Another anti-gay measure filed in TX Legislature

Rep. Paul Workman

Fortunately, it’s just a meaningless, piece-of-crap concurrent resolution that isn’t worth the piece of paper it’s written on.

Rep. Paul Workman, R-Travis County, today filed HCR 110, which would urge President Barack Obama to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. The text of the resolution is not yet available on the Legislature’s website, but it sounds pretty self-explanatory. Obama’s administration, of course, has announced that it will no longer defend a section of DOMA in federal court because it’s unconstitutional. And while Workman’s resolution may be likely to pass, the Obama administration certainly isn’t going to pay it any attention. As such, it’s clearly just an attempt to score political points on the part of Workman and others who support it. Let’s just hope it’s not a sign of things to come as this year’s session proceeds. Last week, State Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, filed a bill that would create a loophole for the Attorney General to block same-sex divorces. Although the main bill-filing deadline has passed, there’s always the danger of amendments.

If you’d like to tell Workman what you think of his resolution, you can e-mail him by going here, and the phone number for his Capitol office is 512-463-0652.

UPDATE: Here’s the full text:

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, President Barack Obama took an oath to “preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” but on
February 23, 2011, he instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to
stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage
Act; and
WHEREAS, The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was passed in
1996 with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and
signed into law by then president Bill Clinton; DOMA consists of two
core provisions: it defines the words “marriage,” “spouse,”
“husband,” and “wife” wherever they appear in the U.S. Code as
referring only to the union of a man and a woman, and it defends the
right of each state to reject the redefinition of marriage that has
occurred in a handful of other states as a result of state court
decisions or legislation; and
WHEREAS, Nearly 40 states have enacted laws defending the
institution of marriage, and 31 have embraced traditional marriage
in their constitutions; the Texas Defense of Marriage Act was
signed by the governor in 2003, and the statute was solidified with
a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a
man and a woman, which was approved by voters in November 2005; and
WHEREAS, The constitutional role of the president of the
United States is to execute the laws, not adjudicate them; it is
well-established policy of the U.S. Department of Justice to defend
a federal statute unless no reasonable argument can be made in its
defense, but instead President Obama has unilaterally decided that
DOMA is unconstitutional; the constitutionality of this law should
be determined by the courts, not by the executive branch; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas
hereby respectfully urge the president of the United States to
order the U.S. Department of Justice to defend the
constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; and, be it
further
RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward an
official copy of this resolution to the president of the United
States.

—  John Wright

Officials in Washington, D.C. declare e-marriage invalid

Reed-Walkup says he and his husband are exploring legal options, will withdraw complaint against DMN over announcement for now

John Wright  |  wright@dallasvoice.com

Mark Reed-Walkup and Dante Walkup

A gay Dallas couple’s highly publicized Skype wedding has been declared invalid by a court in Washington, D.C.

Mark Reed-Walkup said he and his partner of 10 years, Dante Walkup, were “extremely disappointed” to receive a letter Friday, Nov. 26 from the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. The letter stated that thecouple’s marriage couldn’t be certified or registered because all parties weren’t physically present for the ceremony.

Reed-Walkup said the letter came as a surprise because a supervisor in the clerk’s office told the couple prior to the wedding that nothing in D.C. law would prohibit what is known as an e-marriage.

The couple held the ceremony at the W-Dallas Victory hotel, and it was officiated via Skype from the nation’s capital, where same-sex marriage is legal.

“It was extremely disappointing. We were very depressed on Friday,” Reed-Walkup said Monday. “We felt like we had covered our bases, and all of the media out there was agreeing. No one was saying what we did wasn’t legal, so we felt very confident that we had succeeded, and so it really was a kick in the stomach and it hurt. Having that piece of paper that says you’re legally married really means a lot to a couple, at least it did to us. It made a stronger emotional bond that we didn’t expect. That same emotional bond that we felt strengthened our relationship was taken away on Friday.”

