The Phoenix Network:
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 
Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  This Just In

Questioning the Legality of Straight Marriage

One for the Annuls Dept.
By DEIRDRE FULTON  |  December 4, 2009

0912_annulment_Main
When it comes to supporting gay rights, two straight Boston University grads are putting their marriage where their mouths are. Matthew D'Olimpio and Rachel Murch D'Olimpio, both 29 and now living with their infant son in Brooklyn, have started the "Annul Our Marriage in the Name of Equality" campaign on Facebook; they have 255 members so far.

Discouraged by the defeat of same-sex marriage in Maine this November, and nervous about the outcome of a New York State Senate same-sex-marriage vote that may come before the end of this year, the couple decided to act. If the New York State Senate does not address, or votes down, same-sex marriage before the end of this year, the D'Olimpios will seek to have their marriage officially annulled, on the grounds that it — and all marriages, until same-sex couples can tie the knot, too — is "discriminatory and unconstitutional."

We talked to Matthew via e-mail about what the campaign means to him and his wife, and for their fledgling union.

Why are you embarking on this campaign?
When we got married [in 2007], our legal marriage was almost an afterthought. We did it really in case we had children, to facilitate certain benefits and to ensure certain rights were given to us should one of us get sick or pass away. So, [six months before their private, non-religious, non-governmental marriage commitment ceremony] we decided to go to City Hall and just get married to little fanfare, and we did — with just three witnesses. . . . We had recently moved back to New York from Massachusetts . . . we got married thinking that same-sex marriage was a foregone conclusion. The recent events, in Maine especially, told us that our assumption couldn't be further from the truth — that same-sex marriage and all the civil rights that are associated with it really were at risk of dying out and not passing here in New York. I wasn't going to let that happen without some kind of a fight.

Rachel agreed instantly. The most obvious action that we could think of was having our marriage annulled and letting as many people as we could know what we were doing and why we were doing it, and making a fight through the courts, should we get that far. A public demonstration of support for all couples, gay or straight, in New York and elsewhere.

Why did you choose to pursue an annulment, as opposed to a divorce?
An annulment is a blameless, truly no-fault void of a marriage on the grounds that the circumstances involving the marriage prevent it from being a valid contract. Divorce implies, rightly or wrongly, some kind of failure of a marriage. . . . We only want to nullify the legal contract with the state of New York.

What are the logistical realities of doing this?
We're still trying to figure this out. . . . We've had two lawyers who are friendly to the cause offer some pro-bono counseling should we get to that stage. Essentially, we would have to file a request to annul our marriage at the City Clerk's office, which would almost certainly be rejected outright and immediately. We would then need to challenge the denial in the appropriate court of jurisdiction (which is where our ignorance takes over, and we would begin relying on legal counsel), and should they reject it, continue the appeals process all the way up as high as they'll let us go. We intend to appeal our rejection on the grounds that our marriage is knowingly and actively unconstitutionally discriminatory, and therefore can't be a valid contract.

