My Reaction to the California Marriage Ruling -- As the Plaintiff

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage, because after marriage, sex is never the same.

Despite that, on May 15, the day the California Supreme Court ruled that my partner, Diane Olson, and I could get married, I e-mailed my brother Robert, who was traveling in Spain with his wife, Maureen. We had won! Could they come to our wedding? It wasn't going to be until June 16, the first day it would be possible because the court had ordered a 30-day delay so the state's marriage application forms could be changed to read "spouse and spouse" instead of "husband and wife."

Thirty days? How was I going to lose 30 pounds in 30 days? Obviously, I couldn't, so I decided to leave myself alone. No, I wasn't going to diet. This was going to be the most joyous month of my life and if I wanted to have desserts, so be it.

The e-mails began pouring in. My friend Jan, a lesbian who lives on Fire Island, New York, wrote that she and Edrie, her partner of 49 years, were coming to Los Angeles to get married. They wanted to get married at the same time as two other long-term older couples -- Marilyn and Jean of Los Angeles and another couple, Carlotta and Ann who live in Cherry Grove, N.Y. They know that as a result of lawsuits Lambda Legal and the ACLU brought in New York, marriages of same-sex couples validly entered in other jurisdictions are being honored in New York. So, New York couples who marry in California will be considered married in New York. In addition, New York is one of the few states where same-sex couples resident in the state who married out-of-state can get divorced in the state!

None of these six women, most in their 70s, some in their 80s, had ever dreamed that in their lifetimes it would be possible for them to get married. As Diane says: "Marriage is a universally understood word defining a unique and distinct loving relationship between two people."

Marilyn, an 80-year-old semi-retired veterinarian, told me she had called several courthouses in California to try to arrange a triple wedding performed by a justice of the peace. But it was difficult to get an appointment for all three couples.

I said I would e-mail my friend Rev. Pat Langlois of Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles and ask if she would perform a non-religious ceremony. Pat said she would be honored.

Wait a minute. Now we needed a rabbi for our own wedding. Although I'm a secular Jew and Diane leans toward Buddhism, we had decided it was very important for us to be married by a rabbi. So I called my friend Rabbi Denise Eger, of congregation Kol Ami, and asked her if she would marry us.

"Of course!" she said. "When?" And I said: "On the first day they issue licenses, June 16."

We started planning. What would we wear? Even before the wedding, we needed a decision for the June 8 Los Angeles Gay Pride parade, Christopher Street West. Earlier, organizers of the parade had told us that along with Rev. Troy Perry and his partner, Phillip Ray De Blieck, the other original plaintiffs in the case, Diane and I were being presented with a 2008 Community Service Award for filing that first lawsuit in California and would be riding in convertibles in the parade. But after we won, they told us that they were giving us a float!

So now we had to plan what to wear on the float. Should we wear tuxedos? Let's face it, I don't exactly look like a lesbian on The L Word. On the other hand, on Liza Minnelli a tuxedo is called cute, on me it's called drag. But it was the gay parade!

Why give up our culture of gender bending, fun, and celebration? This wasn't

about assimilation. This was about civil rights.

The week of the California Supreme Court decision, Bill Rosentdahl, the gay Los Angeles council member for the 11th District, called us to say he was about to read our names into the Los Angeles City Council record because we were the first plaintiffs in the lawsuit and were from L.A. We were invited to brunches and the mayor's reception for Christopher Street West and love came pouring in the form of hundreds and hundreds of phone calls and e-mails.

After 15 years together, and 20 years before that as friends, Diane and I were finally getting married! It was the most joyous week of my life. And then, on

May 22, our attorney Gloria Allred e-mailed me an Associated Press news story headlined: "California Marriage Opponents Seek 5-month Delay."

A conservative legal group, the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, had petitioned the California Supreme Court to put off finalizing its decision on same-sex marriages until voters were given a chance to vote on an amendment that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution. A ruling is expected by the end of June on whether enough signatures have been collected to qualify the amendment for the Nov. 15 ballot. The sponsors said same-sex marriage would cause "unneeded confusion for couples."

Unneeded confusion for couples? They were worried about us? How dare they. How dare they try stopping our hopes and dreams for full equality! Do they have any idea what it is like to have wanted something our entire lives -- the right to love and have that love enshrined in marriage -- then to be given it, only to have it threatened by these anti-gay bigots? What harm are we doing them? I ran in and told Diane. She, my dear, sweet, spiritual partner, was beyond angry.

All of a sudden, a dark cloud came over our house. We looked at each other in disappointment. Then disappointment turned to anger. They had done it to us again. But we pulled ourselves together and said, No, they don't get to keep stealing our joy. We are going to act "as if."

I e-mailed Jan in New York. She said they were coming anyway. They didn't have time to waste waiting, so they would have to rely on the California Supreme Court to make the right decision again. I e-mailed my brother. He said he and Maureen were still coming on June 15, the day before our planned wedding, and also had accepted our invitation to ride on the float with us.

