Media cover vows of Lawrence couple / LJWorld.com

Archive for Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Media cover vows of Lawrence couple

June 18, 2008

Mike Silverman and Dave Greenbaum made their vows for a worldwide audience.

The two Lawrence residents got married in San Francisco on Tuesday, the first full day that same-sex marriages were allowed in California.

Media from around the world were on hand to cover the ceremony as hundreds of gay couples rushed to the state to get married.

"I do, and we're done," Silverman said on his Web site. "It was an amazing and emotional morning. Dave and I were pronounced legal spouses for life at 9:05 this morning," he said.

The two were filmed earlier by ABC News, and their comments were broadcast on National Public Radio, in addition to being mentioned in numerous print and online stories. Greenbaum, 37, and Silverman, 35, have been together for more than 12 years.

Tumblr
Wordpress
Reddit
Copy and paste the link:

More like this story

Eric Neuteboom 5 years, 10 months ago

Those who live in glass houses, sfjayhawk...

sfjayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

I can always count on a healthy dose of redneck bigotry when reading the LJW message pages. Congratulations to the newlyweds. Enjoy the honeymoon!

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says: "Personal relationships between consenting adults should NOT be the business of government and if two people wish to establish a union, both personal and legal, who is the gov to tell them that they cannot?"I don't disagree.What has that got to do with anything?Nobody, the government or anyone else, has said that their personal relationship is illegal or in any way prohibited. They are the ones who are bringing the government into it. After 12 years of an apparently happy relationship where nobody was bothering them at all, now they want the government to officially condone that relationship.

commuter 5 years, 10 months ago

It is not the lifesyle for me and hopefully not for my children.Good luck.

commuter 5 years, 10 months ago

Hey guys maybe you should contact the tv networks to get a reality show? It seems like you are wanting to draw attention to your lifestyle. I am waiting for the polygimist (?) to want their marriages leagal also and have their own reality show.

Oracle_of_Rhode 5 years, 10 months ago

Congratulations, guys. I hope that we aren't too mean spirited to recognize your legal and emotional bond here in Kansas. After all, the "pursuit of happiness" is one of the "unalienable rights" of people enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, along with "life" and "liberty."

commuter 5 years, 10 months ago

And this is news? I think it is time to move on. Good luck. As of right now in KS, your "marriage" isn't valid, if you won't it to be legal, move to Cali.

TopJayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

The bans on same sex marriage came about because of the full faith and credit challenges they knew would be coming from the Massachusets, and the California laws that they also knew would be, or had already (in the case of Mass.) came along. All of this is predictable, and the court challenges will be interesting.

Marion Lynn 5 years, 10 months ago

Yep, the marriage will be invalidated for sure but that is not the point.The point is that while the law was in effect, the marriage was performed.Now I don't give a Tinker's Dmn about marriage and cannot imagine why any two people would want to so unite, considering all the legal ramifications but Hey!; it ain't my deal.A blow has been struck for civil rights and that's what it's all about.Personal relationships between consenting adults should NOT* be the business of government and if two people wish to establish a union, both personal and legal, who is the gov to tell them that they cannot?Let's not go down the "separation of church and state' road, as most of you don't understand what that clause is really about and it doesn't apply, so instead let's look at the reality.This whole anti-gay/bi/les/tgd thing is about nothing but homophobia.In other words, some people have a problem with people being who they are so they want to have laws which prohibit people from being themselves.I am reminded of that poster from the 60s and 70s; the tag line of which was, "God Don't Make No Mistakes".People who oppose the union of any two persons are people who live a fear-based existence and do not have the right to impose that fear on others.

i_tching 5 years, 10 months ago

A man cannot marry another man, gay or otherwise. But a woman can. Why do women have these special rights?

notajayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

First, for all those who think the full faith and credit clause will force states to recognize California same-sex marriages, anyone care to explain why Massachusetts' aren't recognized anywhere else?Second, I really wish people would stop throwing around Loving v. Virginia. There is a fundamental difference between a ban on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage.If you ban interracial marriage, you are limiting two different groups (actually more than two) to two separate and different 'pools' of available marriage candidates. I.e., black men can only marry black women and white men can only marry white women.With a ban on same-sex marriage, everyone is limited to the same 'pool' of available partners. Whether gay or straight, men can marry any woman, whether gay or straight a woman can marry any man.The Supreme Court ruled you can't make white men use one restroom and black men use a different one, but it's perfectly legal to say all men have to use the men's room and not the ladies' room.Now, it may seem discriminatory because one group doesn't get to marry the person they want to, but there's nothing in Loving, or in the Constitution, or in any court ruling (or even in any argument made in those rulings), or any law, that says anyone has any right to marry a specific person.A gay man can't marry another man. Neither can I. That's not in and of itself discriminatory, and the fact that I don't want to marry a man and the gay man may want to is completely irrelevent; a helmet law is not discriminatory against motorcycle riders who don't want to wear one because they're somehow different than people who do.