Reed-Walkup said he believes someone must have complained about the marriage to D.C. officials after reading media reports about the Skype wedding, which has made international news in recent weeks. But Reed-Walkup said he thinks it’s unfair that the couple wasn’t notified the court was reviewing the matter until they received a copy of the letter.

“I can only speculate that there was somebody out there motivated by homophobia or politics or both that wanted to see this marriage annulled and prevent other couples from pursuing it,” Reed-Walkup said.

“We’re going to be talking to legal counsel to see what our options are,” he added. “If we feel like we have a strong case based on the information that we received when we applied for our license, we’ll pursue it legally. But if it’s not a strong case, we’re not going to waste time and resources. We’ll just take a quick trip to D.C., have her [the officiant] marry us in the airport, and go back to Dallas. We will get eventually married one way or the other through Washington, D.C.”

Reed-Walkup said the couple has also withdrawn a discrimination complaint it filed last week against The Dallas Morning News for refusing to publish its wedding announcement.

“Right now legally we don’t have a legal marriage, so we felt we could no longer pursue the case with The Dallas Morning News until we get this resolved,” he said. “Once we do, we will be back at trying to change the policy with regard to the publication of same-sex weddings.”

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition December 3, 2010.

—  Kevin Thomas

UPDATE: Gay Dallas couple considers legal action after D.C. court declares Skype wedding invalid

Mark Reed-Walkup, left, and Dante Walkup

A gay Dallas couple’s highly publicized Skype wedding has been declared invalid by a court in Washington, D.C., Instant Tea confirmed Monday afternoon.

Mark Reed-Walkup said he and his partner of 10 years, Dante Walkup, were “extremely disappointed” to receive a letter Friday from the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. The letter, shown below, states that the couple’s marriage couldn’t be certified or registered because all parties weren’t physically present for the ceremony.

Reed-Walkup said the letter came as a surprise because a supervisor in the clerk’s office told the couple prior to the wedding that nothing in D.C. law would prohibit what is known as an e-marriage. The couple held the ceremony at the W-Dallas Victory hotel, and it was officiated via Skype from the nation’s capital, where same-sex marriage is legal.

“It was extremely disappointing. We were very depressed on Friday,” Reed-Walkup told Instant Tea on Monday. “We felt like we had covered our bases, and all of the media out there was agreeing. No one was saying what we did wasn’t legal, so we felt very confident that we had succeeded, and so it really was a kick in the stomach and it hurt. Having that piece of paper that says you’re legally married really means a lot to a couple, at least it did to us. It made a stronger emotional bond that we didn’t expect. That same emotional bond that we felt strengthened our relationship was take away on Friday.”

Reed-Walkup said he believes someone must have complained about the marriage to D.C. officials after reading media reports about the Skype wedding, which has made international news in recent weeks. But Reed-Walkup said he thinks it’s unfair that the couple wasn’t notified the court was reviewing the matter until they received a copy of the letter.

“I can only speculate that there was somebody out there motivated by homophobia or politics or both that wanted to see this marriage annulled and prevent other couples from pursuing it,” Reed-Walkup said.

“We’re going to be talking to legal counsel to see what our options are,” he added. “If we feel like we have a strong case based on the information that we received when we applied for our license, we’ll pursue it legally. But if it’s not a strong case, we’re not going to waste time and resources. We’ll just take a quick trip to D.C., have her [the officiant] marry us in the airport, and go back to Dallas. We will get eventually married one way or the other through Washington, D.C.”

Reed-Walkup said the couple has also withdrawn a discrimination complaint it filed last week against The Dallas Morning News for refusing to publish its wedding announcement.

“Right now legally we don’t have a legal marriage, so we felt we could no longer pursue the case with The Dallas Morning News until we get this resolved,” he said. “Once we do, we will be back at trying to change the policy with regard to the publication of same-sex weddings.”

—  John Wright