Both my brother and sister-in-law, Canadians who live in Arizona, are polar

opposites to us in their political beliefs. (They would be would be Republicans if they were American citizens.) But they were overjoyed when we won the right to marry! When Robert telephoned me, he said: "Robin, I have been waiting for this day for a long time."

I e-mailed Rabbi Eger. "Not to worry," Denise replied. She would be on call to marry us the minute we could, and gave me her cell-phone number.

Gloria Allred phoned and asked us to join her for a bike ride on the beach that weekend. As tough as she is as an attorney, she is kind and caring, and was reaching out to us as friends, not clients.

When I finally got to bed the evening of May 22, Diane, emotionally exhausted, was already asleep. I wanted to wrap my arms around her but I was afraid of waking her. I lay there, while the pain poured over me. I wanted to believe that this would work out.

Surely, once the public saw the joy on the faces of all of the same-sex

couples getting married in California , and saw that nothing was going to be taken away from their own marriages, they would not vote for a mean-spirited constitutional amendment that protected nothing except the right to discriminate. If only the California Supreme Court would deny the petition, we would stand a fighting chance of defeating the amendment and realizing our dream. If only, if only....

I closed my eyes and fought with my brain, until I finally turned it off and fell asleep.

Robin Tyler is one of the original plaintiffs in the California Supreme Court lawsuit Tyler v. County of Los Angeles. Tyler has been an activist for same-sex marriage and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered rights for four decades. This fall, she will film her one-woman comedy show, Always A Bridesmaid, Never A Groom. By then, she hopes she and Diane will be married. [e-mail]

Comments

[CA90046]

FYI
http://blogcabinca.org/2008/05/21/can-an-initiative-abolish-constitutional-rights/

[bojack]

3 First, I want to remind you that in the last days there will be scoffers who will laugh at the truth and do every evil thing they desire.

4 This will be their argument: "Jesus promised to come back, did he? Then where is he? Why, as far back as anyone can remember, everything has remained exactly the same since the world was first created."

5 They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water.

6 Then he used the water to destroy the world with a mighty flood.

7 And God has also commanded that the heavens and the earth will be consumed by fire on the day of judgment, when ungodly people will perish.

8 But you must not forget, dear friends, that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.

9 The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise to return, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as unexpectedly as a thief. Then the heavens will pass away with a terrible noise, and everything in them will disappear in fire, and the earth and everything on it will be exposed to judgment.*1

[bojack]

God's Wrath Against Mankind

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

WHY IS THERE A CELEBRATION WHEN DESTRUCTION, JUDGMENT AND ETERNAL DEATH AWAIT THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO PRACTICE SUCH THINGS AND TO THOSE WHO APPROVE ?

[mamacat]

Congratulations, and best wishes. It is a pleasure to read the writings of someone so instrumental in history, and constructive history at that.

It is also very encouraging to read that a majority of Californians now believe that it was the right thing for the court to do. Like the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, change cannot take place from within unless most of the citizens of a country are in favor of it. It may be quite awhile before the rest of the states are ready to follow Massachussetts and California, but progress is being made. Perhaps it is best if this issue is fought state by state, rather than everywhere at once.

So, evolution is alive and well, and California is proof.

[radmul]

There is always the hope that the voters in California will vote down this initiative. We are not all narrow minded bigots. I hope you and your partner get to live out your dream very soon.

[Boobaloo]

I dont really care about same sex marriages,I'm quite ambivalent about the whole thing and see it as a waste of time and energy when there about ten million more important and necessary issues we need to be addressing like Iraq, Israel, foreign policy, Neocons, PNAC, Zionists, AIPAC & other special interest groups.

You're not going to die if you dont get to marry your partner, you'll be okay.

One thing I do find irritating beyond belief is that 'husband and wife' have been removed from marriage licences. They should have two licenses, one that reads 'spouse and spouse' or whatever and keep the 'husband and wife'; why should heterosexual marriage definitions be eradicated to make room for gay marriages???

And I'm sorry but your friends 'universal' definition of marriage is wrong; most of the world sees marriage as a union of families, obligation and community, love is what evolves from all of that.

You say: "No, they don't get to keep stealing our joy". I dont that language smacks of over valuation and self-absorption to me.

[indypete]

I can agree with you on the language point to some extent, What the gays want (and deserve) is the legal protection enjoyed by the rest of us. Perhaps the legal eagles know something I don't and make the language consistent to avoid loopholes.

[DramaQueen101]

OK, So I'm not a legal eagle, but the term spouse does still equal husband or wife according to my Webster's dictionary. Changing that word on the application form does not take anything away from the heterosexual couples that are still applying.

Having separate forms for hetero vs. gay couples is a "separate but equal" mindset, and we saw how well that worked! I suppose next, I'll have to drink from the gays only drinking fountain, or use the gays only bathroom, etc....

[greenwriter]

Boobaloo -- You say: "most of the world sees marriage as a union of families, obligation and community, love." What in the foregoing is being "erased" by altering of two words on the marriage license? What in it requires a union between a man and a woman? Are single-parent households also not families in your narrow little mind? You can try cloaking your prejudice under whatever argument you want, it's still prejudice.

