Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
no takebacks

How Come D.C. Marriage Officials Told Mark Reed + Dante Walkup Their Skype Wedding Would Be Valid?

The couple who were physically in Texas while their officiant was in D.C. piped in over Skype during their wedding was told the city wouldn’t recognize their nuptials. So how come the city originally told the couple they would?

Mark Reed and Dante Walkup — who you might recognize from this videotaped blowup where they battled with other queer activists — claim they checked with D.C. officials to make sure their e-marriage would be valid, the Daily Mail reports. But then …

But a letter they received last week from the Superior Court now states their union was invalid, because they and Reverend Sheila Alexander-Reid were not physically present in Washington D.C. It said: ‘The return is invalid because it has come to the attention of the court that the subject contracting parties to the marriage and you, the officiant, did not all personally participate in a marriage ceremony performed within the jurisdictional and territorial limits of the District of Columbia.’ The letter then advises the Walkups to return to D.C. to perform the ceremony again in person if they want their marriage to be considered legal.

The couple claim that when they visited a marriage bureau in D.C. in May to check whether they could get married over Skype, they were told the law only required the officiant to be in the district. Mark told Unfair Park: ‘In good faith, we planned our wedding accordingly because we thought we were talking to the experts.’ He was also angry after the court failed to give them any notice their licence was under review. Dante Reed-Walkup said he believed the decision was politically motivated as a result of the publicity they received. ‘It was based on homophobia or politics or both,’ he said.

Is it an example of a bureaucratic mixup, where two sets of officials told them conflicting things, or actual bias because of their sexuality? Sounds like the latter, says U-Mich law professor Mae Kuykendall: “There was simply no reason for the court to do something like this. … It’s fairly extraordinary for the court to have taken action adverse to Dante and Mark’s interests based on something they read in the paper without advising them they were contemplating doing so.”

By:           Max Simon
On:           Dec 2, 2010
Tagged: , , , , ,
  • 5 Comments
    • JennyQ
      JennyQ

      Who cares?

      Dec 2, 2010 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AndrewW
      AndrewW

      These guys will do anything for attention. They are part of the GetEQUAL tribe of “attention whores.”

      Dec 2, 2010 at 10:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      @AndrewW: I bow to your experience and expertise in the fine art of being an attention whore. Plus, you were able to slip in a dig at GetEqual, so you win extra points!

      Dec 3, 2010 at 12:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Justin
      Justin

      LOL….AndrewW calling someone an “Attention Whore” as he trolls on to another website to get attention. Fortunately….nobody pays attention to him anymore.

      Dec 3, 2010 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robin
      Robin

      I think these guys deserve a lot of credit for blazing a path to victory. Protest or publicity stunts are the only thing that will create our equal rights. I hope this story gets milked for all it’s worth, Mark Reed is one of my heroes along with MLK and Rosa Parks.

      Dec 3, 2010 at 10:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.