Manolo for the Brides

On Tuesday, Vermont became the fourth state in the US to legalize same-sex marriage. The really different thing this time is that Vermont is the first state to do it with a vote of the legislature.

A few days prior to the announcement, the Vermont legislature had voted to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples, but were four short of the number of votes needed to override a veto by the governor. Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the bill on Monday. On Tuesday, several House members switched sides to override the veto. Vermont has no mechanism for a voter referendum to overturn the vote of the legislature.

In addition to this, and on the same day, the D.C. Council voted 12 - 0 to recognize legally performed same-sex marriages from other states. Washington D.C has recognized domestic partnerships created in other states, but this is the first time that same-sex marriages have been recognized by the governing body of the nation’s capitol.

In New Hampshire, the issue of same-sex marriage rights has passed the House and is now awaiting action by the Senate. Maine and New Jersey are also currently arguing the question in their legislatures. Here in my home state of California, the state Supreme Court must issue its ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage by early June.

This is already a significant year for proponents and supporters of marriage equality. My personal hope is that 2009 will become even more significant well before it’s over.

Friday was a big day for supporters of marriage equality. That was the day the Iowa Supreme Court handed down its ruling in a four-year court battle, upholding a lower court decision declaring that a state law banning same sex marriage violates constitutional rights to equal protection.

Iowa lawmakers have “excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification,” the justices wrote.

To issue any other decision, the seven justices said, “would be an abdication of our constitutional duty.”

The county attorney who handled the defense case has said he does not intend to seek a rehearing. That means the only way to change this decision would be a Constitutional amendment. There are no known plans to do that during the current legislative session or the next, and the earliest such an amendment could reach public ballots is 2012.

In the meantime, Iowa same sex couples can expect to be issued marriage licenses as early as April 24.

At a news conference announcing the decision, plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as “my fiance.”

“I never thought I’d be able to say that,” she said, fighting back tears.

Congratulations to Kate and Trish. Save a slice of cake for me.

I have to get a little political…just a little, I promise. And what I’m about to say has nothing to do with the presidential election, thank goodness. I feel like this election has been going on for the last four years. No, I want to talk about California’s Proposition 8, Florida’s Amendment 2, and Arizona’s Proposition 102 and how much they burn my biscuits. In California, polls went back and forth with extremely slim margins, with approval generally leading, and now I read that it looks like it will pass. In Florida and Arizona, it’s a done deal.

That just makes me so sad…sad for the people who recently got married, sad for all the couples that were shut out of the institution of marriage, and sad for the people in my own circle of friends who were planning on getting engaged soon.

While we’re on the subject of “gay marriage,” let me offer up some better ways to protect the so-called sanctity of marriage.

• Work to reduce the number of divorces if you think divorce is bad. Last I checked, us straights are doing waaaaay more to destroy the institution of marriage than the gays ever will. You don’t have to sit idly by. The Beard and I did secular pre-marriage counseling and found it to be an eye-opening experience.
• Teach children that there’s nothing dirty or gross or weird about two people in love, no matter what is in their pants. I think kids know this instinctively, but they learn the opposite as they grow up. Then they’ll spend less time worrying about other people’s marriages and more time thinking about their own.
• There’s still a stigma surrounding marriage counseling — make it normal. Thirty years ago, if you said you were in therapy, people would be shocked. Now everyone and their mother sees a shrink. Let’s bring marriage counseling into the mainstream.
• Finally, civil marriages for all (thanks for the clarification, serenitynow78!). You want to get married in your traditional church? Do it — I myself was married by my family pastor. Just do it after you’ve gone down to city hall and gotten your contractual civil marriage approved by the state. For better or for worse, private institutions can choose who they will marry. The state, however, should not be allowed to discriminate.

I mean, seriously, are couples like the late Del Martin and her wife Phyllis Lyon (above) who were together for FIFTY-EIGHT long years really going to “destroy” marriage? How, exactly? Am I going to be so tempted by the lure of lovely lesbians that I will immediately run out and marry a chick because it’s legal? Will my adamantly straight father magically become gay because homosexuals are granted the right to marry?

Somehow, no one opposed to letting gays get married has ever been able to give me a logical reason why letting them do so will set us on the road to ruin. Odd, that.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled yesterday that same-sex couples have the right to marry. That makes Connecticut the third state (after Massachusetts and California) to decree that gay couples have the same civil rights to marriage as straight couples. Connecticut was the first state to offer civil unions as an alternative for gay and lesbian couples, but the high court has determined now that refusing these couples the right to marriage denies them the financial, social, and emotional benefits of marriage.

The ruling comes as a result of a suit brought by eight same-sex couples in 2004 when they were deinied marriage licenses. The suit stated that the denial of marriage rights violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Yesterday, by a majority of four to three, the court agreed.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Richard N. Palmer, was that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples would lead to separate standards.

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice,” Palmer wrote.

Of course there’s opposition to the ruling. The Family Institute of Connecticut - a political action group that opposes gay marriage - called the ruling “outrageous” in their reaction.

But while Governer M. Jodi Rell disagrees with the ruling, she is not planning to oppose it:

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” she said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success.”

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has said there will be no appeal, and the court’s decision will go into effect on October 28th. State Senator Michael Lawlor goes further. He expects the General Assembly to pass a law codifying the cout’s ruling next year.

“It’s important that both the legislature and the court weigh in,” he said. “The court is saying that it’s a constitutional requirement that marriage should be equally available to gays and straights and the legislature should weigh in saying whether or not it’s constitutionally required, it’s the right thing to do.”

Of course the happiest reaction was that of the plaintiffs in the case who can now see their chance to marry legally not in a hazy future, but just around the corner.

“I can’t believe it. We’re thrilled, we’re absolutely overjoyed. We’re finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married,” said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

After thirty three years of waiting, I can only say it’s about damn time.

That, and I wish them every joy.

I’m not one to cry at weddings, and I’m especially not one to cry at the mere mention of a wedding, but I’ll tell you truly that I did tear up just a little when I saw this photograph.

Forget the fact that it’s such a damn fine photo — lucky celebrities, looking gorgeous 95% of the time — and think about how far things had to advance for us to even be seeing it. Yes, we still have a quite ways to go before gay couples can enjoy all of the advantages of legal matrimony, but pics like this are a testament to the fact that things are moving forward.

Now, for the deets. The 20- person affair took place on the grounds of de Rossi and DeGeneres’ Beverly Hills home. Both brides wore designs by Zac Posen…de Rossi in a beautiful cream and pink halterneck gown, and DeGeneres in a cream ensemble of vest, shirt, and pants. The happy couple sat on pillows while exchanging rings created by Neil Lane before they sat down to an all-vegan meal followed by a vegan red velvet cake.

I wish both of them all of the happiness the world has to offer!

…two gowns, two bouquets, two pretty hairstyles, and two pairs of awesome shoes. It makes me feel just a tad envious of all of the girly lesbian brides out there who are marrying other girly lesbian brides and can ooh and ahh over nuptial frippery with a spouse-to-be who actually gives a damn.

Just look at this stunningly gorgeous photo taken by my friend Oolong (who coincidentally made our kitty cake toppers) at a wedding at Saint Anthony’s Chapel in Holyrood Park. The two brides, Lizzie and Ari, look absolutely smashing, and I can just imagine them having a grand old time picking out dresses and invitations and ribbons for their stem wraps.

Of course, that’s just my brain telling me that the grass simply must be greener on the other side of the nuptial fence, by which I mean the side where there are no FOBs telling future husbands that they should just shut up and get out of the way. I’m sure that the everyday reality is likely far more mundane, with one half of the couple caring more about color schemes than the other on any given day. Then again a study of married gay folks from Vermont revealed that they were generally more satisfied in their relationships than straight folks. Go figure!

The emerging gay wedding demographic has come up quite a bit here at Manolo for the Brides as of late. With the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling — go Cali! — you can bet that there are scads of couples are sprinting toward the altar.

You can also rightly assume that “gay weddings” (a term I really dislike because it’s not a gayyyyyy wedding, it’s just a wedding) are all over the news. Why, just this morning I was knocking back the first latte of the day and listening to NPR when a story came on about Renellie, maker of what they call the world’s first interracial and interchangeable wedding cake toppers.

I do dispute the claim, because there are plenty of topper shops that let you buy figurines individually, whether you want an Asian bride and an Asian groom or an African American bride and a Native American bride or just one white groom because your fiance is a furry and you’re going to pair it with a statue of an anthropomorphic fox.

And yet, I’ve got to hand it to topper designer Rena Puebla for loudly jumping on the same-sex-wedding-friendly vendor bandwagon because my own mother was pretty well ensconced in the proverbial closet not twenty years ago. We’ve come a long way, baby!

The idea for interracial, interchangeable wedding cake toppers sprang fully formed into Puebla’s mind when she, an African American chick engaged to an Asian dude, was unable to find a topper that looked like her and her intended.

“When two people fall in love and become engaged,” she says, “there is so much going on in their lives that the last thing they should have to worry about is the unfamiliar and awkward representation of themselves on the cake.”

So where do I stand on the toppers themselves? I appreciate that Puebla has good intentions, and $70 per couple isn’t entirely unreasonable for a 7″ handpainted figure. I would imagine — though I cannot say for sure — that it must be refreshing to see a statuette of oneself when one has been “left out in the cold” for some time. And maybe, just maybe, same-sex couples in the US have been barred from officially enjoying the traditionalesque wedding for so long that they crave matrimony with all the trimmings.

But really, when it comes right down to it, these toppers are just not all that attractive. I’d much rather see something kooky like two G.I. Joes or something indicative of the couple’s interests like, say, a surfboard and an astrological symbol*. How about some Matchbox cars or two different busts of Tutankhamen or a couple of those cute birds Ann Wood makes?

Heck, if you want a topper that looks like you, get some mini frames, take some cute snapshots, and stick ‘em in the cake. Problem solved!

* I’m looking at you, mom!

Now that the California Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry, actor George Takei (best known as Sulu from original Star Trek and Hiro’s father on the hit series Heroes) has announced plans to marry his partner of twenty-one years, Brad Altman.

The couple, who met while working out in a running club, will marry on September 14, in the Democracy Forum at the Japanese National Museum in Los Angeles.

Altman proposed to Takei in the couple’s kitchen the day after the decision was handed down. Altman went down on one knee. Takei was eating a sandwich at the time. This was a surprise, since Takei was planning on doing the proposing. It’s also not the last surprise Altman had in store.

When they announced the engagement, a reporter asked what the grooms would wear for the ceremony. Altman said both would wear white tuxedoes, which seemed to catch Takei a bit off-guard. His response?

“Well, now that you’ve announced it on the air, I guess it’s settled.”

Ceremony details released thus far include the fact that Takei’s Star Trek alumni friends Walter Koenig (Chekov) and Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) will both be in the wedding party and Leonard Nimoy (Spock) will be in attendance. William Shatner (Captain Kirk), however, is not invited.

George, Brad, I know it’s probably been said far too many times already, but this long-time Trekkie just has to say it: Live Long and Prosper!