"Do you, um, I mean, will you, um, do you do a wedding for lesbians?"

[Pacifist Patriot]

My heart went out to this woman. Many of us will never grasp the courage it took for her to make that phone call. While my website doesn't disavow same gender marriage and indeed includes a photograph of a lesbian wedding on one page, I haven't really put anything on it actively marketing to same gender couples. No nefarious reason, it simply isn't recognized by law in this state. Anything I do would be symbolic only....dammit!

She asked me some questions about the California Domestic Partnership Registry and I had to break her heart and tell her that it would be throwing away hard-earned money because the legal protections would not extend to her and her partner here in Florida...dammit!

I'll happily marry committed same gender couples from sun up to sun down if I felt they were entering into the sanctity of marriage with the right intent. In other words, exactly the same way I determine whether or not I will officiate a heterosexual couple's marriage. But because the narrow-minded, threatened, oppressive powers that be have decided one couple's love is more worthy of protection by civil rights than another, I never get to meet with same gender couples, get to know them and make that determination....dammit!

I really despise being in the position of having to break someone's heart.

DAMMIT!

EDITED FOR CLARITY: From the very beginning of my ministry I have presided over symbolic weddings for same gender couples and will always do so. My point is that I find it frustrating and dismaying that they are symbolic and do not provide equal protection under the law.

For those of you who feel I am being unnecessarily judgmental, that's my job and I think I owe it to the couples I marry to start them off with the highest chance of survival for their relationship. I can't in good conscience marry someone who is not ready for the commitment. I assure you if I have any concerns I explore them with the couple to alleviate them if at all possible.

[meegbear]

1. Sometimes you have to stand up to make a stand ...

if it's not gonna be recognized, fine. But what's stopping you from doing it anyways?

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. Nothing. I do symbolic weddings for same gender couples.

Always have, always will. Sorry if my post left the impression that I did not. I just said I don't actively market them on my website. I am going to change that.

[patrice]

3. Good Work. Some symbols are more powerful than others.

It ALL depends upon the persons who are involved.

[Pacifist Patriot]

4. Indeed. Cheers!

[radfringe]

6. a wedding is a ritual used to recognize

a commitment made by one person to the other. It may be symbolic but it means alot to many people.

I am always amused when I hear someone argue against extending laws to include GLBT and they call it special protections or special privileges

They usually don't know what to do when I point out marriage is a special privilege and grants special proctections not afforded to GLBT couples, nor to single people of whatever sexual orientation...

[northzax]

11. the best arguement about special protections

when people say "well, the law doesn't discriminate, any man can marry any woman" well great. my response is that, well, expanding the law to allow men to marry men and women to marry women increases EVERYONE's rights! not only could I marry a woman, as I can now, I could marry a man, too! (of course, I have no desire to marry a man, but then there are a lot of men who have no desire to marry a woman, so it seems equal to me)

[troubleinwinter]

16. Oh. Well, I'm not sure what the question is.

You perform 'symbolic' gay marriages. They are not recognized by the state. You are doing them under a state license that does not apply to the ceremony? You are not a pastor or minister? I am confused.

I attended a gay marriage that was officiated by a minister. The marriage was not recognized by the state, of course, but there was heaps and tons of material about marriage, love, and God joining and blessing. It seemed every bit a marriage to me, not a 'symbolic' marriage. Granted, not one recognized by the state, but genuine and real, not 'symbolic'.

I am not understanding why you cannot use certain words, if you perform a marriage and don't write your state license #. Certainly your clients understand this?

[annabanana]

5. It is so sad that you are put in this position.

Perhaps things will improve during the next four years.

[caseycoon]

7. This just infuriates me.

How can anyone ever believe they have the right to refuse a whole segment of our society the right to marry? I cannot understand their line of thinking. (if you can call it thinking)
I'm glad you do perform symbolic marriages, but it shouldn't have to be that way. I'm sorry you are put in this position. It would drive me nuts!

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. Sadly, because of state law it actually impacts what I can legally say aloud.

I am prohibited by law from making a formal declaration of marriage. I cannot refer to them as spouses or pronounce them married although my denomination recognizes same gender marriage.

This is precisely why I am for civil unions. NOT for same gender couples, for everyone. I think the state should issue civil union licenses and places of worship or independent officiants declare people "joined in matrimony" or whatever they want to call it. The legal protections by the state should be the same for every couple and the symbolism or sacramentalism belong entirely to the couple and their circle of community.

[troubleinwinter]

12. Would you happen to have a link to that law? I'd be interested to read it.

Does it perhaps relate to requirement for marriage license?

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. I'm about to run out for the evening. I'll see what I can dredge up tomorrow.

