family Values Love" above it. I carried the sign, and carried my family in my heart.

The next morning, I looked again at the sign. I felt a smile spread across my face. I had expected that after the ruling, I would feel a mixture of survivor's guilt and anger. Both are there, but there's another surprising element: pride. This is my family. In the photo, we've just spent a day at the tide pools. Norrie's wearing my jacket because all her clothes got wet. Angela's got a ball cap over her short hair. I'm wearing the floppy sunhat I love. My family comes alive at the water, and my love for them deepens every time.

So here we are, finally married. No one can tear us asunder except ourselves.

I am sure that just as our marriage will continue to have its joys and setbacks, the gay marriage movement will too. We have persevered. And we will continue to push for marriage equality until all same-sex couples have the right to do what we couldn't: get married at the first blush of love, and then move on.

Will we live happily ever after? We're sure trying.

A friend whose marriage is also one of the 18,000 held a sign at the rally: "Still Married -- Still Fighting." The meaning was lost on none of us.

Comments

[superstition]

This issue is not complicated in reality. So many try to make it seem so, however:

1. Homosexuality isn't a disorder. (Known since 1956. Consensus since 1973.)

2. Gay people are gay and marry each other.

3. The 1st Amendment makes marriage secular (atheists marry) and the 14th gives the same rights to ALL citizens. Gay Americans are citizens.

4. Because of these facts, it's the responsibility, not the option, of all politicians and judges to stop discriminating against gay Americans.

[bannorhill]

If as you claim "Gay people are gay and marry each other." then DOMA must have already been overturned. Please cite a case where it was. I seem to have missed that.

[mykelb]

Definition of republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Definition of democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them

[Indra]

I have a question. You call your partner a wife. How is that term defined in a same sex mariage. If you are both women one must choose or for some reason fall into a so called "wife" role. What is the "wife"role? Are you called the husband? This is not a subtle put down, This is a serious question and if someone could tell me how the terminology works it would be great. Makes my head spin y'know?

[tcs3600]

Some people do ask this question in a nasty, demeaning way.... so thanks for asking nicely.

There are multiple answers, because there's a difference between legal terminology, personal terminology, and "roles."

...Legally­, I'm a wife -- a woman who is married -- and so is my wife.

...Persona­lly, I dislike the word "wife," and we tend to say "partner" or "spouse," but that's not true for everyone. If you're not sure, just ask the person how they refer to their partner.

...Roles: exactly what you said, what is the "wife role" anyway? Who knows and who cares? Straight relationships are -- or ought to be -- negotiated between the partners, rather than determined by gender. Same with the gays.

That might lead to a traditional-looking division of labors (Anna cooks while Eve mows the lawn) or a non-traditional one (Adam cooks after getting home from his construction job while Steve plays football with the older kid and changes baby's diapers). We all know straight couples with such idiosyncratic divisions of family roles. It makes sense to go by ability and temperament, not by chromosomes.

Hope this helps un-spin your head. For more answers in this vein, check out Eric Marcus's book "Is it a choice?" And an article on how studies on same-sex couples can help improve straight relationships:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/10well.html?scp=1&sq=Well+gay+marriage&st=nyt

[Isobel White - Huffpost Blogger]

Well said, tcs3600!

I think same-sex couples have to do a lot more negotiating, generally speaking, and are probably better off for it -- though it sure can be time-consuming! As one of my straight neighbors said, when I complained that we spend half our time scheduling and negotiating family time/work time/alone time, making sure everyone is happy and equal: "I just tell him what to do!"

[Indra]

Well thanks for the input. I appreciate the time and effort. I have always been interested in the roles I take and play and why other people do the same or the not same in regard to roles. I like getting input on these questions as it helps me to understand.

[slmv]

Bravo Isobel for chronicling your story here. My hope is that the phenomonon of the 18,000 will soon be relegated to a funny blip in history once every person is allowed to marry. No exceptions.

[Isobel White - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks all. And it's been said a million times but it bears repeating -- how crazy is it that a man and a woman can meet and get legally married within a couple hours, while a same-sex couple has to do it again and again with unclear results each time?

[CornetMustich]

Kudos to Ms White.

It's time for marriage equality and fairness in America.

Are you listening Mr Obama?

Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington CT USA

http://justicesofthepeace.blogspot.com

[ponytales]

Your story is our story. A private commitment soon after we met, a holy union in a church twelve years later, a city domestic partnership, an Oregon wedding (annulled a year later) and FINALLY a California wedding that will stand! If only the state in which we live would recognize it.
Still married -- still fighting.

[daltexman]

What a great message -- you give me hope (even here in red-state Texas)!

[darker]

"Still Married - Still Fighting." sounds like lots of straight couples, too.
We're always fighting but have not divorced (yet).
I am glad gay people want to try the challenging married life, too.

Gay marriage is fine with us. And it's about time it happened.
Politicians must stop kissing up to bigots who use "faith" as
smoke & mirrors for their personal bigotries.

[rcdcr]

So glad that 'Gay marriage is fine with you.'

But I believe that the point here is that it doesn't really MATTER that it's fine with you. You outnumber us 95 to 5.

If that isn't the tryanny of the majority, I simply do not know what is.

What gives ANYONE the right to approve OR disapprove of Civil Rights that are, according to the United States Constitution, fundamental and protected from the majority doing what they were just allowed to do in California?

Your 'opinins' on this matter have NO place at the ballot box and NO place being debated as if you all are trying to decide if the very Gay & Lesbian children that YOU created are worthy of being treated as human beings.

The time for debating this is OVER. The time for fighting is NOW.

[Romulus]

"What gives ANYONE the right to approve OR disapprove of Civil Rights that are, according to the United States Constitution, fundamental and protected from the majority doing what they were just allowed to do in California?"

Baker v, Nelson (1972)

[Indra]

Your outrage is understandable, but you need one of those how to win friends and influence people type of courses. Look, the fact is as you put it a 95/5 proposition. It will always be that way. You need them more than they need you. The only person you are fighting are your own demons who will eat you from the inside if you don't come to peace with this matter. People can be powerful allies for your couse if you give them a chance to be. if you want to make enemies, well, that is what you will get.

[Indra]

I should add that your statement "Your 'opinins' on this matter have NO place at the ballot box and NO place being debated" has the same effect as a husband telling his wife "I forbid you to do this" or " or saying "no" to a teenager. It does not work and it serves no purpose other than to antagonize and produce a bad response. I don't like the way most people vote but I can't ever think of taking their rights away from them by denying their vote no matter how stupid it is. Democracy does not always work well but the other alternative is worse whatever that is.