02/12/2009
Tucson, Arizona Clerk Grants Marriage License to Lesbian Couple
Sheri and Theresa, a lesbian couple who have been together for two years, were issued a marriage license today at a Freedom to Marry action event in Tucson, Arizona. Two men applied for a license at the same time with a separate clerk but were denied.
Rainbow Foot Soldiers reports: "The male couple were told that if they changed 'female' to 'male' on the form it would be invalid. Questioning the clerk they were told that if they left the female part intact they could issue the license but they would have to swear an oath that 'all information contained on the form is true' and that any incorrect or misleading information would be grounds for perjury. Since they would not commit perjury, the license was denied. Simultaneously a lesbian couple at a separate clerk requested a license and were told that if they swore the oath they would be 'attesting to the information you have provided on the form.' Since they had not written the genders they submitted the form and the license was issued to them. The issuance came as a complete surprise and shock to those assembled and seemed to concern the police present who gathered outside the door to the office and shortly ordered the gathering crowd of supporters and reporters to clear away from the front of the building."
Watch video of the confused crowd gathered outside following the news, AFTER THE JUMP...
So are the genders part of the form already or were they written in, or were the two forms different? This is unclear at the moment, but what is clear is that a same-sex couple walked away with a license...
In November, Arizona voters passed Proposition 102 by a vote of 56% to 44%: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." Same-sex marriage was already prohibited by statute in Arizona.
UPDATE: Via Rainbow Footsoldiers:
"Clerk of Court claims that the couple lied about both being women and that the license was issued as a result of “fraud.” This is not true. Michael and I were being denied a license at the same time two windows away. Originally the couple filled out a form with the same information we did by scratching out the gender portion. Then they returned for a second form that they filled out without the scratch out. Neither appear to be a man and they clearly told the clerk they were both female and she issued the license with her supervisor watching. The actual marriage license application. Note the genders are pre-printed on the form. Also, Marriage Equality USA has consulted a local family lawyer who says that the license application in Pima County is not legal as the statute does not require someone to swear to their gender. Therefore, the license should be valid because the form exceeds the statute laying out how the form should be worded."
Update 2: "There seems to be a great deal of confusion in reports of this event with people claiming variously they wrote their genders and others claiming they found a loophole by leaving their genders blank. Neither is true. In this scan of the actual license application filled out by the male couple you will note that the genders are pre-printed and assigned on the form, although state law does not require this."
Denise Heap of Join the Impact is being interviewed above. More raw video below:
Posted 7:06 PM EST by Andy Towle in Arizona, Gay Marriage, News, Tucson | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Umm, that video is kind of useless. Good for them for getting the license though!
Posted by: Mooney | Feb 12, 2009 8:02:03 PM
So, if the genders are already on the license application, and they swore that everything was accurate, they fraudulently obtained a license. Null.
Posted by: MAJeff | Feb 12, 2009 8:05:51 PM
The forms are pre-printed with genders. However, according to attorneys this is questionable since the AZ statute setting out the wording of the form does NOT specify gender.
So... legal eagles are saying regardless since the form is not in line with the law it doesn't matter. ACLU and Lambda are already looking it over.
BTW: My partner and I were the other couple.
Posted by: Buck | Feb 12, 2009 8:58:16 PM
Oh, sorry about the video, best I had. Michael wasn't sure how to work the camera. :)
Posted by: ghostbuck | Feb 12, 2009 8:59:41 PM
The video shows nothing of what really happened...regardless of who was operating it. I see nothing that really "shows" what was going on. Sorry TOWLEROAD, but this reporting seems kinda bunk to me! Albeit wishful thinking... we will need more to go on for this to become something that matters!
Posted by: Scotty | Feb 12, 2009 10:03:58 PM
Nope to null... The state statute doesn't require you to fill out or attest to your gender. So, they didn't fill it out.
The clerk that approved the license even called over a supervisor to confirm that Sheri & Theresa were correct.
Marriage Equality USA along with the groups aligned with the local chapter of MEUSA are moving forward to defend Sheri & Theresa's right to marry. As should we all.
John Allard, Arizona chapter leader, has been in contact with many other national LGBT rights groups. The hope is to use this loop-hole to get other people marriage licenses and to confirm the validity of Sheri & Theresa's.