FL Statutes make my head hurt before too long. All I know is that I got a stern lecture from the County Clerk of Courts when I turned in my first completed marriage license. Any couple (even heterosexual) without a valid marriage license results in my inability to pronounce them "husband and wife," "married," etc. I imagine it has something to do with the presumption of a verbal contract that could be legally challenged. "But she said we were married! Why can't we do XYZ?!"

[troubleinwinter]

15. Interesting.

I'm not sure if you are a pastor or minister or something, registered/certified with the state to perform marriages?

You mention "sanctity of marriage". Are you talking purely about state law? Do you have views abot marriage in the eyes of God? Can you perform marriages without using your 'state license'?

Not challenging at all. Just wondering. Wondering how they can prohibit the use of words if you do not perform a ceremony under the state license (signing papers with license #).

Seems to me if the marriage partners involved regard you as sufficient and acceptable to perform their marriage ceremony (though not recognized by the state), without the use of your license, the state can't control what you do in your life except when using the official license?

[Pacifist Patriot]

17. I am a minister.

I am also a humanist. By the sanctity of marriage I am referring to the depth of commitment on the part of the couple and their regard for one another and their union. That has absolutely nothing to do with the eyes of God OR the state. Paradoxically, I do not believe an officiant has to be present and a couple can commit themselves to one another privately and consider themselves married for all I care. However, when talking about marriage one is usually referring to a public statement a couple wishes to make about the status of their union.

I can perform a wedding ceremony without a license. I personally would consider the couple married. They will not be married according to the law.

As stated below I believe it has to do with contract law, but that's a guess on my part. For all I know it could have to do with the government just getting tetchy about collecting those marriage license fees. I'm willing to bet at some point a divorce, a property settlement, tax write-off, whatever got messy in the courts and the lack of a license but the declaration of marriage in public muddied the water. Seems like a CYA to me.

When I say symbolic I am referring to the fact that the ceremony will not result in a change in legal status. Emotional change is something else entirely.

Hope that helps.

[troubleinwinter]

20. Thanks for explaining this.

The law you posted below surprised me, because it refers to "solemnizing". To MY mind, the act of marriage is as you describe, "depth of commitment on the part of the couple and their regard for one another and their union". THAT is to me, a solemn and deep expression. The law seems to say that "solemnity" is basically the legal pronouncement/acknowledgment?

Clearly, as things stand now, a marriage is not considered "legal" without a license. I don't 'get' why you are not permitted to use words such as "marriage" in the performance of a ceremony, as dictated by the state... it is nuts.

Certainly, people wish to have marriage/wedding ceremonies to share their vows of commitment and love, and celebrate and acknowledge the important step with their loved-ones.

This country is so fucked up. I will NEVER understand how anyone can oppose the joyous acknowledgment of love and commitment by opposing marriage for ALL, equally.

Some years ago, I asked someone who opposed gay marriage, "Which do you see as preferable, a marriage between a nineteen-year old girl and boy that ends in acrimony, resentment and bitterness after two years... or a loving, supportive, committed, life-long, strong marriage between two women?" I shoulda known better. She chose the first. WTF??! To me, it indicates that marriage has no meaning to her, anyway... not much more than a fluffy dress and groomsmen in lavender cummerbunds.

I'm glad you are going to make it more prominent on your website. And we have much work to do to ensure equal rights to all.

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. I have had almost the same conversation you did.

A cousin once removed or second cousin or whatever the relationship is, got married when he and his bride were 18. I personally suspect it was because they were anxious to get in the sack but their repressive religious upbringing engendered a need to marry first. She immediately got pregnant and they were divorced before the baby was six months old amid accusations of abuse.

My conservative relatives know the situation well and one Thanksgiving the topic came up. Why is it always Thanksgiving?

I put that question to them. I asked if they would prefer to see a marriage such as cousin _____ or one in which two women had been together happily celebrating their 50th anniversary? (I had just come from a party at my church at which we were celebrating just that!)

I was appalled when every single one said my cousin's marriage was "preferrable in the eyes of the Lord" and the two women were damned. AAAGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course we are talking about a family that soundly ignored my ordination because it was done by that horrible cult, the Unitarian Universalists.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. Florida Statute 741.08

TITLE XLIII
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
CHAPTER 741
MARRIAGE; DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

741.08 Marriage not to be solemnized without a license.--Before any of the persons named in s. 741.07 shall solemnize any marriage, he or she shall require of the parties a marriage license issued according to the requirements of s. 741.01, and within 10 days after solemnizing the marriage he or she shall make a certificate thereof on the license, and shall transmit the same to the office of the county court judge or clerk of the circuit court from which it issued.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0741/ch0741.htm

[Coexist]

28. what is pathetic is that anyone here who is a notary,can marry men/women

My ex is a boat captain, he marries people at sea.

