by Thanh Ngo
.
I have been “married” three times.
Each time, to the same person.
The first time Andrew and I got “married,” we were in a mortgage office where Andrew’s cousin worked. It was March 2003 and we were there to get our domestic partnership notarized and take Andrew’s cousin to lunch. The notary checked our identification, and placed a red stamp on a document that both bound and protected our relationship. The paperwork took just a few minutes to complete. We mailed in the document that same afternoon. A few weeks later, another piece of paper arrived notifying us that we were “registered domestic partners.”
That simple act gave legal significance to our relationship. We didn’t exchange rings. There were no flowers girls or ring bearers. We were in shorts and t-shirts; totally unromantic. His cousin, Julie, was not even in the same room. She was finishing a business call when we filled out the one-page document.
We registered ourselves as domestic partners as a way to protect our rights and give legal recognition to our relationship. Both being attorneys, we were very aware of the lack of protection and recognition of our relationship. Despite being together, then for 7 years, I would have been treated as a complete stranger in the eyes of the law if anything terrible happened to Andrew. His family could have kicked me out of the house we bought together or even prevented me from visiting him in the hospital. His brother, who called us faggots during a family argument, would have had a right to our house. I don’t think my “in-laws” would stoop to that level, but it is all very possible within the limits of the law. And, it has happened to too many lesbians and gays in the past.
The second time we got “married” was on Valentine’s Day 2004. Again, the big Chinese banquet or tea ceremony was lacking. We drove to San Francisco’s City Hall to get married after Mayor Gavin Newsom declared that San Francisco would no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians with regard to marriage rights. We waited for four hours along with other couples for the right to have our relationship legally recognized. It was powerful to hear a Judge declare us “spouses.” Then, several months later, the Supreme Court annulled our marriage citing that Mayor Newsome exceeded his power to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. So, we settled for the best thing the law afforded us at the time, a separate and unequal domestic partnership. Andrew became my “domestic partner” with some limited rights.
More recently, this summer, we got married yet again. And, again, it was a simple event.
There was no ceremony. My parents were not there. My siblings were not present. My adorable 6-year-old nephew was not able to be the ring bearer.
Like the second time, we drove up to San Francisco. We went to the Hall of Justice, which is the criminal court building. As attorneys we have appeared many times in those courtrooms arguing for justice and fairness for victims. It was only fitting that we came there to find justice for ourselves. My ability and right to legally marry Andrew came a few weeks earlier from the California Supreme Court. It was that court that saw the inequity of denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians. The Court, in recognizing the importance of the institution of marriage to society, struck down laws that denied those fundamental rights to gay men and lesbian women. In choosing to get married this way, we gave up the chance to have a formal wedding ceremony because we wanted to get married before that right is overturned by Proposition 8. Proposition 8 on the November ballot would eliminate the rights of gays and lesbian to be married in California.
As I stood there before the Judge in a black robe, exchanging vows with Andrew, it finally hit me. My dad always told me that they sacrified everything so that we can have “tu do,” freedom. I always understood that our family had to flee from Vietnam in 1975. We left Vietnam in order to survive instead of a desire to be in the United States. Given our family involvement in the war, we would have been killed or at the very least been sent to “re-education” camp for many years if we did not escape. Coming to the United States had more to do with getting out of Vietnam alive. Growing up, I never thought about the freedom and liberty protected by the highest law of the land, the Constitution.
My parents wanted to raise their family in a place where we were not limited by our family social status or political affiliation. My parents wanted us to grow up in a country where freedom and justice were not fancy words or abstract ideals. They wanted us all to have the same opportunities and rights to succeed and be happy. They knew it was only possible in the United States.
I finally understood my parent’s sacrifies, as I stood before the Judge holding Andrew’s hand and pledging my love to him. I finally knew what it meant to be treated equally before the law. I was marrying Andrew to be my spouse, my husband, my partner in life. 
