First Gay Marriages Happening In California

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in California, Marriage, Sexuality

And fittingly, the very first one was performed for a couple how had been together 15 years and helped start this movement in California.

Here’s their story from the LA Times:

In Los Angeles County, longtime partners Diane Olson and Robin Tyler were the first and only same-sex couple to obtain a license Monday. [...] Olson and Tyler were the original plaintiffs in the 2004 California lawsuit challenging the ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional. The couple were chosen to receive the county’s first license “in recognition of their unique role in the court’s decision,” said acting L.A. County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan.

For eight years the couple trekked to the Beverly Hills courthouse on Valentine’s Day, only to be denied a marriage license each time. [...]

At the reception, the couple cut a cake with matching bride figures on top. “My name is Robin Tyler and I’d like to introduce you to my wife!” she declared.

The brides will retain their own names.

Curiously enough, neither of the presidential candidates would approve of this.

What a shame.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 17th, 2008 and is filed under California, Marriage, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

10 Responses to “First Gay Marriages Happening In California”

  1. gerryf Says:

    Even more curiously, gay people got married and the world didn’t come to an end.

    Who’d have thunk?

  2. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    Curiously enough, neither of the presidential candidates would approve of this.

    It just shows how disingenuous a politician Barack Obama really is. You know he supports gay marriage but he lies about it and says that he doesn’t in order to get elected. Then he will appoint judges to circumvent the legislative branch, and institute gay marriage by judicial fiat so in the end his secret desire for a more “progressive” definition of marriage is obtained.

    The whole democratic party is like this, like when John Edwards said that he personally disapproved of gay marriage but hoped some day his daughter’s generation would fully support it. What obvious hackery. This coming from a man who would be our first closeted homosexual President.

  3. gerryf Says:

    I thought you were against gay marriage, but OK with civil unions–which is Obama’s exact stance.

    Maybe I am mixing my right wing homophobes….

    Just another meaningless right wing smear…you cannot really attack him on his real stance (against gay marriage, but OK with civil unions–a stance many from the right support)), so you fantasize about what he might really want so you can smear someone…straight out of the Karl Rove book of politics.

    Sorry. no.

    We do not know he supports it, but lies about it. We cannot even speculate he will appoint judges to rule by judicial fiat. And we certainly cannot say the whole Democratic Party agrees with your twisted, paranoid delusions. Oh, and let’s toss in a John Edwards is a homo smear while we’re at it.

    Seriously Jimmy, no one can take you seriously if you don’t stay grounded in reality.

    Either its nothing more right wing nonsense and scare tactics intended to instill fear in those who are uninformed, or you are one seriously sick individual.

    I can’t imagine what it’s like to be trapped inside your head….”Dang it–why doesn’t reality conform to my twisted world view!!!!!”

  4. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    I thought you were against gay marriage, but OK with civil unions–which is Obama’s exact stance.

    Yes, just like president Bush. I guess Obama is a right-wing homophobe. Why are you still voting for him?

    you fantasize about what he might really want so you can smear someone…straight out of the Karl Rove book of politics.

    You just smeared Karl Rove.

    We cannot even speculate he will appoint judges to rule by judicial fiat.

    Not worried about Republicans appointing justices then? Most people seem to agree that Alito and Roberts were not activist judges when nominated – so why did Obama participate in the filibuster and vote “no?”

    Also, get this line from Obama’s official campaign: “Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”

    Seems like the Obama campaign disagrees with your assessment of them, gerry.

    Oh, and let’s toss in a John Edwards is a homo smear while we’re at it.

    I never called him a “homo,” that is an offensive, pejorative slang term used to denegrate homosexuals. That came from your mind, not mine. You have a problem with gay people or something?

  5. J. Harden Says:

    “Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”

    And this guy went to Harvard Law? The statement above is, from any legitimate, mainstream jurisprudential view, a warped view of the judiciaries purpose. Be it strict or broad, judges interpret the law. If the law does not “protect” “ordinary Americans” leaving them to “fend for themselves” — there is already a mechanism which they can use to alleviate that problem, it is called voting. By the way, are judges not suppose to enforce the law if that means “protecting” the powerful? Our courts should not “stand up” for social and economic justice, our courts should “stand up” for the law.

    This quote from Obama is very telling, because he comes out and actually admits that he wants judges to rule according a political agenda. One has to wonder if we will even bother to have elections in the future, since the judiciary will form policy to protect all the good people from the bench.

