Modern Romance

(Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Modern Romance)

Throughout history love stories have been present. There might be two star-crossed lovers whispering sweet nothings to each other without a care in the world. Maybe there is a prince riding off into the sunset with his princess. What about a modern romance? Is there a husband, wife, and 2.5 children? What does this modern day story look like for you? Are there still two people? Are there butterflies? What about a princess and her prince or is it, rather, her princess? Are any of these factors present in your definition of a love story?

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, love is defined as a strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties; affection and tenderness felt by lovers, affection based on admiration, benevolence or common interests. It doesn’t matter if it is modern day or something of the past. Love is constant. We all relate to it. We all experience it. This is Nichole and Trisha’s modern love story.

(Nichole, daughter Gwendolyn, and her wife Tricia)

Nichole grew up in Utah, and she has moved around a lot throughout the state. Her parents divorced when she was young and she doesn’t recall a time when they were together.  She had a very good childhood filled with a strong family connection and having fun with her neighborhood friends.

Tricia grew up in a much different area than Utah. She grew up in Florida and Alabama. She moved to Utah with her mother because of her mother’s strong devotion to the LDS religion. Tricia’s parents also divorced when she was young, around the age of one.

Living in Utah, these two ladies crossed paths through their work. They shared a mutual friend from work who introduced them in the break room, in December of 2001. Nichole was in the Reservations Department and Tricia was a Project Manager in IT. After bumping into each other a few times after their introduction, Nichole decided to wish Tricia good night. Tricia decided to take this opportunity to ask Nichole on a date. They exchanged numbers and from that moment on realized that their fondness of each other was something much, much more. They knew that they had found in each other their counterpoint.

The next years were filled with travel, moving in together, discussions of marriage, and a baby. The discussion of marriage and a baby was put on hold when they found out that the cost involved with these two goals would be more than they had anticipated. Ultimately, their priority was to invest in the growth of their family and they eventually decided to achieve this before getting married. This meant that they had to decide which reproduction option would be best for their family.  

Nichole and Tricia chose to take the route of going to a Cryobank, which is a facility that stores donor-provided human seed to be used by hopeful parents for reproduction. This option allowed for an anonymous donor contribution. The best scenario for them was to have Nichole carry their baby. With much effort and time, the couple happily announced, in the fall of 2009, that they were going to have a baby. They welcomed their beautiful daughter Gwendolyn to the world in June of 2010.

After fulfilling their dream to have a bigger family, the couple decided to pursue their second dream, to get married. Unlike heterosexual relationships however, they found that this wasn’t as easy for same-sex couples. There was an obstacle in their way, the right to legalize their union in their home state. This isn’t even a question or thought for heterosexual couples. Heterosexual couples don’t have to weigh their options with this. It is just a right that has been given to them arbitrarily. 

Nichole and Tricia began to think of how they would face this situation. They started coming up with some creative solutions. They thought at that point that they would go to another state, where it was legal, and get married. This was just one option, but it wasn't the best option for them. They wanted to be able to come home to Utah and have their union recognized legally. The concern that Tricia could not legally adopt Gwendolyn was the most troubling.  

The couple had drafted their wills to reflect what they wanted for their family but as Nichole states, “...it still did not give us all of the protections and certainties that adoption would. For instance if something happened to me, even though we had all the paperwork saying that Tricia should get Gwendolyn, there is still a chance that she could be taken to court over it if someone wanted to contest it. We had talked about the fact that we might have to move out of Utah even to a state that would allow our marriage and in turn allow Tricia to legally adopt our daughter. That way Tricia could be recognized as Gwendolyn’s parent. The adoption meant everything to us as a family. We can proudly say that we are now a legal, loving family.”

The adversity that legalities can impose on a relationship can really dampen any attempt at romance. For Tricia and Nichole however, this may have strengthened their bond even more. Their community and they themselves were hopeful. Through that hope came progress. On December 20, 2013, they received the news that the Supreme Court ruled the state of Utah’s Amendment 3 unconstitutional. This allowed same sex couples the right to a legal civil union.

The haste of this decision by the government was not one that the couple had anticipated, but with hopeful arms they embraced it. On December 23, 2013, they went to the Salt Lake County Courthouse and joined into a legal civil union. They didn’t have time to plan much for the wedding, but they were able to celebrate for six hours with their family and friends until they received their license. The couple’s friend, JP, who is an ordained minister from San Francisco, performed a beautiful ceremony held in the cafeteria of the county building. The ceremony was followed by a small reception at their friend’s home, later that day.

The heightened hopeful moment of change and progress, unfortunately, came to a halt when a stay was issued to temporarily pause the process of legalizing same sex unions in the state of Utah. Nichole states, “The current postponement has made me fearful of what the outcome could be. It would be devastating to finally have equal rights, and then have them taken away.”