A friend became a notary so he could marry two of his friends at their favorite campsite, because weddings weren't allowed there.

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. It's often galled me that gay clergy can marry others, but have no right to...

marriage themselves. Talk about a slap in the face!

Yep, anyone with a notary stamp or an on-line ordination can marry people. It's actually one of the most "liberal" states in that regard. What an irony!

[caseycoon]

14. Gee, can't they think of a way to make more unfair? YUCK!

I don't care what they call it, marriage or civil union. It should be exactly the same for all people. I strongly believe in equal rights for all. Not separate but equal, either, like in some states!

[troubleinwinter]

19. I completely agree. Exactly the same for ALL.

[bluedawg12]

27. Fla. is a gruesome State-

Gee what a gruesome f*ck*ng State. And they worry about gay marriage?

Sorry Fla. DU’ers- but I gotta say this.

I was down in central Fla. in December- the news was more horrid by the minute.

Released hard core criminal kills a man the day before and then goes into an office and dowses two innocent women with gasoline ( one was pregnant) and sets them on fire and shoots in the face a man who tried to help the women???

Body parts in bags found in some bayou?

Home invasions galore.

My point:

The (a)moral right, whose politics are guided by scapegoating their way into power, after all what can unite a party more ( viz a viz 1930's Germany) than the glue of common hatred and bigotry?

The slimy hypocrites of the RW power vortex would do much better to address domestic violence, violence against women, children, elderly, animals, nature and people and creatures in general.

The headlines in Orlando were so shocking and nauseating that my freaking ears were bleeding from hearing it–where was the (a)moral majority outrage? No where.

I guess they were busy looking over their b*sh-chen*y photo album, reliving the good old days.

[Pacifist Patriot]

29. I'm not so sure it is any more gruesome here, but it's a fact...

we have an inordinately sensationalist local media. They ranked high in that regard when I first moved here 13 years ago and they've only gotten worse. The violent crime rate in the state has actually decreased steadily, but not that you'd know it from media coverage. They consistently got low marks when compared on the national stage.

I fear more from our republican state legislature and dumbass voters than I do a violent attack.

[Lex]

8. Symbolism is nice, but legal rights extended by the State/Fed are better.

Rights AND obligations, I might add.

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. Very good point.

[troubleinwinter]

21. "obligations"

is something that is never brought up, but can perhaps be useful in discussions with opposition.

If I incur a debt, my spouse is equally obligated by law to repay it.

I cannot go on welfare while unemployed, when my spouse makes $100k per year.

If my spouse's medical insurance covers me, it prevents me from going to the emergency room and leaving the costs to taxpayers, if I cannot pay.

[LeftyMom]

22. You have a good heart.

It's going to take the rest of society some time to catch up to you, unfortunately. :hug:

[Withywindle]

23. OH, do I understand where you're coming from, I think.

I'm not a "professional" in this field and I don't have a web site, but here's my background: I have attained the third degree of initiation in my Wiccan tradition, and that qualifies me to perform marriages, handfastings, and other commitment ceremonies in the eye of our religion, if not the state.

I have performed ceremonies for a handful of same-gender couples (three lesbian, one gay male) over the years - they were all friends and people whose relationships I knew were true.

My tradition has several handfasting options; you can opt to make a commitment for a year and a day, three years, a lifetime, or all eternity. (We believe in reincarnation, so "all eternity" carries punch).

I have handfasted two lesbian couples for all eternity. I wouldn't have done it if I didn't believe with all my soul that they meant it. (It's been a long time. One couple is still together, the other; one member of the couple has, sadly, left this life. She will be back--and she will find her partner again, that's the deal they signed up for.)

When certain politicians say that "marriage" as a "religious institution" "traditionally" means "only a man and a woman" I know that not only do they not respect human rights and equality, they don't really respect religious freedom either.

So, yes, I tell people who might want me to do their ceremony, I cannot give them the blessing of the state. That's not what they come to me for, though. They're not looking for some kind of patron. They're looking for what clergy in my faith does: facilitation, modding, stage direction, ideally blank-faced channelling of the divine. The people I have bound together know that they are together in the eyes of Divinity as they know it, and that's what matters in a spiritual sense, if you're religious. I only resent the fact that SOME denominations only, for SOME pairings only, get to also convey blessings of visitation and inheritance rights and health insurance. Now THAT is the meaning of "separate but equal." I try to share with my friends as much of the water of life as I can. Unfortunately, it's from an inferior drinking fountain for THOSE PEOPLE, legally speaking. Spiritually, though, there is no difference whatsoever.

[bluedawg12]

25. Your heart is in the right place- n/t

[Ellen Forradalom]

26. Bless her for calling you,

Damn the laws that have not kept up with the needs of the people the law is supposed to serve.