Thank you @voguemagazine for a lovely night & for donning me with such a generous title. For all of you wondering…the videos come out soon.
Clinton & Callum’s Wedding
Ok folks, this is just so heartwarming and quite honestly it made me cry with joy. To read the story of how they met and proposed, click here.
I think you will love every single minute of this video. Wedding vows complete with a reading from Harry Potter…it’s beautiful. (also, if you liked that video watch this one…not related, but equally wonderful)
Oh. my. This is so beautiful.
Christian Gullette and Michael Stevens
Christian Gullette, 38, who is originally from Baltimore, MD, was married to Michael Stevens, 33, originally from Santa Cruz, Calif., this past May at The Bently Reserve, in downtown San Francisco.
The couple first met in Washington, D.C., when Christian had gone to have a drink with a friend at a bar in Adams Morgan, where he met Michael. They shared the same friends, Christian explains, “but we had somehow never managed to meet until that warm, May night.” The two went on their first date (a Ben & Jerry’s) a week later and have been together for 11 years. Because of that Christian surprised Michael with the Ben & Jerry’s Cookies & Cream ice cream they had that night after the cake cutting at their wedding.
Michael (blond hair) is a lawyer and Christian (dark hair) is a poet, translator, and Ph.D. student at the University of California, Berkeley. Now San Francisco residents, Christian proposed to Michael on 10/10/10, the day before his birthday. Christian hid the ring in a “ridiculously big gift bag to throw him off,” and there were several boxes one inside the other.
From OUT Exclusive Wedding Guide - Vows
Picture: Brandon and Luke Melchior
Following part of the piece below is written by Brandon Melchior:
My husband and I have been happily married for the past two years. Luke was born in South Africa but has been living in the U.S. for the past 12 years. We live on a relatively quiet street in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan. We’ve created a nice home together with our two boys: Andrew, who’s 4 years old, and Thomas, who’s 15 weeks old. They’re two of the cutest dachshunds you’ll ever meet.
Like other Americans married to foreigners, I set out to sponsor Luke for a green card as my spouse, so, on April 29, 2012, I filed a Petition for Alien Relative (otherwise known as a Form I-130) with the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services for my husband. We were optimistic that we would at least get an interview like all other married couples, but no interview was ever scheduled. Instead, on Sept. 24, 2012, we received a cold, brief letter from the Immigration Service notifying us that our petition had been denied. Why? Because we’re both men.
The denial letter from Immigration Services clearly stated in an unapologetic, discriminatory tone that we are still, in fact, second-class citizens. Luke’s freedom to find security, independence, and a sense of “home” and work a 40-hour work week for a regular paycheck, get a driver’s license, and travel without anxiety was again curtailed.
The letter states, “This Petition for Alien Relative (I-130), filed on April 9, 2012, seeks to classify the beneficiary as the spouse of a United States citizen…,” and continues to point out that only because we’re gay, we do not deserve the same rights as our straight friends:Both you and the beneficiary are male. You married on June 29, 2010, in Connecticut. The INA does not specifically define the term “spouse” with respect to gender, but Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) states for purposes of eligibility for federal benefits, “marriage” means “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and the word “spouse” refers “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” … The DOMA applies as a matter of federal law whether or not your marriage is recognized under state law. Your spouse is not a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, under the DOMA your petition must be denied. We do not consider it necessary to determine whether your marriage is lawful under state law, or whether the beneficiary would be a “spouse” under the INA absent the DOMA, as these questions are not material to the appropriate disposition of the petition under the clearly applicable and controlling Federal statute.
Click on the picture to read the full piece titled ‘Together But Unequal: Living Under the Indignity of DOMA’.