NYC might have mistakenly married first same-sex couple
Kimbah Nelson and Jason Stenson, both biologically male, married in late May in New York City, thanks to a food stamp card.
It is illegal for gay and lesbian couples to marry in New York, though the state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. But Nelson used a food stamp card for an ID – it listed the gender as “F” – and wore a dress to City Hall, the New York Post reports.
Nelson is transgendered and Stenson does not identify himself as gay. But as they walked out of City Hall together after the ceremony was performed, Stenson said, “I think we just made history.”
Their marriage might be the first official same-sex marriage in New York State – though it might not stay on the books long.
The City Clerk’s office said that the marriage is not legal and they are considering next steps. The office is now requiring a birth certificate as proof of identification for marrriages.
Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry, told the Post that this is “one more illustration of why the New York Senate needs to move quickly to pass the marriage bill and end this discrimination in New York.”
Note: OK, readers – I changed the wording a bit. What do you think?
cute but potentially fraudulent. All the same, may be the wake up call for New York State to pass gay marriage.
What I think is better and not fraudulent
is same-sex couple as a protest doing a mass marrying in in NY State if the state cannot and will not gets it marriage equality act together. Just the legislature a chance to finally do the right thing. If that isn’t the case (say 2 months from now) that the state legislature is serious about NY marriage equality and issuing a time-table for it become effective on such and such a date this year or by early 2010 and no later, then NY same-sex couples might consider attempting to get marriage NY licenses by the thousands throughout the state to protest the lack of action.
Meanwhile let’s speculate about whom we want to replace Obama on the next national election day. If pro-marriage equality candidate Kucinich runs again, I sm throwing my support behind him.
I voted for Obama reluctantly.
they made history alright. the day they go to jail will go down in history.
I commented on this on Topix. the couple was wrong in doing this. AND to top it all off, they could afford to get married, but they live in a shelter? Their priorities are messed up.
The article seems to say that Kimah Nelson is a female identified trans woman, so I find it pretty offensive that the article is titled “Male couple…”
I understand the excitement about this possibly illegal marriage managing to go through, if Kimah is a trans woman then they aren’t a male couple, even though they are both male bodied. Also, the introduction of trans folks, especially trans women, by their “legal” male first names in articles before revealing their chosen names is an oppressive and sensationalizing technique. I see this often in news articles but would have expected something more of 365gay news staff.
It’s awesome that this couple managed to marry, and I’m glad to read about it, but the article needs to be better written.
I second Plover. 365 please find some other way of headlining this.
@Plover, I agree totally. They are not a gay couple at all. A trans woman is not a gay man, that is heterosexist BS which I had hoped I had seen the last of in LGBT circles.
I thought 365gay was a little more progressive than this. But once again, another story that shows how trans people (specifically trans women) are at the bottom of the heap in the apparent queer hierarchy…
This story is just stupid. Sorry — but if one of the partners is transgendered, then it isn’t a same-sex marriage. If he/she is not transgendered, then it is simply fraud.
Clearly it was the intent of this couple to circumvent existing law through fraud. This helps no one — especially the couple involved who leave themselves open to prosecution.
This story doesn’t even deserve space on this site unless my calendar is off and today is April 1st.
Yeah 365,
What @Plover said. You need to get some trans education quickly. You should already know this so why the screwup?
What you write often gets picked up by the straight media and carried along. Get it right and they have a chance of getting it right
Hi JK and Alex,
I would welcome suggestions, honestly. I struggled how to say this this morning – this is a really tricky story. Kimah is not “officially” female – which only matters because it means that this marriage would not be normally legal in NYC – and because it seems like Jason, though he says he’s not gay, also thinks that they “made history.” This is a pretty young couple, and identity is so complicated and individual.
I was trying to step very, very carefully, but seriously – I would love help with a headline that both captures the essence of the story – a gay marriage (gay in the eyes of the City of New York) happened when it wasn’t supposed to.
Wisc. Dem., anything Iowa can do; you guys
can do.
Shane said “they could afford to get married, but they live in a shelter? Their priorities are messed up.”
Straight homeless couples get married all the time – all it costs is $40 for the license. And the article in the Post states that this couple did this to qualify for couples housing. Good for them and best of luck.
Y’all need to start figuring it out and refer to trans people by their chosen name and a gender pronouns. Y’all real disrespectful. It’s like saying they’re not really who they are and that what people label them as is more important than their own identity. It’s just not that hard people, and working as LGBT journalist, too!
I absolutely agree with Plover. I’m suprised and appalled that this article came out from a LGBT source! There is a ‘T’ on there, don’t forget it! It’s offensive to refer to a transgendered person by the pronoun they don’t identify as!
I’ve gone through times of not reading 365 purely because of slip-ups about transgendered people; this isn’t the first time it happened and – until the staff and other LGB people really take the time to become educated on the topic – it won’t be the last.
Sorry, but as a reader I’m going on another sabbatical. Referring to a heterosexual couple, one of whom happens to be transgendered, as a same-sex couple regardless of what the individual’s personal identification is, is disrespectful.
“I was trying to step very, very carefully, but seriously – I would love help with a headline that both captures the essence of the story”
Your headline and article also implies that one is just in drag to get the marriage license. If someone goes by a female name, presents as female and most importantly, identifies as female, then you refer to her as female. Even if she hasn’t been able to change her name or documents; in the long run, that’s irrelevant bureaucracy. I also expected more from 365Gay, especially the editor in chief.
The woman in the story is a woman, not a man. Therefore this being a “same-sex marriage” is only speaking strictly legally.
The trans community is definitely willing to work with anyone to help improve its position in the LGBT community.
However, respect is a two-way street. “Male couple” in the title here in 365gay is definitely not respectful. The Advocate ran a similar story today, in a bit more respectful manner.