Wannabe Dads in the Big O

Testimony before the Nebraska Judiciary Committee

Today the Judicary Committee of the Nebraska Senate held a hearing on the harms to same-sex couples in a post-Windsor world when their marriages are federally recognized but not recognized by the state.  The hearing opened with a long series of people, mostly lawyers, testifying to the problems in a wide range of legal areas -- taxes, immigration, estate, family, divorce, employment, human resources, workers comp, and also employee recruitment.  One woman testified about the complexities the two legal regimes create for small businesses.

Here are two news stories on the hearing, one from the AP and the other from the Lincoln Journal-Star.

I testified during the public, open part of the hearing.  Both articles above quote me.  Here are my full prepared remarks (I did add to them a little while actually talking).

What a strange task—speaking before a public audience arguing for recognition of my marriage.  It is not an assignment most of you listening will ever have to contemplate.  Just imagine if you had to argue for why your love and your family mattered.

For we all understand why people fall in love and want to make a lasting commitment to each other.  We understand why a couple invites their relatives and friends to their wedding, in order to recognize and bless that public commitment.  We understand why two people want to form a family, letting their love overflow to their children.  We understand that raising children well takes an entire community working together--that parents need the help and support of a society that values and strengthens families. 

We also understand why society encourages people to make these commitments to one another.  Loving marriages and healthy families strengthen the community. 

My husband Michael and I wed in a religious ceremony in Oklahoma in 2009 (our denomination sanctifies marriages between people of the same gender).  In attendance were two hundred of our family, friends, and fellow church members.  They came to bless and support us in the loving commitment we were making to one another.  At that time, we did not receive the legal benefits by which a society supports and strengthens marital commitment. 

After moving to Omaha, we were preparing for children and were optimistic about the impending court rulings, so we had a legal ceremony in Iowa.  Currently fourteen states recognize our commitment and value our family.  With the Supreme Court rulings we will receive some federal benefits.  But the State of Nebraska continues to deny our family the support, encouragement, and help that comes with legal recognition of our marriage vows.

Our family is more valued and better protected by the law when we cross the river to shop at Menard’s than it is when we are in our own home.  This bizarre situation is unsustainable.  I’m very confused about what to do come tax time, when we will file a joint federal return and will puzzle over our state returns.

Legal recognition of same-sex couples strengthens the loving commitments we make at our weddings.  It supports us in raising our children.  It values our families.  Encouraging loving marriages and healthy families improves society. 

Why did you get married?  Why was it important to have that legal recognition of your loving commitment?  How has it helped your family?  Your answers are the same as mine.

-- Scott

Ceremony of Legal Recognition of Our Marriage

One story from last autumn which didn't get told, as it occured after we broke off writing, was about our ceremony of legal recognition of our marriage.

We were married in 2009 in Oklahoma, and by married I mean that we made our commitment to one another, witnessed and celebrated by family and friends, and blessed by the church.  What happened in November 2012 was simply a legal recognition of that earlier event.  

We had never gotten a legal recognition before because we wanted to wait until it was legal where we lived, or there was some legal benefit to us (as there now is in the post-Windsor world).  The reason we got the legal recognition last autumn was that KVC required it of us if they were going to finalize our application to be foster parents.  Nebraska might not recognize the marriage, but KVC wanted a legal marriage nonetheless.

So, one Saturday in November, the day after I returned from eight days in Paris, Michael and I had our ceremony of legal recognition.  We had our friend Niki, who is a Buddhist, perform the ceremony and had two friends attend as witnesses.  That was it.  This wasn't our wedding, and we didn't want to confuse matters.  We did it on the Bob Kerrey Pedestrian Bridge which crosses the Missouri River.  Some gay couples have done it right at the line which seperates Iowa from Nebraska, revealing the absurdity of having some rights inches away from not having any.

