Gay Couple Gets No Love From Dallas County

Posted on February 12th, 2009 5:12pm by Stacey Yervasi
Filed under Law, Local News

Instead of lunching at my desk, like usual, I tagged along with a protest-loving FBvian for a demonstration in honor of National Freedom to Marry Day at the Records Building downtown. It was more eventful than a trip to Whole Foods, I’ll tell you that. The takeaway: a same-sex couple still can’t get a marriage license in the state of Texas. Jump if you want the full (tense) report and more pics.

About 15 or so participants and several media types wielding cameras and notebooks gathered in the plaza outside at 11:30, when, after a brief introduction by Queer LiberAction founder Blake Wilkinson (in tux, at right), Rev. Daniel Kanter of First Unitarian Church of Dallas performed a ceremony between Rose and Kim with all the trappings of the hetero version. Then we blew bubbles, cheered, and headed inside to try and get a marriage license for the newly hitched couple.

We sang “Going to the Chapel” as we made our way in. People stared. It was awkwardish. The folks in the marriage license office were clearly prepared for our arrival, and the clerk (pictured at left) pleasantly informed Rose and Kim that the state of Texas does not grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Duh. Then Blake asked to speak to County Clerk John Warren (below right). That’s when things got a little hairy. The room was packed, and Warren was shaky under Blake’s barrage (example: “You are upholding bigoted laws. What would you have done 50 years ago if a white man and a black woman came in trying to get a marriage license?”). Still, at least Warren came down to address the crowd, and after several minutes of tense exchanges, everyone thanked him for his time as he shook hands with the group, including the rejected couple.

Blake and his Queer LiberAction minions will be conducting more protests and demonstrations like this in the future. QL’s events, such as the recent Kiss-In, are beginning to attract attention. (Here’s the DMN report from today. And the Voice here.) It should be interesting.

P.S. Warren’s goodwill gesture did little to placate Blake. The words “spineless coward” featured prominently in his closing remarks.

31 comments

  1. Does Blake know Jermaine Jakes?

    @ 5:45 pm on February 12, 2009

  2. it was a beautiful ceremony! they are a darling couple. <3 too bad the land of the free aint so free.

    @ 5:50 pm on February 12, 2009

  3. (insert picture of super-tanker going into Hurricane)

    @ 6:25 pm on February 12, 2009

  4. I don’t know Warren’s stance on the issue but it does seem a little unfair to put any blame on him. His hands are tied by bigoted laws.

    @ 6:39 pm on February 12, 2009

  5. Thanks for coming with, S!

    @ 6:43 pm on February 12, 2009

  6. Hi everyone! Since it’s probably a safe bet that most of you voted for me, i thought i’d drop by and remind everyone that i’m against gay marriage. Have a great day!

    @ 7:30 pm on February 12, 2009

  7. Call me crazy, but how is legislating morality jibing with separation of church and state? The solution – which will probably take a Supreme Court ruling – is to take marriage out of the government. Everyone – hetero or gay – applies for a license for a civil union. Marriages are performed by churches, and it’s up to each church to decide whether they will have ceremonies for all, some, or none.

    That being said, I understand the sentiment, but I don’t believe putting a civil servant on the spot is the answer. For one, if he had decided to go ahead and grant the license, they still would not be married – Texas law does not recognize it. It would be like someone giving an 9-year-old a driver’s license. Does he have the piece of paper? Sure. But it still makes him ineligible to drive, because it is against the law for children to be behind the wheel.

    @ 7:32 pm on February 12, 2009

  8. Thank you Barack!

    @ 7:37 pm on February 12, 2009

  9. I say let the gays Marry!

    @ 8:43 pm on February 12, 2009

  10. “What would you have done 50 years ago if a white man and a black woman came in trying to get a marriage license?” Does this mean that 50 years ago a black woman was the equivalent of a gay man today or is a lesbian today the equivalent of a black man 50 years ago? Why are blacks always used to try to convey the gay message? Is race really the equivalent of sexual preference? Why is it considered bigoted to expect a man and a woman to get married? Why is it …….

    @ 10:16 pm on February 12, 2009

  11. It’s not sexual preference, it’s sexual orientation. A straight guy prefers to be with a woman just as much as I prefer to be with a man.

    And no one has ever said that it is bigoted to expect a man and woman to get married. EXPECTING a man or a woman to get married to someone of the opposite sex is heterosexist. Bigoted is a fervent opposition to equality for LGBT people, amongst others.

    @ 11:06 pm on February 12, 2009

  12. Gays and lesbians should be allowed to be jsut as miserable as the rest of us.

    @ 2:30 am on February 13, 2009

  13. If Rose wants a wife, she can take mine…please. Bada Boom!

    @ 8:19 am on February 13, 2009

  14. While Obama has said he’s against gay marriage–and that’s a problem–he has gone out of his way to talk about accepting gays and not fearing them. He’s not all Karl Rove on the issue.