  6. Bob Aman Says:

    Disingenuous or not, as far as I know, my personal opinion is in line with what Obama claims his position is. For example, I think it’s 100% wrong for an estranged family to be able to override the wishes of a deceased gay family member and cut a gay partner out of an estate. It’s 100% wrong for insurance companies to deny coverage to a gay partner when they are willing to cover a heterosexual partner under the same plan. It’s 100% wrong for gays to be unable to file taxes jointly and receive the associate benefits when heterosexuals can do so. It’s 100% wrong for heterosexual spouses to have Social Security survivorship benefits when gay couples don’t. Civil unions ought to be able to take care of all of these legal inequalities. The trick is that civil unions need to be recognized at the federal level. As they exist right now, they’re only recognized in a handful of states, so they don’t offer protections on the same level as a legal marriage. That’s 100% wrong.

    That said, I can’t ignore the fact that for the vast majority of the world, marriage is a distinctly religious construct, and for the vast majority of the world’s religions, homosexuality is regarded as one of the greatest sins. When the Religious Right gets upset about the concept of gay marriage, I can totally sympathize. It is a slap in the face and an insult to a lot of people, and to deny that is to expose one’s ignorance of today’s religious realities.

    I personally don’t feel threatened by the idea of gays getting married. Their actions have no tangible effect on anyone else’s marriages, regardless of what some protest. The “sanctity” of marriage is hardly diluted by what some arbitrary gay couple does in California. If anything, the “sanctity” of marriage really only holds meaning for an individual couple. Divorce being a case in point. I’ve yet to see protesters blocking the entrance to divorce court on the grounds that it’s diluting the “sanctity” of marriage. (Which it most certainly is.) But I digress.

    Homosexual couples deserve complete equality under the law. However, they don’t have the right to alter the definitions of essentially religious constructs in the name of that equality. If anything, the fact that the government even has the ability to grant that is a flaw in the system if we truly believe in the separation of church and state.

  7. Bob Aman Says:

    J. Harden has a really, really good point.

    +1

    (That is all.)

  8. John Says:

    Discrimination is the point here kids. When you pass a law stating that one group does not have the same right as another group, you are legislating discrimination. Not all churches are against gay marriage, shouldn’t they have the right to decide what is right in the eyes of God, the same way the religious right do. Marriage is not guaranteed under the constitution, but by that belief, why not go back to the days when blacks couldn’t marry whites. Look back, the same arguments were made in terms of destroying the sanctity of marriage, being against the will of God. When one votes against equal rights, that’s not “separate but equal”, but against equal rights you are sanctifying the bigotry and discrimination this country is supposed to be against (regardless of what are forefathers were thinking at the time.

    And stating that someone deserves to be treated the same as everyone else, just not regarding rights of marriage, you are fully disingenuous, you’re just more open about it.

  9. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    Marriage is not guaranteed under the constitution, but by that belief, why not go back to the days when blacks couldn’t marry whites.

    This is the best, if not only, relevant argument in favor of homosexual marriage being instituted by the courts instead of the legislature. However, I would argue that there is an intrinsic difference between gender and race – one that is manifest everywhere in civil society. It is clearly unconstitutional that public restrooms be segregated by race, so why not gender? There have been many radical feminist groups arguing this in the past. Classrooms, sports teams, dress codes, ect… Can that element which allows us to acceptably separate men from women in those social institutions be applied towards marriage as well? I say yes. Especially yes, since the union of a man and a woman is even more intuitive than those other things. It is the whole reason for the biological segregation of the species in the first place.

  10. John Says:

    Jimmy,

    Most of your posts are ridiculous, but here you made a clear and concise argument. However you are equating something that is not logically equal. You’re argument is that since we separate out sports teams and restrooms we should keep two things apart based on sex, this is not the same situation. Because, the courts have struck down most all of the sodomy laws and laws outlawing homosexuality. They have not, to my knowledge, struck down laws against separating restrooms. As well as the fact that there really is no law requiring them. I have seen unisex multi-person restrooms. Sports teams are a matter of leveling the playing field for the contenders. Men and women perform differently in sporting events, that’s why they are segregated. And just like in boxing, you can box above your weight level, just not below, same goes with women. If they can perform at an equal level as men, they are occasionally reluctantly welcomed. Prejudice aside, there is no necessarily different way in which homosexual relationships operate compared to heterosexual. Any type of heterosexual relationship (other than child birth, which in this case I can name a number of heterosexuals without children), that I can not find in the gay community. So really your argument only works if you outlaw homosexuality. I doubt even the most ardent conservative Politician is willing to go that far… well maybe some.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: