Welcome, Jimmy… and welcome freedom
Today, in Flagstaff, Arizona, the sun is shining and the air is clean and clear.
And the family of The Legal Genealogist is gathered here to watch a beloved niece, Katya, walk down the aisle and join in matrimony with the love of her life, Jimmy.
It is a wonderful, joyful event and even thinking about it brings a smile to all of our faces.
Katya is the youngest child of my brother Paul and his wife Nadine, and their only daughter. Her three older brothers are here to see her marry today, even her brother Rudi who lives in Australia. Jimmy is a talented photographer and sweet guy who loves Katya to distraction.
In many ways, Katya and Jimmy are polar opposites. Fair and dark. German and Russian on one side, Irish and Korean on the other. Even vegetarian and omnivore. And yet in so many ways, it’s a perfect match.
And it’s a match we are so happy to be here to witness.
Yet — without wanting to take anything away from the joy of welcoming Jimmy to our family today — we are all riveted on events so many miles to the east where, yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States by the narrowest of margins gave equal rights to other members of our family.
Where, yesterday, in a 5-to-4 decision, it said that another of my nieces can live her life freely and openly without legal discrimination by the federal government or the government of any state where she and her dearly loved partner choose to live.
Where, yesterday, it said that my niece and her partner have the same rights that Katya and Jimmy have. Like file a joint income tax return. Be the beneficiary of each other’s Social Security benefits or pension benefits. Make medical decisions for each other if the need arises.
Where, yesterday, it said that my niece and her partner can marry — legally — anywhere in the United States.
To me, these rights never should have been considered gay rights. They’re human rights. Rights of people who have faces. And names. Of friends, of colleagues, and of many I love with all my heart. People like my niece and her partner, whose faces and names I still decline to use online because they are what they are, two women who love each other in a country where, even after the Court’s decision yesterday, their lives will still be difficult and they will still face discrimination for that fact alone.
I cannot and do not accept such discrimination. I cannot and do not understand it. That they find joy in a partner of the same sex is so much less important than that they find joy in a partner.
And I am so proud that, yesterday, this nation has taken such a huge step towards seeing to it that such discrimination will end.
It will not affect Katya and Jimmy in the slightest — nor any other straight couple in the entire world — that her cousin is now legally able to do just what Katya and Jimmy are doing this afternoon. No right is being taken away from Katya and Jimmy in order to give it to her cousin and her partner.
No religious group will be forced to perform marriages it disapproves of; no pastor or rabbi or priest will lose his (or her!) religious freedom. This doesn’t affect religions at all — it’s a change in the way the law treats individuals, not in the way it treats religions.
We do not take away freedom from some by giving legal recognition to the freedom of others.
So my family is doubly warmed today.
By the Arizona sun shining down as we welcome Jimmy to the family and share in the joy of one straight couple.
And by the sun of legal freedom shining down on the joy of another couple miles to the east. A couple that just happens to be gay.
What a wonderful day…
Love wins.
Judy this brought tears to my eyes. You nailed it with “That they find joy in a partner of the same sex is so much less important than that they find joy in a partner.” I have nothing but admiration for anyone, straight or gay, who can commit to and sustain a life long relationship.
You and me both, Nan! Anyone who can find a lifetime of love — go for it!
Thank you Judy! Very well said. I know there are a lot of people who disagree with this decision and I respect that. The tide of support has turned, and I hope that more people come to realize that this doesn’t hurt anyone. It just allows millions of law-abiding American citizens to share in the same rights and responsibilities that others have and take for granted. That is not a bad thing.
Oh Yes!! Love Wins!!
Beautifully written and so true, Judy! I celebrate with you – for Katya and Jimmie and for your niece and her partner. For all couples who will be treated equally by our government, regardless of race, religion or sex. They, and we who love them, have waited for this day.
Love wins.
What a wonderful, heart-warming tribute. Thank you Judy!
As always, so beautifully said!
Beautifully written and thank you for having the courage to write it.
Stealing a portion of Thomas Jefferson’s quote “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others”. Another part of the quote I will hijack and apply to our society… “But it does me no injury for my neighbour to marry and pursue happiness in their own way. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Beautifully written. Love is love. And love wins! I am so happy that your niece and my friends may now legally marry anywhere in our country. There is still much to fight for until they enjoy the same rights and acceptance as my love and I, and we will continue to do so. But today I’m so very happy!
