Category: Marriage

  • Celebrating 25 Years of Love, Friendship, and Memories

    Celebrating 25 Years of Love, Friendship, and Memories

    As I sit here reflecting on the incredible journey Chris and I have embarked on together, I’m filled with an overwhelming sense of gratitude and love. Today marks our 25th anniversary, a milestone that feels both surreal and incredibly special. From the moment our eyes met, I knew Chris was the one I wanted to build my life with. Our love story has been filled with ups and downs, but through it all, our commitment to each other has only grown stronger.

    Chris has been my rock, my confidant, and my partner in every sense of the word. His unwavering support and love have been the foundation upon which we’ve built our life together.

    As we celebrate 25 years of love, friendship, and memories, I am filled with gratitude for the journey we’ve shared and the adventures that lie ahead. Here’s to many more years of laughter, love, and making memories together. Happy anniversary, husband. You not only mean the world to me, you are my world.

    Photo credit: @traviswalling

  • What Next for Marriage Equality?

    Last year, I posted my submission to the Senate Inquiry to determine if a non-binding marriage plebiscite should be held to determine if marriage equality should be allowed in Australia. The Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee reviewed all the submissions and made its report available in September 2015. While the report contained a number of observations, it also made a recommendation to the parliament of Australia:

    The committee recommends that a bill to amend the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act 1961 to allow for the marriage between two people regardless of their sex is introduced into the Parliament as a matter of urgency, with all parliamentarians being allowed a conscience vote. (more…)

  • Vote on Marriage Equality

    The issue of marriage equality in Australia remains a hot topic. Today, in support of a free vote, I’ve sent the following letter to my local member and each of the Senators for Victoria.

    I am writing to you to urge you to support a free vote on marriage equality in Parliament as soon as possible, and to oppose a costly, divisive and unnecessary plebiscite.

    In the past week, respected accounting and professional services company, PridewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), issued a report showing a plebiscite will cost Australia’s economy approximately $525 million. Of this, PwC indicated that just over $200 million will be the direct costs of holding the vote.

    Even if a plebiscite is held and paid for by the Australian taxpayer, the Australian Parliament will still need to vote on the issue regardless of the outcome. The plebiscite is not binding on any politician, and they can choose to ignore the result of a plebiscite, and several parliamentary leaders have already said the result of the plebiscite will not affect they ultimately will vote.

    Ultimately, my reasons for seeking your support to fulfill your Constitutional obligation are personal.

    I am Australian citizen residing in the United States of America with my husband (an American citizen). We married on March 5, 2013 on our 14th anniversary of being a couple. This year we celebrated our 17th year together (3 of those as a married couple). We chose to marry in Canada due to their progressive laws relating to same-sex marriage. Since the decision of the United States Supreme Court in June 2013, and the impact that this decision had on same-sex marriage across the USA, I am now a Permanent Resident (“Green Card”) based on my marriage.

    Living in the United States, I have not only studied the impact that popular votes on social issues can have on a state and country, but I have been impacted by these since moving here. In November 2005, voters in the the State of Texas approved a Constitutional Amendment to write discrimination into their governing document, by defining marriage as between a man and a woman (similar to the legislative actions of the Australian Parliament under the Howard Government). This impacted me directly as this precluded my husband from providing support for health insurance, it limited my access to my husband if he were to be in hospital and penalized us in the areas of taxation and superannuation. Even though the United States Supreme Court has made its rulings in relation to same-sex marriage (or marriage equality), this discriminating language remains in the Texas Constitution.

    The Australian Constitution does not hold any such language, and section 51 (xxi) of the Constitution of Australia prescribes that marriage is a legislative power given to the Commonwealth Parliament. The federal parliament enacted legislation under this authority to regulate marriage (Marriage Act 1961), and subsequently amended that legislation to limit marriage to between one man and one woman. I’ll remind you that no plebiscite or referendum was conducted to limit the definition of marriage under the Howard Government.

