A big congratulations to Feministing friend Nancy Goldstein who, along with her wife, was featured in a NY Times article today about same-sex couples in New York and their marriage rights...
The two women have a pleasant Park Slope apartment, an excitable dog named Juno and a marriage certificate signed by the town clerk of Provincetown, Mass. Ms. [Nancy] Goldstein, 45, and Ms. [Joan] Hilty, 40, were two of the gay and lesbian New Yorkers who rushed to cities and towns in Massachusetts to get married in May 2004, after it became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriages.In the three years since then, the validity of their marriage certificate has been something of a question mark. But Ms. Goldstein and Ms. Hilty learned last week that a judge had ruled that same-sex couples from New York who married in Massachusetts from May 2004 to July 2006 have a legally recognized marriage.
“I got married,� said Ms. Goldstein, a director of an advocacy group for pregnant women. “I did not get civil-unioned. I got married.�
Damn straight (heh) you did. Now the only question is whether or not Nancy will forget all the little people now she's all famous.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Congrats, Nancy!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5320
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I don't have any way of passing my congrats along personally, but I've like to give a laurel... and hardy congratulations to Nancy and Joan, and I promise I'll shut up about horror movies now.
lawyers for the out-of-state couples argued that those who had married in Massachusetts before the New York ruling had valid marriages.
There's something so mind-bendingly weird about a our legal and cultural struggle over same-sex marriage. How is it that we've created a situation in which a few hundred NY same-sex couples, married between the time MA legalized gay marriage and NY ruled against it, ARE married in the eyes of the law . . . but too bad for everyone else.
That's so incoherent that it gives me a headache just thinking about it.
Of course, better if we can make piecemeal progress than no progress or backwards "progress" . . .
Thanks for posting us up, Zuzu. I hope that the Washington Blade reporter will mention what the NYT guy didn't. Joan and I clearly stated our belief that people's civil and human rights should never be tied to their marital status. Everyone deserves all of the goodies that are currently, and wrongly, tied to marriage: access to healthcare, the right to name beneficiaries and designate one's own visitors, guardian, and health care proxy, etc., etc.
Thanks for posting us up. I hope that the Washington Blade reporter will mention what the NYT guy didn't. Joan and I clearly stated our belief that people's civil and human rights should never be tied to their marital status. Everyone deserves all of the goodies that are currently, and wrongly, tied to marriage: access to healthcare, the right to name beneficiaries and designate one's own visitors, guardian, and health care proxy, etc., etc.
Oh great. Now I'm busted for posting the same comment to Feministe and Feministing AND I'm one of those losers who makes up over half the comments on the comment thread re: a post about them.
Oh well. The wife is swell, and I'm lucky to have loving, supportive friends. Love to Joan and to Feministing.
Well done to both of them. :)
Congrats to Nancy, Joan, and all the other couples who got the basic recognition their relationships deserve.
Ugh, I thought sociology taught me to dislike the institution of marriage. I'm so confused.