We had also intended to do it by the line, but it was too windy.  It had been a really beautiful, mild day, but everyone was a little late in getting onto the bridge, so we started after dark and the wind, which had been fine suddenly picked up and seemed to be blowing 50 miles an hour (I know that's hyperbole, but not much).  So, we stood behind one of the pylons, hoping to block the wind a little.  It wasn't very successful.  Because of the dark, we don't have any good pictures.

When we said our vows to each other, we cried.  We didn't think this would be emotional, but it still was.  I've now seen that in other couples for whom I've done a ceremony of legal recognition of their marriage.

Michael had made dinner reservations at Dixie Quicks.  He'd also had the top of our wedding cake remade.  While celebrating in came Senator Mike Gronstal of Council Bluffs.  As Majority Leader in the Iowa Senate, he has blocked GOP efforts to overturn that state's marriage equality law, in place since 2009.  We went over and thanked him for doing so, as it had allowed us to get legal recognition of our marriage that evening.  We gave him a slice of cake.

-- Scott

Applying for the marriage license

A handful of things transpired today that I want to write about, but I probably won't get them all written tonight.  So, stay tuned.

This morning we went to apply for our marriage license at the Pottawatamie County Court House in Council Bluffs, Iowa (just across the river).  As I posted this morning, I felt a little strange approaching a governmental office in this official way.  Good strange, because I knew it would okay and routine.  But I've never done quite this before.  I'm not used to government being good to me as a gay man nor good to my relationship.

But it was such a great experience.  Not only was it quick and efficient, which is always a relief when dealing with bureaucracies, but the guy was pleasant and funny and professional.  

We had to give him our information, show our IDs, and pay the fee.  Then our witness who went with us, a good friend, affirmed that we are who we say we are.  The license should be ready in a few days.

Later, after we dropped our friend off,  discussing the experience with Michael, I cried a little.  I guess it was emotional to experience the positive valuation of our marriage.

-- Scott

License

Today we are going to get our Iowa marriage license, so that in November we can have our civil ceremony.  Remember, the adoption agency said that they would only forward our packet to the state if we had a civil marriage license.  Of course, we will always contend that our religious ceremony is the real one. 

Here are the Iowa marriage requirements.

It does feel good strange to realize we will walk into a government building and present ourselves as a couple and that this will be a routine thing.

-- Scott

Civil Recognition of Our Marriage

Michael and I married on June 6, 2009 in Oklahoma City in a religious ceremony.  We were married in a public park near our house and had the reception at our home.  It was a beautiful evening, with 200 of our family and friends in attendance.

At the time I was a columnist for the Oklahoma Gazette, and they asked me to write about the wedding and the distinctions between religious and civil marriage.  You can read that column here, including the great quote from our uncle Ken Cich, "It's interesting that you are married in the eyes of God, but those who deny you civil marriage do so for religious reasons."  Indeed.

At the time Michael and I did not travel to a state where same-sex marriages are legally recognized.  We didn't do that for two main reasons -- like most people, we wanted to be married in our hometown near our family and friends, and we are both such activists, we wanted to wait to get a legal marriage when it was legal where we lived.  In later years we added a new condition, that we would seek a legal marriage if it became beneficial too, such as the overturn of DOMA, even if it was not legal where we lived.

Michael has also been looking forward to organizing the party around the ceremony legally recognizing our marriage, but I'll let him write about that.

As I wrote earlier today, the adoption agency said that we would need to have a civil recognition of our marriage before they could approve us (in Nebraska only married couples can foster or adopt, which is its own social justice issue).  So, that requires us to get the legal recognition of our marriage within the next 60 days or so.

It will not be a wedding.  We've had that already.  Nor will we view it as a marriage, we already have that.  If the religious ceremonies of the United Church of Christ were not discriminated against by the federal and many state governments, then our religious ceremony would already count, as it does for those getting married in most religious ceremonies.

Of course, I have long argued for a separation between religious and civil marriage, like some countries in Europe have.  In particular when I was a Baptist, I was always irked that as a minister I was supposed to function as an agent of the state when I wed a couple.  It violated my principles of the separation between church and state.

--Scott