Central Florida's First Same-Sex Marriage

The following article was received from U.S. Representative Alan Grayson's most recent involvement to secure equality in the State of Florida. Alan Grayson represents the 9th District of Florida. It was so appealing that I wanted everyone to have a chance to read what wonderful work he is doing for the LGBTQ community. Representative Grayson continues to be a champion and supporter of equality for all. Enjoy .... T. Wade Clegg III  Following decades of forceful advocacy and exhaustive legal battles, marriage equality finally arrived in the State of Florida this week. Pursuant to an equal protection court ruling that went into effect at the end of the day on Jan. 5, I persuaded the Osceola County Commission to direct the Osceola Clerk of the Court to open his doors at 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 6, and license the first same-sex marriages in the history of Central Florida . When desperate right-wing groups urged prosecution - yes, prosecution - of Court Clerks who carried out their Constitutional duties, I obtained a commitment from our local prosecutor that no such prosecutions would take place. And then, at 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 6, I joined the first couple, my friend County Commissioner Cheryl Grieb and her partner of 22 years, as their ring-bearer. As we waited for the clock to strike 12, I made a brief speech that night, and I'd like to share it with you. Feel free to share it with whomever you love - no matter what gender they may be. "We're here tonight for one of the most special of all special occasions. Going back through all of human history, we know that when a couple comes together, it's not just a celebration for them, but at a celebration for the entire community. Tonight we celebrate equality for all. It's bringing people together so that they can be joined in matrimony, and witness two, becoming one. For the first time in Central Florida, that applies to everyone, each one of us. One of the greatest blessings that any elected official could ever possibly give to his constituents is equality. Justice, peace, and equality. Tonight, a friend of a friend texted me, and said that she wasn't going to get married here tonight. But she's glad that she has the right to do that now. And there are a lot of people tonight who are going to get married, and a lot of other people who are joined now, in equal protection under the law. They are no longer second-class citizens, but first-class citizens, like everyone else. Tonight we see the fulfillment of the real American dream. The real American dream is not a house, a job, or a 401(k) plan. The real American Dream is to be all that you can be, no matter what you look like; no matter where you're from; no matter what language you speak; and tonight, no matter whom you love. Everyone is equal tonight. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, and all of us can achieve that sanctity in their relationship, that up until tonight has been limited only to some. Starting tonight, it is now open to all. This is a special time, and we want to recognize the fact that special people have made this a special time. In fact, it took courage to bring us here tonight. I don't think that anyone could have reasonably expected that running for the position of Clerk of the Court would drop one into the maelstrom that we've seen during the past few weeks. Armando Ramirez is a man of courage, a former police officer in New York City, chosen by fate or destiny to be the Clerk of Court and stand here with courage tonight, to carry out these functions. I want to thank the Osceola County Commissioners. I asked them if they would make this possible tonight. They rose to the occasion. They asked the Clerk of Court to open the offices at midnight, to give our people the earliest opportunity to make this happen, the earliest anywhere in the state. Equality under the law starts here in Osceola County tonight, and that is something we can all be proud of. I also want to thank State Attorney Jeff Ashton. When the clouds of litigation started to gather last week, I asked the State Attorney to state clearly that there would be no adverse legal consequences for this man [the Clerk of Courts] to carry out his constitutional duties, and to honor his oath of office, to uphold the constitution, not only of Florida, but the Constitution of the United States. State Attorney Ashton rose to the occasion, and confirmed that. And that's helped to make this evening possible, without conflict. I know that there are some people who see it otherwise. And I ask them: Who are you to judge? The Pope himself asked that question a few weeks ago: "Who am I to judge?" It's a good question for all of us. I would say to those who cherish equality, "tonight is your night." I would say to those who don't cherish equality, who have reservations about this, I would say to them this: "Sometimes the best principle of public policy is for everyone to tend their own garden, and stop judging others." So tonight is a night for everyone to celebrate an enormous accomplishment, an accomplishment for the ages. It's an accomplishment that in some respects echoes the accomplishments of our parents and grandparents, from the civil rights movements in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Tonight, we not only get to see the mountain, we get to be . . . on top of the mountain. Justice, Rep. Alan Grayson"

You Say Your Commitment is Forever?