Love is constant and does not change its meaning when the sex of the two lovers is the same or different. There is however, a difference in the obstacles that lovers face in our modern day. The romance is coupled with things like legalities and formalities. The happiness and worries that this couple shares are the same concerns that any other couple might face.  The modern day romance is one of finding that connection that defies the obstacles of modern life and perseveres through trials.

Nichole’s hope for others is, “...for others to understand that we are a family, just like any other. We have the same happiness and worries. We want our daughter to grow up with all the privileges and safeties that other kids have. We want to be treated equally to any other American couple. Our being married would not take away from any other traditional marriages. It would bring more protection to our family.” The perseverance of this couple's love is astounding and falls nothing short of deserving a fairytale ending.

Works Cited

Love. "Merriam-Webster Online - Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam ...." . Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.

McGrath, Nichole. Personal Interview. 20 Mar. 2014.

Same Sex Marriage and The Constitution

Is it constitutional to deny same sex couples the right to a civil union? Though, to some, this question may seem to be a cut and dry situation, I assure you that it is not. So let’s ask ourselves this: Is it acceptable that tax paying citizens are denied the same rights as other tax paying citizens based on what sex their partner is? Because some states are fighting to allow this, there must be some reason it is not as simple as “no it is not”. In this paper I will be exploring the answer to this question and what makes its answer not so cut and dry.  

The constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 14; Section 1 reads, “ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  

All citizens of the United States (regardless of skin color or sex or any other factor other than nationality) will not fall victim to a state’s law, which might prevent the citizen from life and liberty. The tricky part is that individual states have laws in which these rights are denied. Branching from this Federal Constitution are the individual State Constitutions. The issue of federal civil rights being upheld is found in these individual State Constitutions.

            On December 20, 2013 Supreme Court Judge Shelby overruled Utah’s Amendment 3. Stating that it is unconstitutional to deny same sex couples the right to a civil union, in the state of Utah. The state’s governor, Governor Herbert, fought this ruling and issued a stay on the bill until they could have a due process (Ford.) Each state has its own constitution. For instance, the state of Utah’s constitution states that, “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”

With an understanding of Utah’s State Constitution it is understandable why the governor might be fighting this ruling. His position is to uphold the constitution of the state. Without there being a law passed to change the current law in Utah, he will most likely do what ever it takes to prevent the federal government from interfering with the people of Utah’s vote. According to the Huffington Post, 950 licenses were issued to same sex couples who took advantage of this ruling between, Friday December 20^th and Thursday December 26^th. That is just six days and almost a thousand same-sex couples. With a statistic like that, it is curious why the law hasn’t changed.

History has something to teach us as a society. Society can learn from its past experiences in dealing with civility issues.  Until the 1970’s Federal law allowed husbands to rape their wives because it defined a wife as property owned by the husband (Ball pg 36). This provides just one devastating example of the need for our society to learn from past civility issues. The issue that we are currently facing is still regarding marriage but now we are needing to redefine who can get married.

            In Howard Ball’s book, The Supreme Court in the Intimate Lives of Americans, he states that, “marriage law in the United States originated in the canon law of the Catholic Church. This law, evolving into the English common law, did not require an actual ceremony or religious sacrament. The United States common law adopted the canon and civil laws of England, as administered in the British ecclesiastical courts and patterned its marriage laws after British model” (pg 35). Some of the ideas that come to mind when contemplating the definition of marriage might be ideas of a spiritual joining, a contract between two people, a social institution, maybe even a business exchange. Because marriage is all of this and so many other different meanings, the government must determine what then marriage means legally.

            Despite the differing laws, the Federal Constitution can be viewed as an all-encompassing umbrella of the individual state Constitutions. Going back to the main question whether it is constitutional to deny same sex couples the right to a civil union, the answer is simply that it is not. Despite the complications and differences that might arise from state to state, there is an overall superior ruling, which is the final say. That final say is the Federal Constitution. In conclusion, it seems that the answer is as cut and dry as the question appears, but the implementation of the law is, however, the complicated factor.

Works Cited

Ball, Howard. The Supreme Court in the Intimate Lives of Americans. New York: New York University Press, 2002. Print.

Ford, Zack. “How a Federal Judge in Utah Adeptly Dismantled all of the Arguments Against Marriage Equality.” Thinkprogress.org. Center for American Progress, 21 Dec. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.

Lang, Melissa. “Same-sex Couples Shatter Marriage Records in Utah.” The Salt Lake Tribune. A MediaNews Group Website, 26 Dec. 2013. Web. 1 Mar. 2014.

Image Cited

Fusaro, Kim. “16 Fabulous Red Marriage Equality Profile Photos on Facebook.” Glamour. Conde Nast, 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2014