    @ 8:39 am on February 13, 2009

  15. I think the point is that while Obama is not progressive in the issue of gay marriage, he’s not an outright bigot like some of his colleagues across the aisle. And he has said that he will allow gays in the military though until he’s done it, he hasn’t done it.

    @ 8:42 am on February 13, 2009

  16. Why’d the exchange have to end with “spineless coward?” That doesn’t create empathy for the cause. The law is the law. I don’t like it. I’ve got gay friends who want to get married and they can’t. They don’t go take it out on the Bexar County Clerk. Sheesh! What a tool.

    @ 8:49 am on February 13, 2009

  17. Silly people, If you want to change the law you go the the Legislature in Austin, not the Dallas County clerks office.

    @ 9:36 am on February 13, 2009

  18. Gay, straight, whateves, why would anyone want to be married?

    Most of the people I know who are married really don’t like it.

    @ 10:19 am on February 13, 2009

  19. Republicans against gay marriage = bigots

    Barack Obama against gay marriage = not a bigot

    Funny how that works huh?

    @ 10:32 am on February 13, 2009

  20. Obama is FOR civil unions, against DOMA, for ENDA and against DADT. Big difference from the “stance” of the GOP (I’m looking at you Larry Craig). That’s why it’s “funny how that works” on the b-word.

    @ 11:18 am on February 13, 2009

  21. Let me get this straight – Obama DOMA want it in the ENDA from Big DADT and that’s ok.

    @ 11:38 am on February 13, 2009

  22. Hmmm, seems like i remember DOMA and DADT being enacted under Bill Clinton, last i checked, he’s a Democrat. But i’m sure it’s all the fault of those Republicans in congress isn’t it? Bill didn’t want to sign, they forced him to! Oh wait, DADT was enacted in 1993, before Republicans took over congress and was written by Colin Powell who supported…..Barack Obama. And yet they still get the official Not A Bigot™ seal of approval. Like i said, funny how that works.

    @ 12:59 pm on February 13, 2009

  23. Ok Steve, who sponsored DOMA? Who wants a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage? Who trots out anti-gay rhetoric for a wedge issue every election?

    Let me help you. GOP.

    I doubt it’s why he supported Obama, but what is Colin Powell’s stance on DADT these days?

    Are you denying that Obama is gay friendly?

    @ 3:18 pm on February 13, 2009

  24. Here’s the Senate roll call vote on DOMA, there’s 32 Democrats voting in favor of it, including the current VP Joe Biden. If Obama says a stimulus bill that only gets 3 Republican votes is bi-partisan, then a DOMA bill that gets 32 Democrat votes would certainly seem to be bi-partisan. Was Joe Biden a bigot then, or was he fooled by those wascally Wepublicans just like they fooled him on WMD’s? Is he no longer a bigot because Obama has washed away his sins? Are Republicans who support civil unions, but not re-definition of marriage bigots, or just Democrats?

    I have to ask because people who want to re-define marriage seem to just take whatever is the most politically convenient position at the time. In this very thread, not wanting marriage re-defined was called a bigoted position, until it was pointed out that Obama holds that position. Colin Powell? All i can find on his position on DADT is that it should be re-evaluated. What does that mean? Is he for, or against the very thing he wrote? I don’t know, it just sounds like another politically convenient position.

    Is Obama gay friendly? Gays didn’t seem to think so when he invited Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration, but now you say he is. You guys seem to be all over the place.

    @ 4:28 pm on February 13, 2009

  25. Forgot to put the link to the vote in.

    @ 4:29 pm on February 13, 2009

  26. Straight people have ‘re-defined’ divorce, why can’t gay people ‘re-define’ marriage?

    @ 4:36 pm on February 13, 2009

  27. Lawyers ‘re-defined’ divorce.

    @ 4:59 pm on February 13, 2009

  28. I love Dubious Brother’s homoerotic fascination with same-sex marriage. Republicans are too stupid to understand the nuances of President Obama’s position on gay marriages and civil unions.

    But one thing is for sure, gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states in the next 15 years.

    @Steve, DOMA and DADT were like 10 years ago. I love how dumb these posters are who don’t understand that most Democratic office holder’s position on them have evolved since 1996.

    Stop listening to crap AM radio and read the God damned New York Times for once, and get a clue.

    @ 1:34 am on February 14, 2009

  29. MT, can I be straight with you? If I have to read the “God damned New York Times” to get a clue, I prefer to remain clueless.

    @ 2:56 pm on February 14, 2009

  30. @Doubious Brother,

    at least you concede that you are clueless, most conservatives and Republicans are just too stupid to know how clueless they really are.

    Thanks for at least knowing that you don’t know about anything. That is a start.

    @ 10:02 am on February 15, 2009

  31. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY&feature=PlayList&p=0936AD9D36221400&playnext=1&index=15

    It’s All Because the Gays are getting Married

    @ 5:29 pm on February 15, 2009