Then why the procrastination?  Get married! Early last year I received a wedding inquiry from a couple in Virginia who were vague in their request for performing a Virginia wedding.  The inquiry had come directly to me, not through the "contact me info" which is accessed on the home page of my LGBT website. It turned out that the couple was seeking a minister to preform a "commitment" in front of a large audience in an exceptionally lovely setting: however, they were tip-toeing around the fact that they were a same-sex female couple. Had they reached my LGBT website first, they would have known immediately how receptive I am in seeking to accommodate same-sex weddings. In fact when a minister is an ordained Interfaith Minister, rest assured of that person's openness to a complete discussion regarding same-sex and opposite-sex weddings. Not knowing anything about the couple ... I assumed a need to relate details for consideration The inquiry was begun by e-mail, and I responded by e-mail. I explained that beginning in March 2010, when Washington, D.C. became the closest location for a legal same-sex wedding that I had decided not to perform any more commitments, except under special circumstances. I further explained that too much blood, sweat and tears had been devoted to bringing legality into play, and with the opportunity so close in the District of Columbia, we had decided to work with couples to perform their legal wedding in DC, and then with pleasure create a ceremony called a commitment to share with family in Virginia at the location and date chosen. I was surprised by the response The couple indicated that they were not really interested in a "legal" wedding at that time, and would wait until Virginia allowed a same-sex opportunity. I was surprised, especially now that a same-sex couple is afforded so many federal opportunities, not the least being accepted in the tax code when legally married. I also expressed my very real concern regarding how fickle the political winds can change in this country, and Virginia has a way of seeking to cause extreme blow-back and delay. My final thoughts were the following:  If this commitment is real and love exists, make the relationship legal. Jump through a few more hoops and obtain a license either in DC or Maryland. Protect yourselves to the extent possible and begin securing your future for each other now. I added several other thoughts, but I did stress the following I said that I still had a sense that conservative backlash can be potent, causing delays with all kinds of obstacles,  but the one thing which they will find that cannot be overcome is  the reality that within a few years there will be a million strong same-sex legally married couples. I invited their consideration to become a part of that strength and be openly proud. I concluded with the idea that a same-sex couple may even have to consider moving to a gay-friendly state in order to gain further protections, especially if they decide to raise children. "Sometimes you can never go home again; sometimes you may not want to go back, except for visits.  Sometimes home is found by moving forward, knowing that your journey now has an absolute support system to share the adventure." Blessings ... Reverend Elisheva

A Poem for All Seasons Every Day

On page 10 from "Poems that Touch the Heart," Compiled by A.L. Alexander, first published in April 1941 is this memorable lesson. Yes - it is directed from a man who is determined to relate for all listeners a reminder of the importance of giving voice to his loved one. This message rings just as loud for all relationships. Simply substitute a few pronouns and make it apply to the him in your life. Tell Her So  Amid the cares of married strife In spite of toil and business life If you value your dear wife - Tell her so! When days are dark and deeply blue She has her troubles, same as you Show her that your love is true Tell her so! Don't act as if she's past her prime As tho' to please her were a crime If ever you loved her, now's the time - Tell her so! She'll return for each caress A hundred fold of tenderness, Hearts like hers were made to bless; Tell her so! You are hers and hers alone; Well you know she's all your own; Don't wait to carve it on a stone - Tell her so! Never let her heart grow cold Richer beauties will unfold She is worth her weight in gold Tell her so!                                                AUTHOR UNKNOWN If we had one more thing to say, do not delay another day. Happy New Year ... Elisheva and T. Wade

Maryland is Now a Terrific Option

Same-Sex Marriage  opportunity expanded this past year

We experienced another opportune location for same-sex marriages, especially couples from Virginia and West Virginia looking for alternatives.  Most recently we met a couple from West Virginia in Frederick, Maryland. Initially,  they had planned on arranging their ceremony in Washington, DC, but it just so happened that the government shutdown was causing a lot of concerns.  It was just the two of them, no other attendees, and they wanted a personalized wedding, versus a short civil ceremony at the Courthouse. There was considerable flexibility for rearrangement,  and most hotels in Frederick tend to be less costly than in DC and certainly have more vacancies in the middle of the week.