bearded_gnome 5 years, 10 months ago

one small fly in the ointment missed by all above posters. the amendment will pass in november, and even this marriage will not be legally recognized in california, read the wording. the california DOMA was tossed because of activist judges and does not represent some will of the california electorate, which passed it by better than 60%.

JLoh21 5 years, 10 months ago

To paraphrase obama, "Lawrence liberals are bitter people clinging to abortion and queers."

JLoh21 5 years, 10 months ago

Divorce lawyers must be delighted that queers can now marry as per the LPR and the CPR.

EXks 5 years, 10 months ago

Congrats to Mike & Dave. There was also a SF female couple who have been together for 55, that's FIFTY FIVE years! One is 87, in a wheel chair and the other 84. They were the first couple to become legally married under CA. law. BTW, that couple has been together almost twice the number of years as my hetero parents, (they divoreced after 27 years) and almost as long as my grandparents...they were together (married) for 57 years, only death separated them.

OrangeCat5 5 years, 10 months ago

Congrats to Mike and Dave!

bcoleman 5 years, 10 months ago

I think it's great this couple got more airtime than the Phelp's and made Kansas look great! For the first time I can remember, I've seen the words Kansas and gay in a national story without one word about the Phelp's. That in and of itself is quite an achievement. Way to go guys!

BDub 5 years, 10 months ago

I believe that marriages legal in California will have to be recognized as legal by the other states. Though I'm sure that idea will be challenged, I think the Privileges and Immunities clause of Article 4 and/or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution will ultimately force the states to recognize these parties as legally married. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause

ksdivakat 5 years, 10 months ago

adriennerm ..........thanks for the tip! That definately would have been way before my time, I had no clue that it was illegal.....

GardenMomma 5 years, 10 months ago

What an income tax nightmare!

gr 5 years, 10 months ago

"until the citizens of Kansas unite and embrace equality and liberty for all." At least equality for those who they determine get it.

Tom Shewmon 5 years, 10 months ago

Not much energy at all Brian, it just came to mind and I typed it. Thank you for the feedback though.

adriennerm 5 years, 10 months ago

CONGRATS, I wish you all the happiness in the world.KSDiva- Until 1967 interracial marriages were banned. The landmark case that over-turned this was Loving v. Virginia.

BrianR 5 years, 10 months ago

Wow Shewmon, it must take a lot of energy to sit and think of such inane things to post on the internet. Your 10:12 is arguably one of the most idiotic things I've ever read.

sfjayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

It is pretty sad that loudest voice and most visible personality out of all of Kansas on the issue of same sex marriage is Fred Phelps. His hatred and bigotry really stand out - and will until the citizens of Kansas unite and embrace equality and liberty for all.

ksdivakat 5 years, 10 months ago

I dont recall interracial marriage being banned, but its also possible that Im to young to remember that, so I cant say one way or another.I to, will not give an opinion one way or another, as my curiosity is with the law itself. Since the "domestic registry" here in larryville, what has been the positive actions that have came out of that for a couple who have registered?? Does anyone know??

mr_economy 5 years, 10 months ago

Congrats, guys! Hopefully you'll be around to see the day when your marriage is sanctioned by this once progressive state.Countrygirl, for a hint at how things might go with a constitutional challenge to DOMA, read the majority and concurring opinions from Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated the bigoted Texas statute criminalizing gay sex. In addition to facing very strong 14th Amendment Equal Protection and 15th Amendment Due Process challenge, DOMA seems to most egregiously violate the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. There has been a bit of a wonky history regarding the Supreme Court's application of the Full Faith and Credit Clauses (exceptions have been made for such brilliant ideas as banning interracial marriage), but I think much of the Court's bigotry has disappeared in the past few decades. Just looking at the difference between the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, overturned by Lawrence v. Texas, illustrates how far the social and political atmosphere has evolved in the past 22 years.Bottom line: just as courts in this nation once sanctioned bans on interracial marriage, and just as there was extraordinary backlash when these marriages were first allowed, you'll see a flash of bigotry followed by a slow-but-steady dropping off in numbers who oppose gay marriage. Remember, the main defense of those who opposed interracial marriage also came from "the good book".