Related: Change? What change?, Faltering steps forward, Reading is fundamentalist, More more >
  Topics: This Just In , Politics, Culture and Lifestyle, Brooklyn,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
Comments
Re: Questioning the Legality of Straight Marriage
People seem to view gay marriage as a civil right.  What is often left out of the discussions is that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and has been traditionally protected for the sake of the family, a basic building block in any society.  Only very recently have we tried to redefine marriage as something between two consenting people, regardless of sex. The arguments that defend marriage on the basis of higher rate of commitment, or on the basis of greater promiscuity in the gay community are all beside the point.  The real issue at stake is: when a society fails to value the traditional family unit as basic to its existence, it will disintegrate from within.  Gay people will continue to co-habit, and they should be granted basic human rights like anyone else, but "marriage" as traditionally understood through all of history, needs to be respected as it always has been, and preserved.  It does not need redefinition.
By Machisen on 12/02/2009 at 5:04:21
Re: Questioning the Legality of Straight Marriage
First of all, if it is true that "marriage is by definition between a man and a woman" then it's also true that the Declaration of Independence of the United States says that all MEN are created equal. Is that to mean that we should ignore the rights of women? Literalizing OLD law, actual law as well as common law, is exactly what upholds bigotry, inequality and ignorance. The United States law is designed to constantly be updated and re-interpreted. As for family values... really?!?!?! Most of the right-wingers who espouse family values are cheating on their spouses and fucking prostitutes.  Keep your traditions in the privacy of your own home and let those of us who want to create new traditions have the freedom to make progress. The nuclear family is a very modern concept. The concept of family and partnership has been mutable and changed with the times. We went from tribal living to community living to nuclear (dysfunctional) family.  If you truly believe that gay people should be granted basic human rights, then you would support their right to have their partners of 25 years make medical decisions for them, for example, a right only truly afforded to straight married couples. 
By keren1108 on 12/03/2009 at 11:31:46
Re: Questioning the Legality of Straight Marriage
First of all, if it is true that "marriage is by definition between a man and a woman" then it's also true that the Declaration of Independence of the United States says that all MEN are created equal. Is that to mean that we should ignore the rights of women? Literalizing OLD law, actual law as well as common law, is exactly what upholds bigotry, inequality and ignorance. The United States law is designed to constantly be updated and re-interpreted. As for family values... really?!?!?! Most of the right-wingers who espouse family values are cheating on their spouses and fucking prostitutes.  Keep your traditions in the privacy of your own home and let those of us who want to create new traditions have the freedom to make progress. The nuclear family is a very modern concept. The concept of family and partnership has been mutable and changed with the times. We went from tribal living to community living to nuclear (dysfunctional) family.  If you truly believe that gay people should be granted basic human rights, then you would support their right to have their partners of 25 years make medical decisions for them, for example, a right only truly afforded to straight married couples. 
By keren1108 on 12/03/2009 at 11:32:01
Re: Questioning the Legality of Straight Marriage
 I tried to bring on the same movement, but I was calling it divorce...I like anullment better.  I tried to take it a step further though.  Why does marriage need to be defined at all?  My marriage is between who I decide.  The legal issue surrounding marriage could be resolved with 'individual contracts.'For crying out loud, a BUSINESS can "merge" with as many companies as it wants, whenever it wants, and a CONTRACT is all that's needed for that SPECIFIC issue.  Why can't humans operate the same way? I'm not saying that my marriage needs to operate like a business, I'm saying that the LEGALITY of my marriage needs to operate like a CONTRACT.  And the smae goes for anyone.  Whether they are gay, straight, polygamists, or any other variation of anything, it's none of MY or ANYONE ELSE'S business. People should be able to afford themselves ANY LEGAL CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP that they choose.  "Marriage" need only have the definition that the "married" choose to give it.  The 'legal' definition only needs to exist in whatever contract is determined.  I'll sign on for the annullment!
By joanna on 12/06/2009 at 4:14:05

ARTICLES BY DEIRDRE FULTON
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   SEARCHING FOR STEPHEN KING  |  January 13, 2010
    In 1983, Doubleday published yet another book from the increasingly renowned Stephen King, whose Carrie and The Shining (to name just two) were already popular books and movies.
  •   THE ART OF HORROR  |  January 13, 2010
    While Lisa Rogak's Stephen King biography might be labeled "for fans only," it's unclear whether Knowing Darkness: Artists Inspired by Stephen King should carry the same marker.
  •   FRONT ROOM BATTLE GOES TO COURT  |  January 13, 2010
    Next time you're at the Front Room, order that Old Fashioned with extra bitters. There's enough to go around.
  •   HOT + STEAMY  |  January 06, 2010
    "My kingdom for a plate of soup!" a hungry and possibly freezing Anton Chekov wrote in 1890, aboard a Russian steamer crossing the world's oldest lake.
  •   PORTLAND’S WISHES FOR 2010  |  December 30, 2009
    Ah, these fresh moments of the new year, when our hopes and resolutions are unsullied by the rough ravages of time, politics, and the Maine winter.

 See all articles by: DEIRDRE FULTON

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2010 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group