We love to travel to Washington, D.C.  ...  but Maryland has some advantages

  

For same-sex couples who are forced to travel to these two locations from all states south, Maryland has less waiting time with processing a license.  One must wait 48 hours in Maryland, whether being married by an Officer of the Court, or a qualified minister away from the Court.  In DC the minimum waiting time is 3 working days for the Clerk to process the license after application, and then have a ceremony performed by a minister away from the Court. However, if a couple wishes to be married by an Officer of the DC Court, that requires a bit more planning. The minimum waiting time from application to return for pickup of the license is ten (10) days, and also have an appointment for a civil ceremony at the Courthouse.

Whatever is offered next is worth knowing early, but always call the Clerk for late info

The Circuit Court for Frederick County is located at 100 West Patrick Street, Frederick, Maryland 21701. Their hours are 8:30 AM - 4:00 PM Monday-Friday.  We went along with the couple to return their completed license the next morning after an intimate wedding ceremony at the hotel the night before. This was the first time that we had stayed over at a wedding location and personally provided the license, but the couple had a deadline for obtaining a military identification for one partner, so we were happy to delay one night and accompany them to the Clerk's office so they could quickly obtain stamped copies before returning home.  

More things to know regarding Marriage Licenses in Frederick, Maryland

•     $75.00 CASH ONLY (Non-refundable) - No Checks or Credit Cards   
•     You must wait 48 hours before you can be married.  
•     After the 48 hours has passed, the license is valid for 6 months.  
•     License must be used in Frederick County only.  Note: If you obtain a license in another  Maryland County, then you must have the ceremony in that county.  
•     Only one party (partner) must be present to apply.  
• When you apply in person the Clerk's Office requires the following info for both parties  
•     Full names  
•     Current Physical Address  
•     Ages  
•     State or Country of birth (if born outside of the U.S.)  
•     Marital Status - If there have been previous marriages, please supply the month, day, year, county and state of how EACH AND EVERY ONE ended, whether by divorce or death.  
•     Social Security  numbers are mandatory; however, they will not be public record.  
•     And finally - if a couple wants a Civil Ceremony, those are performed between the hours of 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM Monday - Friday. The ceremony fee is $25.00 payable by cash only. No appointments are taken.  There are a number of helpful staff members in the Clerk's Office, but we were served by "Bonnie," just in case you need a contact. The phone number is (301) 600-1964.

 When we enjoy a hotel, we let it be known

The wedding for the aforementioned couple was performed in their hotel suite at the Hilton Garden Inn, 7226 Corporate Court, Frederick, Maryland 21703.  There was adequate room for another half dozen guests, had that been needed; however, this hotel with a nice restaurant and helpful staff, has many expandable first floor meeting rooms which are used for larger weddings with receptions. We talked to Cathy Vargo, Catering & Sales, who was delighted to learn of the wedding, and suggested that interested parties should call or e-mail her for assistance in the future. E-mail cathy.vargo@hilton.com.  Phone (240) 566-1504.  We think you will enjoy the visit to this lodging facility with family and friends, or just as a couple. Frederick, Maryland may  just be the town to start your married life!