    While some attempts to circumvent this Constitutionally mandated power, the High Court of Australia reiterated the federal parliament’s authority in December 2013, when it ruled:

    “The status of marriage, the social institution which that status reflects, and the rights and obligations which attach to that status never have been, and are not now, immutable. Section 51(xxi) is not to be construed as conferring legislative power on the federal Parliament with respect only to the status of marriage, the institution reflected in that status, or the rights and obligations attached to it, as they stood at federation.”

    As mentioned above, no plebiscite was conducted when the Howard Government amended the Marriage Act in 2004 to define marriage as “exclusive union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” Given that the Commonwealth has already acknowledged that they have the authority to enact legislation relating to marriage, it can only be seen as a tactic to delay efforts to amend the Marriage Act to recognize same-sex marriages.

    I would argue that putting a social justice issue to a popular vote can (and will) have a very negative effect and impact on a society (as can be seen by actions of other countries around the globe). The Australian Psychology Society is opposed to the plebiscite due to the negative impact it will have on same-sex attracted individuals, including youth. Many others, including faith leaders, are also opposed to holding a plebiscite for similar reasons. Even many elected members of the Australian Parliament are opposed to the plebiscite. It is an archaic method to publicly diminish the value of individuals in Australia, as the rhetoric that will evolve during any debate will have a lasting impact regardless of the result.

    If a plebiscite is to be held, then it should be held at the same time as the next federal election. This way voters can express their views not only on this divisive issue, but reward (or punish) the members of the Australian Parliament that have resulted in this wasteful action.

    As an Australian I am ashamed that my country has fallen behind so dramatically on this one issue. Australia remains one of a small number of developed nations that still does not offer this basic human right to all its citizens. Where Australia has been very progressive in the past with laws that include same-sex couples, I now have the dilemma that when my husband and I travelled home for holidays this would change. My fear is real given the recent reports of David Bulmer-Rizzi’s recent death while on his honeymoon with his husband, Marco in South Australia. What an embarrassment for my country!

    Finally, and more importantly, I do not accept that as a married Australian I should be considered a second-class citizen by my government. That is simply not Australian, and it is most definitely not something that I, or any other Australian, deserve. We deserve better from our elected representatives.

    Please, put an end to this wasteful plebiscite. I urge you to support a free vote on marriage equality in Parliament as soon as possible, and to oppose a costly, divisive and unnecessary plebiscite. Pass marriage equality now!

    Sincerely,
    James Nunn

    P.S. For the purposes of Australian documents, I use my mother’s residence in Seymour, Victoria.

  • Submission to Australian Inquiry Relating to Marriage

    I missed the deadline (damn timezones) for submitting my comments relating to the Australian Senate Inquiry, so I decided to post it here.

    Committee Secretary
    Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
    PO Box 6100
    Parliament House
    Canberra ACT 2600

    By email: legcon.sen@aph.gov.au

    Subject: The matter of a popular vote, in the form of a plebiscite or referendum, on the matter of marriage in Australia

    I am writing to you to oppose efforts to put to the Australian people a popular vote, in the form of a plebiscite or referendum (as outlined in the Marriage Equality Plebiscite Bill 2015). The following reasons are provided to support my position.

    1. I am Australian citizen residing in the United States of America with my husband (an American citizen). We married on March 5, 2013 on our 14th anniversary of being a couple. This year we celebrated our 16th year together. We chose to marry in Canada due to their progressive laws relating to same-sex marriage. Since the decision of the United States Supreme Court in June 2013, I am now a holder of a Permanent Resident Card (“Green Card”) based on my marriage.

    2. Section 51 (xxi) of the Constitution of Australia prescribes that marriage is a legislative power given to the Commonwealth Parliament. The federal parliament enacted legislation under this authority to regulate marriage (Marriage Act 1961), and subsequently amended that legislation to limit marriage to between one man and one woman. No plebiscite or referendum was conducted to limit the definition of marriage under the Howard Government.