Posted by: BadEvan | Feb 12, 2009 11:39:26 PM
Well, if Scotty is wanting video of the actual process she's going to have a long wait. Cameras are forbidden in the courthouse... and believe me they were so freaked by a bunch of gays that they checked pretty closely.
Posted by: ghostbuck | Feb 13, 2009 12:47:24 AM
Well, this is KIND OF exciting in that we may be able to have more and more of these confusing situations in the future, and possibly highlight the ridiculousness of 50 states with 50 different kinds of "marriages" in the "United" States of America.
Should acts of civil disobedience be attempted nationwide, with us demonstrating the NEED TO LIE (perjury) in order to protect our beloved families? Sign me up.
Posted by: John Bisceglia | Feb 13, 2009 1:52:40 AM
Props to Sheri & Theresa for spotting the loop hole and props to the clerk and supervisor that issued the license despite Prop 102 being passed.
Posted by: Wheezy | Feb 13, 2009 10:10:52 AM
Obviously we are not going to get true marriage equality in AZ through a loophole like this.
But I still think it was very valuable. It draws more attention to the fight for marriage equality, and that changes minds. It offers a new perspective to straight couples about how horrible it feels to try to get married and be refused. And when the Jesus Jihad sues to nullify the marriage, they will look mean-spirited and aggressive to the electorate.
This is a great turn of events. Major props to this couple.
Posted by: Pender | Feb 13, 2009 10:34:18 AM
CONGRATS to these brave couples. This is part of how things began to change here in Canada a good 8 years ago - gay couple of 35 years kept inviting the media to watch them get refused for licenses, just to highlight and embarrass the ridiculousness of it.
When I got married 5 years ago in Ontario, the woman issuing the license was delightful and apologized for the word 'bride' saying "Sorry the forms didn't move as fast as reality!"
WISHING YOU THE BEST
.. or a trip to Canada! ;)
Posted by: Strepsi | Feb 13, 2009 10:39:14 AM
The question of perjury comes down to the wording of the oath they were given, or the wording of the form they signed. If the wording was for everything on the form is correct, they may be in jeopardy, but if the wording was everything they entered, then the should have a good case to defend themselves. I just hope they're not placed in a position to have to do so.
I will point out that Prop 102 makes no attempt to legally define just what is a man and what is a woman. I can tell you as a transsexual that this is a big issue for members of my community. However, I think it's something that members of the gay and lesbian communities could try to exploit. Since the law does not define "man" and "woman", what is there to prevent us from applying our own definition to those words? Why can't a couple fill out the form not based on physiological sex or legal sex (since legal sex is not defined), but based instead on the roles each play in their relationship? If put to the test as to the validity of how they filled out the form, one partner can simply say, "I am the man" and the other can say, "I am the woman". They should stay away from saying, "I am a man" and "I am a woman", because that could be interpreted to mean physical or legal sex.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Erica | Feb 13, 2009 11:18:09 AM
Well I do hope that the Lesbian Couple doesn't get in trouble for what happened, but either way I think it made a very bold statement.
Keep pushing for full equality Sheri & Theresa.
Posted by: Philip Cotton | Feb 13, 2009 8:40:51 PM
Talk about a crock! Where is this going to stop. Now we have clerks who can decide whether or not the laws on the books are supposed to be enforced. If all one needs to do to get a license to marry is lie, then perhaps if I don't state on my marriage license that I want to get married to Mason, who happens to be my pet, then we can?
Where is all this going to stop! Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period! Our laws now say so and so does the bible.
Come on people, let's cut out this foolishness and enforce our laws.
And somebody transfer this blind clerk to a more appropriate job. Like a baseball umpire!
Posted by: Disgusted | Feb 16, 2009 3:52:12 AM
It’s been several days since we were issued an Arizona marriage license. There have been accusations flying that we committed perjury and got the license illegally. I am not an attorney, but I am certainly able to read the statutes and understand them. Here is the Arizona marriage license statute ARS 25-121.
25-121. Marriage license; application; affidavit
A. Persons shall not be joined in marriage in this state until a license has been obtained for that purpose from the clerk of the superior court in any county of this state. This subsection does not apply to the conversion of an existing marriage that is valid in this state to a covenant marriage pursuant to section 25-902.