Blessings ... Reverends Elisheva and T. Wade Clegg III

News Worth Knowing - an Article from Reuters

By Amanda Becker Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:13pm EDT (Reuters) - The Department of Labor on Wednesday said same-sex couples in legal marriages can participate in employee benefit plans, even if the state they live in does not recognize gay marriage. Same-sex spouses, regardless of where they live, can now participate in the private retirement and healthcare plans overseen by the department's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), the department said in a release. The move comes after the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision in United States v. Windsor, which extended federal benefits to those in same-sex marriages. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez called the ruling a "historic step forward" and said the department would work to implement it in a way providing "maximum protection" for American workers. "By providing greater clarity on how the Supreme Court's decision affects one of the laws we enforce, we are contributing to greater equality and greater protection for America's working families," EBSA Assistant Secretary Phyllis Borzi said. EBSA oversees 701,000 private retirement plans and 2.3 million health plans, according to the department. Perez said in an August email sent to department employees that the agency had begun to prepare its response to the Supreme Court ruling. One of its first determinations was that same-sex couples would be covered by the Family Medical Leave Act. But at that point, Perez did not say whether it would apply to same-sex couples who were legally married in one jurisdiction but who were currently residing in jurisdictions where their marriages were not recognized. Gay rights advocates hailed the department's decision to adopt a "state of celebration" rule, which recognizes all legally married couples regardless of location, in determining eligible benefit plan participants. "We urge Secretary Perez and the Labor Department to push for full legal equality, and re-write the Family Medical Leave Act regulations to adopt these same 'state of celebration' rules so that all married couples - no matter where they live - can have job protections," said Tico Almeida, founder and president of Freedom to Work, a gay rights group, in a statement. (Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Ken Wills)

2nd Annual Charlotttesville Pride Festival

Saturday, September 14, 2013   11-7 p.m.   Lee Park   Visit  CvillePride.org for complete contact info Good Works and Cville Pride go Hand in Hand Reverend Elisheva Clegg, ordained Interfaith Minister and Pastoral Counselor, MA, and a frequent traveler to Washington DC to perform same-sex marriages for LGBT couples, will once again be sharing a tent with Interfaith Humanitarian Sanctum (IHS), the ALL volunteer, non-profit, no stock, non-religious, 501(c)3  public charity which she was instrumental in founding in 2008. Let's be clear: NO ONE IS PAID at the charity. Interfaith Humanitarian Sanctum has a Gold Seal rating on Guidestar as meeting the highest standards for transparency. The charity is also a member of the Center for Nonprofit Excellence (CNE) in Charlottesville.   A Same-Sex couple can never say there was no one to talk to in Charlottesville! Rev. Elisheva has been a consistent advocate for human rights, and especially equality issues for the LGBT community. She and her husband have been supportive members of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for many years. She also offers counseling sessions ( what she calls "tabletop discussions with coffee and pastries") in Charlottesville for couples considering a legal marriage in DC, from which all counseling fees can go directly to the IHS charity. Rev. Elisheva's objectives are clearly about communion, not conversion When asked about any confusion with being under the same tent with the non-religious charity which was solely originated as another safety net for the indigent patients and caregivers who travel for hundreds of  miles to be served at the UVA Medical Center, the former overnight UVA volunteer chaplain said, "All of my ministerial fees, especially for weddings, allow for a sizable portion to be donated by couples to the IHS charity. My married couples and their families continue to assist in funding this worthy effort over the years. One needs eternal friends to assist in such a critically needed charity." A Final Point of Clarification regarding Rev. Elisheva and the public charity   In a recent fund-raising event, a man questioned Rev. Elisheva about the name of the public charity being called "Interfaith,"  which lead him to believe it was a religious organization. She responded  that it was indeed her background as a child born in war-torn Germany and her interfaith ministry which stimulated a desire to promote good works where most needed  She also said that perhaps it would have been more appropriate to have named it "Any Faith and None" or just 'Humanitarian Sanctum' or some such designation; but, ' Interfaith'  is a philosophy of total inclusion, which is dedicated to building bridges ... and it just felt right!"  She also emphasized that IHS is being supported by a real diversity of churches (Unitarian Universalists, Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Jewish, Mormon, etc.), all recognizing that the sole objective of  IHS is to serve the physical needs of  the least able among us.                   So - now you know!  Come celebrate inclusion with us...  September 14th!

Treated Equally by Their Government - Not in Virginia!