[mamacat]

Your point about the writing on marriage certificates seems reasonable. For male-female bonds, the paperwork could so state.

[wrabbitt]

Why ruin a perfectly good relationship with a piece of paper! Myself i don't believe in same sex anything but to each their own.

[indypete]

Not even same sex football?

[websmith]

Marriage is a religious ceremony that has been assigned legal implications by the state. The state has no business in making a ruling or passing legislation.

If you belong to a religion that will marry you, get married. Everyone else can stop trying to impose their religious beliefs on other and mind their own religion.

[jaarsrep]

You are trying to force a definition of "Marriage" that has never existed. How can you just make up same-sex marriage??? It doesn't exist. And the majority of people in this country think that. And that's a FACT. If that's not good enough, you'll have to move somewhere else in the world where definitions don't matter any more. Thankfully, marriage still means something specific where I live. I've been married to my wife for 29 years and counting, and I want marriage to be limited to a man and a woman so I know what's what when I talking to married people. There is enough confusion in the world already!

[JustMyWords]

So what's to be confused about? Nothing will change about the definition of marriage. It's still two adults making a life-long commitment to each other.

[Rothgar]

Shesh, how do you figure that extending the rights you've enjoyed for 29 years (and I've enjoyed for nearly 22) to a pair of women (or men) in a committed relationship hurts you in any way? I actually really like the term spouse and spouse because it signifies the equality that surely is a strong part of active lively long term marriages. If you can't handle the change get with it. It will actually help your longevity. Thinking is good for a brain.
I also note that the pressure to return to hetro bigotry has lost it's steam in Masschuesetts as they've faced the ugly spectre of gay marriage (NOT!). Its been such a non-event in Mass. that their legislature couldn't even muster the second vote needed to move the consitutional amendment onto the ballot. I know some religiously crazy bigots are still fighting that one but it certainly appears that the story is over and good sense ruled the day.

[JanetEBratter]

Puhleeez, Robin, don't wear those baggy camoflage pants you wore when we first met at the
Southern Women's Music and Comedy Festival in the way back when. Well, ok, maybe you could wear them on the float.

If you don't expect me to loose 30 pounds either I'd love to sing at your wedding! I'm still writing songs and my tux still fits.

I have only one word of warning...well, two words. "Divorce Court".

Beware of lawyers looking to raise the 53% break-up rate that our hetero friends have achieved.

l'chaim and namaste to you both.

"Have Guitar/Will Travel"
MySpace.co­m/janetbra­tter

[newshawk14]

I've supported the idea of gay marriage, if nothing else it gives you access to a tremendous body
of common law. The problem of civil unions, is that it would require a new body of parallel law. It
goes right back to education, and the separate, but equal argument. The one stipulation I would
make (in keeping with the separation of church and state), is while civil servants be required to
perform the ceremony, I would not require religious groups to do so. I'm fairly certain, that this
problem will quickly sort itself out, as it has in your situation. Congratulations.

[broezekiel]

Since I have studied language (specifically English) intensely for the majority of my adult life I feel compelled to comment on this. There is no such thing as an "unchanging" definition. Language changes constantly. New words are invented; new and revised definitions are added to our lexicon. This is why dictionaries come out with new editions on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, there is a faction who will fight these changes tooth and nail, but inevitably facts have to be faced. Mankind is desparately attempting to evolve into a compassionate beast (inspite of his/herself.)

[HillWilliam]

Dear Robin and Diane,

Congratulations to you both from my partner of 12+ years and me. Some day soon, this beeyess wrangling over marital rights will be behind us. For now, accept our gratitude for your perseverance. Here in NC, the wackogelicals are trying to introduce a referendum on a constitutional amendment forever banning marriage for same-gender couples, but so far the legislature is uninclined to take the measure up. That's something, at least (sigh). We're still working on getting the sillyassed NC DOMA repealed, but that's very, very unlikely to happen this session.

I'm still waiting to see how the "strict constructionist" Supremes will opine. If they truly were "strict constructionist", they'd have to opine that there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits same-sex marriage (and all rights not reserved anywhere else are reserved to the people), but since they're mostly right-wing extremists these days, I'm sure they'll try to find some excuse to deny us equal rights and protections. That's their MO; I'd love to see them differ.

In closing, may your wedding day be a joy to the both of you forever. May every kiss thereafter bring the joy, thrill and the memory of the first one as a married couple.

Bill and Rob

[swkidder]

I'm a California voter so I guess I'm one of those who gets to "weigh in." I'm in favor of marriage, of commitment, of two people who love one another and wish to make that commitment as visible to the world as it is to them. I wish you nothing but happiness - consider rice thrown gently in your direction from the north. Your marriage - woman to woman - takes nothing away from anyone else's marriage - regardless of whether that union is "opposite sex" or "same sex." Love is infinite, and your love - far from diminishing any love I may feel for a male partner - only grows the amount of love that's out there in the world. Why would anyone wish otherwise .... really, how can it be possible to have "too much" love?

[CalvinistHobbesian]

Here's hoping Lucy doesn't yank the football away this time and you kick it out of the park!