    3. While some attempts to circumvent this Constitutionally mandated power, the High Court of Australia reiterated the federal parliament’s authority in December 2013, when it ruled:

    “The status of marriage, the social institution which that status reflects, and the rights and obligations which attach to that status never have been, and are not now, immutable. Section 51(xxi) is not to be construed as conferring legislative power on the federal Parliament with respect only to the status of marriage, the institution reflected in that status, or the rights and obligations attached to it, as they stood at federation.”

    4. Simply put, the Constitution gives the power to the Commonwealth parliament to regulate marriage laws. Based on this fact, there is no legal basis for a referendum, as there is nothing to change in the Constitution. If the Australian people were to be asked to delegate this Constitutional authority to the States and Territories, this would require a referendum.

    5. As mentioned above, no plebiscite was conducted when the Howard Government amended the Marriage Act in 2004 to define marriage as “exclusive union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” Given that the Commonwealth has already acknowledged that they have the authority to enact legislation relating to marriage, it can only be seen as a tactic to delay efforts to amend the Marriage Act to recognize same-sex marriages.

    6. Living in the United States, I have not only studied the impact that popular votes on social issues can have on a state and country, but I have been impacted by these since moving here. In November 2005, voters in the the State of Texas approved a Constitutional Amendment to write discrimination into their governing document, by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This impacted me directly as this precluded my husband from providing support for health insurance, it limited my access to my husband if he were to be in hospital and penalized us in the areas of taxation and superannuation. Even though the United States Supreme Court has made its rulings in relation to same-sex marriage (or marriage equality), this discriminating language remains in the Texas Constitution.

    7. I would argue that putting a social justice issue to a popular vote can (and will) have a very negative effect and impact on a society (as can be seen by actions of other countries around the globe). While the champions of this may share that this is the only true way to gauge the support or opposition of the Australian people, this is most likely not the intent. If politicians supporting this measure are really interested in the Australian people’s view, the parliament could approve consideration of a plebiscite to be held concurrently with the next federal election (which would have the benefit of saving a vast amount of public dollars). I believe if given the opportunity to vote for a plebiscite and their representative at the same time, issues like this would no longer need the attention of a Senate Inquiry.

    8. Finally, and more importantly, as an Australian I am ashamed  that my country has fallen behind so dramatically on this one issue. Australia remains one of a small number of  developed nations that still does not offer this basic human right to all its citizens. Where Australia has been very progressive in the past with laws that include same-sex couples, I now have the dilemma that when my husband and I travel home (as we plan to do for the holidays), my relationship status with him changes when we land on Australian shores. I will be considered a second-class citizen compared to others arriving who are also married. That is simply not Australian, and it is most definitely not something that I, or any other Australian, deserve. We deserve better from our elected representatives.

    I urge you to oppose any efforts to move forward with a plebiscite or referendum on this issue. It is not warranted, nor needed, nor the right thing for Australia.

    Sincerely,
    James Nunn

  • Aussie, aussie, aussie … oi! oi! bully!

    Growing up, we lived our life fairly simply. I didn’t realize that at the time, but I’ve come to appreciate that the summers were a time to be outside playing with your friends, reading a good book out in the back yard under the plum trees, and walking to the fish and chip shop for potato cakes and dim sims. Simple.

    Another part of growing up was the lack of bigotry that was evident in our town. I may have been naive and unaware of its existence, but there wasn’t a mentality that we were different from the other kids, or they were different to us. I had friends whose heritage came from Greece, Italy, England, Asia and Indigenous Australia.  Having a different background or cultural genome, didn’t mean that much when you were playing football or other sports with your friends. Unless you were gay (or what others labeled as gay).

    The reality is that when I look back at school photos, I now see those who were different much more clearly, but what stands out to me are the guys who were the bullies. The guys who I feared getting too close to for fear of being attacked, or the guys who made the threats somewhat loudly, but often in whispers as you were held against a fence or a wall. And what I notice is that they appear to be the same: white, academically challenged and – what I now know – full of self loathing.