"It would be nice if, for once, the Old Dominion didn't have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming." That line above caught our attention in an e-mail from Equality Virginia. Then it lead us to the full article below. We asked Barton Hinkle, writer for the Richmond Times Dispatch, for permission to introduce it to our blog readers. He said yes.   We performed one of the first same-sex marriages just days after approval in Washington, D.C. And we will continue to drive up to the nation's Capitol, presently the closest zone of equality for same-sex marriage. However, it will be such a pleasure when the opportunity comes to Virginia , and those bumper stickers can reflect for everyone that "Virginia is for Lovers."                                                                                                                                     Blessings ... Revs. Elisheva and T. Wade Clegg III Hinkle: Repeal the marriage amendment A. Barton Hinkle bhinkle@timesdispatch.com  Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:00 am Last week's twin Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage have left final disposition of the question to the states. So now would be a good time for Virginia and the 30 others with constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions to start repealing them. Even the most strident social conservatives generally do not dispute the principle animating the drive for same-sex marriage: the "fundamental right of all people," as the Cato Institute put it during litigation over DOMA and California's Proposition 8, "to be treated equally by their government." Governments must not discriminate "based solely on differences that are irrelevant to legitimate governmental objectives." But there is no compelling governmental reason to deny gay couples equal marriage rights or the benefits that attend them. Government's elemental duty consists of protecting individual rights from aggression. Same-sex marriages imperil nobody's rights. They harm no one. Hence opponents have conjured up other rationales. We are told, for instance, that marriage equality somehow threatens "the institution of marriage." This is akin to arguing that letting gay couples open bank accounts threatens the institution of banking. It not only does not follow, it is counterintuitive. Voluminous evidence suggests other social forces have eroded traditional marriage while gay marriage has left it unscathed. Marriage's worst declines occurred in the 1960s and 1970s - long before gay marriage arrived on the scene. And where gay marriage has been legalized, other marriages have not suffered. Massachusetts approved gay marriage a decade ago. Marriage rates there shot up shortly afterward as gay couples wed, and have remained steady since. What's more, in states that have legalized gay marriage, divorce rates have been lower, on average, than before legalization. They also have been lower than the national average. Nationwide, marriage rates are higher among those who tend to support gay marriage - well-to-do college graduates - than among cohorts that support gay marriage less. This shouldn't come as a big surprise. Time and again, social conservatives confronted with imminent progress have predicted dire consequences that never came to pass. Women's suffrage was condemned as an "exceedingly dangerous" experiment that would destroy chivalry, defy God's will, violate biological law, and require "a radical change in human nature of which the world has never given the faintest sign." Women gained the vote - and yet somehow, Western civilization abides. Opponents of integrating the armed forces similarly denounced the notion as an "experiment" that would "cripple our national defense" and "result in ultimate defeat." It didn't. Foes of integrating the schools warned that doing so would ruin "the amicable relations between the white and Negro races," bring "unending violence and strife," and destroy public education. It didn't. Critics of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" warned that letting homosexuals serve openly in the military would threaten "unit cohesion," "break the all-volunteer force," etc. It didn't. Perhaps because of this record, the dwindling cadre that opposes gay marriage is falling back on less empirical arguments: Marriage is for procreation; polygamy's a-comin'; the Bible condemns homosexuality. (True. It also decrees, in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, that a bride who is not a virgin "shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death." Maybe we should look elsewhere for legislative guidance.) As the case against gay marriage has grown weaker, public support for it has grown stronger. Seven years ago, 57 percent of voters approved Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. Today, 56 percent of Virginians think gay marriage should be legal. That is bad news for Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for governor, who remains staunchly opposed to gay marriage in particular and to homosexuality in general, which he considers "intrinsically wrong." It might be better news for Cuccinelli's Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe - if McAuliffe had any discernible principles, or courage to match them. McAuliffe gave tepid, pro-forma applause to last week's Supreme Court decisions but refuses to say whether Virginia should repeal its gay marriage ban. That leaves only Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate, who notes Virginia's sordid history in matters marital: Not until 1967, in the case of Richard and Mildred Loving, was Virginia's ban on interracial marriage overturned. "If it weren't for the courage of the Lovings," Sarvis says, "I might not have been able to marry the woman I love. But today, Virginia still isn't for all lovers. That's why I want to honor the Loving legacy and lead the fight now, in this election, to recognize same-sex marriage in Virginia." The clear trajectory of the issue indicates that same-sex marriage eventually will come to pass, in Virginia and the rest of the country, just as women's suffrage, school desegregation, interracial marriage and all the rest did. It would be nice if, for once, the Old Dominion didn't have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. bhinkle@timesdispatch.com