Congratulations, Judy, to your whole family as you welcome Jimmy as Katya’s husband today. Your tribute to them brought tears. And congratulations to your other niece that she now lives in a country where she and her partner are free to marry, should they choose, the one their heart has chosen. Your tribute to them brought tears, too, as did every good thing I heard yesterday about the Supreme Court decision. This human right should never have been denied.
I live in Washington, a state which not long ago became the first to approve same-sex marriage by initiative. That means the citizens, not the legislature, not a court, chose to allow this human right. Last year I had the privilege of attending a friend’s wedding to his partner of 18 years. That’s commitment, and many of us were in tears, even as we laughed with them at their reception. I’m also a minister, and would be honored to be asked to perform a same-sex marriage. Love wins!
Judy, well said and I agree completely. I am not a big fan of Mr. Obama but I thought his speech yesterday was one of his best–heartfelt and Presidential. Love Wins. It was great.
That all said, I am wondering if the Legal Genealogist thinks the other shoe has yet to drop? You say nothing forces a particular church or religion to perform a sex wedding. but in wake of the Christian Pizzaria debacle in Indiana, I wonder if such suits won’t be forthcoming to force churches or businesses to go along with the new right? This could easily lead us into whether or not churches ought to have tax exempt status in the first place. I know, these are heady issues and maybe I am borrowing trouble, but those were some of the things I wondered about now that this particular hurdle is past us.
I wish we had edit features here. I obviously meant to type “same sex” wedding.
A church, no. Its internal rules remain its internal rules as long as it isn’t trying to act in a way that violates a broader law (for example, claiming a religious right to conduct, say, child sacrifices). A business, sure, and any business that holds itself out as open to the public should be required to be just that: open to the public, and not just that part of the public it thinks it agrees with.
“No religious group will be forced to perform marriages it disapproves of; no pastor or rabbi or priest will lose his (or her!) religious freedom. This doesn’t affect religions at all — it’s a change in the way the law treats individuals, not in the way it treats religions.”
You’re kidding, right? Have you not heard of Sweet Cakes by Melissa?
Maybe if you’re a Muslim, no one will have the temerity to take you to court for refusing to accept gay marriage. Otherwise, if you have religious objections to gay marriage, you’ll have to keep your religion in the closet. Sure, conservative rabbis, priests and pastors who officiate weddings for free might be safe for now, but if you’re a Christian with traditional views who wants to run a business or a school, your First Amendment rights to religious freedom and freedom of association are at risk. Prepare for expensive lawfare.
Don’t pretend like this Supreme Court decision does not come with a price to First Amendment rights and freedom of conscience. This might be a price that many Americans are willing to make other Americans pay — after all, anyone who objects to gay marriage can be dismissed as a hateful bigot — but people who understand the importance of protecting the rights of unpopular groups ought to be concerned about this, instead of pretending there’s nothing for anyone to worry about.
I’m sorry, Jason, but once a person goes into business to serve the public, the law requires that person to serve the public — not that part of the public the business narrowly agrees with. Sweet Cakes by Melissa doesn’t have the right to say which public health inspector can inspect the business premises (even if the inspector is gay) or which public tax examiner can approve or disapprove a tax filing (even if the examiner is gay) or which mail deliverer brings the daily mail (even if the mail deliverer is gay). Nor does that business have the right — once it opens its doors as a business open to the public — to impose its beliefs on its customers. You want to serve only people your church approves of, work for your church. Go out into a public business open to the public, then serve the public. It’s really as simple as that.
Judy, thanks so much for your initial, beautifully written post. I heartily agree. I appreciated what you said and what so many other people have said. It really IS a happy day!
I’d also like to say how very much I appreciate all of your excellent genealogy posts and the new understandings and insights they unfailingly give me. I don’t remember how I discovered your Legal Genealogist email newsletter but I’m glad I did. Thanks for all you do and for sharing your knowledge with us.
Such a beautiful heartfelt post Judy! Couldn’t agree more and I fail to see why anyone should not be able to celebrate their live by marrying. And yet the narrowness of the vote shows how many disagree. Congratulations to Katya and Jimmy and your niece and her loved one.
Yes indeed Love Wins! What a wonderful week to see it the Supreme Court decision and in the response to the tragedy in South Carolina. It certainly renews my hope that maybe, just maybe, we might be able to get back to being a country of people who may not always agree, but don’t hate.
Sandy
P.S. I’m in Mesa, Arizona and wishing I was in Flagstaff for the summer. Not only is it beautiful there, but it’s cooler :)> Also, looking forward to you’re coming here for our our local society next March (when its actually nice).