    I escaped the country, went through some challenges with “finding myself” and realized that being gay was okay, and that I could have a life that resembled normalcy. I didn’t look back, or give much thought to those bullies that I left behind in that town. I do wonder about some of these guys when I hear they have died (it is kind of weird to write that), and their struggles with their own issues (maybe their own sexuality), and whether that was a factor in their decisions to leave this earth; but it is only a fleeting thought. I’ve moved on.

    But today, I am reminded that those bullies still exist, and I cringe a little (well, maybe a lot). What concerns me is that some of these people are in politics, and are in positions to bully a country. “What the hell is he talking about,” some of you may ask.

    Over the past few weeks, there has been an increase in the debate about allowing marriage equality in Australia. In Australia, the federal government “controls” the laws relating to marriage and has the power to make changes to the Marriage Act that would permit the recognition of all marriages (including same-sex marriages) and would permit Australians from marrying the person they love regardless of each other’s gender.

    Unfortunately, the bullies that are in power are ignoring the pleas of the Australian people (between 62% and 70% of Australians support marriage equality). They have the option to allow a vote in the parliament, but they are choosing not too. These bullies are so fearful of something they don’t understand (or agree with) that they want to keep it from everyone. They also threaten their colleagues that if they try to support it, they will be punished.  Let me spell it out B-U-L-L-Y!

    Today, I am in a unique position where my marriage to Chris is fully recognized in every state in the United States, but I’m still a legal stranger in my home country. This reality is too surreal for me to fully comprehend. Sure I am provided many of the legal rights of other married couples, and I used to think that was enough, but it’s not. Not anymore. I’m disappointed in my own country for failing to live up to the standard (of my youth) of “live and let live.” I’m embarrassed that people that I grew up with and were involved with in my young political life are not fighting harder to bring this issue to the floor of the Parliament. If they did, they would win. And that is how you teach a bully a lesson. You take away their power!

  • dignity in the eyes of the law

    From the majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States written by Justice Kennedy:

    No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

    It is so ordered.

  • #lovewillwin

    On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether my marriage to Chris Moss should be valid in Texas (which it is currently not), and across this great country. Currently, our marriage is recognized in 38 states (plus DC), which means that our relationship has a different legal status depending on which state we are in. Texas is home (for now) and I am tired of being a second class citizen because of who I love. Chris and I have been together for over 16 years, just over 2 of these as a legally married couple. Our love for each other does not hurt anyone or infringe on anyone’s rights, yet there are people today who still believe that we should not have the same rights as everyone else, and they work everyday to infringe on our rights and fight against our right to have our marriage recognized. Please pray, wish and hope that the Supreme Court will end this madness and that one day very soon #LoveWillWin

  • Commitment Ceremonies

    As a legally ordained minister, I am able to offer my services to officiate wedding and commitment ceremonies.

    I believe in the freedom of religion, which also means the freedom to have no religion. As a minister of the Universal Life Church, I also believe that as part of my ministry, I should do only that is right, without interfering with another person’s beliefs or faith.

    Each ceremony is as unique as the two people for which it is being organized, and I will work with those that wish to celebrate their love through a wedding or union.

    I do not charge for my services, however, because of this, I do restrict the number of ceremonies that I will undertake. If you are interested in discussing a ceremony you would like me to officiate at, please contact me today.

    Please note that I currently only perform services in the North Dallas region (Plano, Frisco, etc).

  • Not Quite a Shot Gun Wedding

    As previously blogged, Bobby and Ian were hitched in Key West on Saturday. I’ve put some pictures up on my Flickr page from this event (and parts of our trip). There are a LOT of pictures, and I’ve only uploaded some of these to Flickr. Here are a couple of my favorite shots from the wedding day (clicking on the pictures will open up my flickr page).

    The grooms arrive with their mothers:

    Ian and his mother Bobby and his mother

    The kiss:

    IMG_2955

    The obligatory cross-arm toast:

    IMG_2964

    Cutting the cake:

    IMG_3000

    After the event, and dressed to promote their day even further (side note: Ian made these):

    IMG_3012