countrygirl 5 years, 10 months ago

My opinion about same sex marriage has never been mentioned on this thread and it won't because it has nothing to do with what I asked. My question concerned a conflict between state and federal laws. Stick to the subject and avoid name calling. Gives more credibilty to your posts. And for the record, I'd love to be standing beside St. Peter when Phelps tries to get in the pearly gates.

ksdivakat 5 years, 10 months ago

"The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states"...........Wow....just because she threw out the law she has to be friends with phelps?? no wonder this town is called freakville ks!!! geesh!

Dont_Feed_The_Bears 5 years, 10 months ago

Sodomy is what it is no matter how you package it.

Calliope877 5 years, 10 months ago

I hate how some things are legal on a state level but not at a federal level.Marijuana seems to have that same problem in Cali.

sfjayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

Not so sure that DOMA has been tested in front of any federal court yet, and I believe that when it is, it will be invalidated (14th amendment). Also, if you read the whole text of the DOMA - you will see that it does not prohibit individual states from recognizing same sex marriages whatsoever. You may also want to consider that the great Republic of California also had a DOMA - and that was invalidated by the state supreme court because, well - Californians believe in equal protection and due process under law for all citizens. Even your buddy Fred Phelps gets equal protection and due process in California.

countrygirl 5 years, 10 months ago

You may want to read up the Defense of Marriage Act.The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. Â§ 7 and 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1738C. The law has two effects:No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

sfjayhawk 5 years, 10 months ago

Countrygirl, in this, case there is no Federal law at all regarding same sex marriage. In case you missed the bill of rights section in all those government classes, you may want to brush up on the 10th amendment -"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"Congratulations Mike and Dave!

affreca 5 years, 10 months ago

Congrats, Mike and Dave!

blue73harley 5 years, 10 months ago

Ditto the best wishes!

simplyamazed 5 years, 10 months ago

To Mike & Dave- I do not personally know either of you but have followed this story since it first appeared in LJW. I think it is wonderful that you two have the opportunity to share your love and be united in marriage! I hope that some time soon those that aren't as fortunate and can't make the trip will have the same rights to show a profession of love and commitment to each other in the State of Kansas or somewhere close. I commend both of you for being brave and taking the road less traveled to set a path for others. Best wishes and congratulations from my family to yours!

countrygirl 5 years, 10 months ago

I'm still confused on how a state law can be in conflict with a federal law and still be allowed to stand. Or did I miss something in government class all those years ago?

Tom Shewmon 5 years, 10 months ago

The liberal media has a busy agenda this year. Hard to see why Leonard Pitts is crying about 10% of his company's workforce being let go? They should be hiring, not firing. Our liberal educators can not teach little 7 and 8 year-old kids how to write and add and subtract, but they can teach them about homosexuality.

ClaroAtaxia 5 years, 10 months ago

craigers is right, federally they will not be recognized! Should have read the last paragraph in the link I provided! lol

ljwatcher 5 years, 10 months ago

"autie (Anonymous) says: You go boys!! Good luck. Now, do we really need to hear from the homophobes this morning? I'm sure we will at some point."Says the heterophobe, Christianphobe, etc.People can believe in anything they desire. This doesn't make them "phobic". Some people are (phobic), but don't lump everyone into one category. People have the right to feel that same sex marriage is good, or bad, based upon their own beliefs. Let's not judge either way.It seems like your comment was the first negative one today. You should have just let it go with a congratulations to both.

ClaroAtaxia 5 years, 10 months ago

madmike,It is uncharted legal territory. I believe federally they will be recognised (taxes, etc.), but whether or not our bigoted state government will has yet to be seen.Here is a story I found that addresses your question: http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=316858

craigers 5 years, 10 months ago

From what I understand madmike is that this marriage is only legally recognized in California. The example I heard was that California would allow them to file taxes jointly, but since the Federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriages that the couple would have to file separately. My only guess is that it would be the same in Kansas. I may be wrong though...