Judy, you know as well as I do that the law does not require businesses to do everything for everyone. And reasonable people can disagree about where lines should be drawn.
But it takes a strong totalitarian impulse to insist that people should be economically ghettoized for giving more than lip service to a view of marriage that got a man elected to the White House as recently as 7 years ago. So there’s no need to pretend to be “sorry” that businesses are being shut down for standing by their convictions. And the people who harbor great ire for socially conservative Christians are winning their war decisively, so there no reason for anyone to employ sophistry on their behalf in discussions about Sweet Cakes by Melissa and similar cases.
On that note, let’s clarify a few things.
First of all, Sweet Cakes by Melissa doesn’t have the right to say anything to anyone now because Sweet Cakes by Melissa is history. The business was completely destroyed by the “Love Wins” movement. That family’s livelihood has been taken away and the Love Wins movement marches on with no regrets. Game over. Spite wins.
Secondly, argumentum ad absurdum adds nothing of value to this discussion. Sweet Cakes by Melissa wasn’t shut down for turning away public health inspectors, public tax examiners, mail carriers or anyone else who might or might not have been homosexual. Sweet Cakes by Melissa wasn’t shut down for refusing to bake birthday cakes for gay customers or for chasing gay people off of their property or for refusing to hire gay employees. Sweet Cakes by Melissa wasn’t shut down for being hateful or disrespectful to gay people. Sweet Cakes by Melissa did none of those things.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa was shut down for declining to bake a cake with a message that would have conflicted with their deeply held moral values. No one was “imposing” anything on anyone until the Love Wins movement decided that the proprietors of small, family-run business cannot be allowed to quietly opt out of the Love Wins movement.
The punishment was extremely severe and far out of proportion to any perceived slight. A mother and father with five young children lost their business. And when the family set about trying to raise money to pay their $135,000 fine, the Javerts of the Love Wins movement shut that down too.
It takes a vengeful attitude based in ignorance to applaud that outcome or to blithely shrug it off as the cost of doing business in a rigidly intolerant anti-traditionalist culture. I can understand why some people would be annoyed what Sweet Cakes by Melissa did, and I understand how some people might consequently refuse to do business with them, but the malignant antipathy and the brutal legal persecution make the Love Wins movement look absolutely hateful.
Jason, I’m not going to debate this issue. I don’t accept discrimination on any basis, least of which based on religion in a secular environment. Discriminate all you want in your home or your church, but not when it impacts me in a public zone.
I am delighted to see so much support for Judy’s post. That is why I thanked her for her courage for even printing this in this forum.
Jason, I would say with Judy that this is not their church, this is a public place of business which is required to operate under the ant-discrimination policies in place there. They chose not to – now who is rigidly intolerant? And would you be making the same argument if their religion said people of color were immoral? And, yes, Sweet Cake’s was imposing their owner’s values by their refusal. Not the other way around.
This should not even be under discussion – you are trying to make oranges apples.
Our diversity can offer a way to move beyond hate – to know and understand each other and make it easier in this case for gays and lesbians to move beyond the self-hate they have internalized from their families and culture. Maybe even save some lives.
Again, I thank Judy for her being brave enough to share this beautiful story of two loves.
Judy, first of all, I believe that there are certain matters in which neither I nor the government ought involve ourselves.
But I share Jason’s concerns that the government might butt into religion. Ignoring the cake business, there is reason to fear that church/synagogue tax exemptions will be attacked next — unless they practice their religions the way the government tells them to practice them.
It wouldn’t bother me in the least to see the tax system exclude support for purely religious functions. Only when a private group is providing a secular function is there any reason for giving it a tax break.
If ALL religious functions were to lose their tax break, then I would have no problem with it (other than the fact that my own organizations would all of a sudden need to work harder, but so would everyone else’s). But the way the government has been perverted of late, there is good reason to fear that the loss of tax break would be selective, and based upon political inclination as distinct from function. Lois Lerner has already demonstrated the IRS’s propensities to do just that.
Oversight of that sort of discrimination is why we have separation of powers, Ken. You know as well as I do that there’s no way that sort of religious discrimination would withstand a Court challenge.
Judy – beautifully written as always. I find it funny how many people want to squawk and cry that “the sky is falling” just because EVERYONE is going to be treated the same now when it comes to the right to marry who they want. I am a little sad that it has taken America so long to finally live up to the words written in 1776 “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”