B. Persons who wish to marry shall apply to the clerk of the superior court for a license and shall complete and sign under oath an affidavit provided by the clerk that states each applicant's name, age and residential address. The affidavit shall include a statement by the applicants that they understand that information on sexually transmitted diseases is available from the county health department on request and that these diseases may be transmitted to their unborn children. The applicants shall provide their social security numbers to the clerk separately from the affidavit. The affidavit shall be filed by the clerk who shall then issue to the applicants a license directed to the persons authorized by law to solemnize marriage and shall collect the fee prescribed by section 12-284. The license is sufficient authority for any authorized person to solemnize the marriage. The marriage license shall state that the marriage license expires one year from the date of issuance of the license.
C. Except for release to the department of economic security for the purpose of child support enforcement, the social security number provided to the clerk of the superior court pursuant to subsection B of this section for an applicant's marriage license shall not be released to any person or entity unless the applicant requests in writing that the information be released. The provisions of this subsection shall appear in each application for a marriage license.
No where on the marriage license application form does the applicant write in their gender. You do not circle it, you do not check a box, you do not do anything to indicate your gender. The form is preprinted with gender designations and, none of that matters anyway, because the form goes beyond the scope and language of the law. The law which governs the process of applying for and the issuance of a marriage license in the state of Arizona is the 25-121 statute. No where in this statute is gender indicated much less a specific gender couple dynamic described or required. Read the statute. It says, “Persons who wish to marry shall apply to the clerk of the superior court for a license and shall complete and sign under oath an affidavit provided by the clerk that states each applicant's name, age and residential address.” It goes on to say that “applicants” will provide their social security number to the clerk and that “applicants” understand that information on sexually transmitted diseases is available with the county health department. And guess what….. These are also the things you swear to. You swear that your name is your name, that you have given the clerk your social security number, that your birth date is your birth date, that you are not related to the person you wish to marry, (excuse me, where do you see that in the statute above?) and, that you are aware that information on sexually transmitted diseases is available with the county health department. Please point out in the above statute where the applicant must indicate their gender and swear to it.
Statute ARS 25-101 says that, “Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.” I would venture a guess that “Void” means, if you are married already, by a license from some other state, then you are not married in Arizona. I would venture a guess that “Prohibited” means, you are not allowed to marry a person of the same gender in Arizona. And so, these two statutes would appear inconsistent with each other. The act of “applying for” a marriage license and the act of “marrying” are two separate acts, governed by two separate statutes.
There is nothing in ARS 25-121 (the Marriage License statute) that would indicate that same gendered couples can not apply for a marriage license. And, it appears that there is nothing in that statute which allows the state to deny a same gendered couple a license to marry. And, it would appear that a marriage license, is in fact, a license to marry. However, ARS 25-121 says that marriage is prohibited to same sex couples.
Up to this point, according to the statutes (the laws in Arizona,) as they are written, we have not violated the laws. The question becomes, would we be violating the laws of Arizona if we actually did marry?
The Gay and Lesbian community in Arizona and maybe the G&L communities across the nation are buzzing about this. We certainly feel that we are under spotlight to consummate our marriage. We believe that we do have a duty to our sisters and brothers to stand up at times, to try and right the wrongs of our society and the inequalities which handicap each of us, (which we did do on February 13, 2009 when we walked into the county recorder’s office and applied for a marriage license.) However, we have young children and a duty as parents to protect them in everyway. We are not at this time considering violating 25-101 by getting married.
We ask you, please have faith in our nation’s people, in our courts and in our governments, that these wrongs will be righted, that justice will prevail. Please remember, there was a time when Black Americans where chattel, when American Women and Black Americans were denied the right to vote, when Black Americans and White Americans could not marry (Loving vs. Virginia.) Read the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section 1, will be our salvation.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We will get there. God speed, Shari and Teresa
Posted by: Shari | Feb 16, 2009 11:02:35 PM
cheap flights offers include airline [url=http://wiki.skolelinux.no/NybapyOyhida?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=air-jamaica.txt]air canada jamaica[/url] ought to [url=http://corona.homeunix.net/cx88wiki/AofoveAuhomu?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=air-plane-tickets.txt]air plane tickets[/url] Links did you travel with zoom airlines sometime also cheapflights canada compare tracy fuller spirit airlines you are entering into a lowest
Posted by: gedembesk | Mar 26, 2009 6:31:15 AM