Finally, we were getting married though we have been together for more than 12 years. We will have the same responsibility, rights and protection before the law as my parents and my sister and her husband. The law would now protect our union, our love as much as my parents’ marriage. If we are lucky, we will still be married forty-five years later like they are.
The joy of marrying Andrew was also mixed with deep melancholy of not having my parents there as well as my sister and her husband. Each time I married Andrew, it was more of a way for us to protect each other and our relationship–to ensure that if Andrew is hospitalized, I would be able to be there for him and him for me.
Each time we got married, it was either at mortgage office, City Hall or the Criminal Court building—not the most romantic destinations. Andrew and I never had an opportunity to celebrate the love that we share for each other with friends and family. I’ve never had an opportunity to stand before those close and dear to us to declare how perfect Andrew is for me.
As we share the news of our marriage, many friends and family members inquire about the date for the wedding party. They tell me about the importance of commemorating and celebrating our marriage. Yet, any celebration does not seem appropriate yet because in a few weeks, people who don’t even know us may invalidate our marriage. If Proposition 8 passes, Andrew and I will be legal strangers once again. He will no longer be my husband. Any rights and protections we have now as a married couple would be stripped away. I worry that any rights we have under the domestic partnership may also be taken away as well.
Yet, I am hopeful that Proposition 8 will not pass. After being with Andrew for more than a decade (five times longer than most marriages last), I want to honor our marriage in a grand way as befits our commitment to each other, perhaps in an elegant hotel or a fancy Chinese restaurant. Maybe then, I will be able to finally celebrate our love and marriage with all of our friends and families.
.
Guest contributor Thanh Ngo (at left in photo of 2008 wedding) is a deputy D.A. in Northern California and a good friend of the Bolsavik’s. He grew up in a traditional Catholic Viet family in conservative Riverside County and now lives in south San Jose with his husband Andrew Vu.
Thanks for sharing such a personal account. No matter that happens. Law or no law. You both have LOVE and that’s stronger than any Proposition.
I am glad that this topic is being covered by an expert, a lawyer, to explain the legal entitlements of marriage. As I understand it, there are three statuses of partnership/civil unions (marriage, domestic partnerships, and civil unions). Only marriage contains full legal entitlements. I wish Thanh had explained the finer details regarding who ultimately decides what a marriage is, State or Federal. Seems as though the Federal holds the ultimate power, so no matter what the State Court says, it could easily be turned down by the Federal Court. I even read that some of the states intentionally carried out these marriages, knowing full well that they did not possess the power to do so, just to spur business for the local economy.
Is it possible to appease all parties by limiting marriage to heterosexuals by birth and civil union for the rest and increasing the legal entitlements of a civil union to those of marriage status? I know that some people will find it offensive and cry separate and unequal.
I agree with Vietvista’s ending words.
Thanh,
Thanks for sharing . Good luck to you and Andrew.
I’ll vote “yes” for prop. 8. This society was very tollerant when it granted “Registered domestic partners” for same-sex couples and I think that is enough & appropriate. Sorry Andrew & Thanh, but “marriage” is for people of
the opposite sex, I don’t think the US or the world is ready to call you “husband” and “wife” yet. Probably not in our life time.
That’s why I voted ” YES” on 8.
@ Elaine Mai. Thank you for speaking on behalf of US, the world, and society. Your comment is duly noted. Don’t count your chickens too soon. We will find out what the world thinks on Tuesday. Perhaps the world might say that your views belong in a the museum of social history or jailed within the prison of hatred, intolerant and discrimination.
If you are married, I also wish your marriage or relationship will last long. God forbid the institution of marriage between a woman and a man is so much stronger and more sacred than other relationships. Don’t forget, your husband or boyfriend is a man. Furthermore, your god have clearly defined you, a woman, as a mere extension of a man. Therefore, hierarchy speaking, the relationship between a man and another man is way stronger than a man and a woman.
I apologize for implication that relationship between a woman and woman is not as strong but for the sake of argument.
I am also willing to bet that within my lifetime I will be able to see it. You may kick the bucket soon with that prehistoric view your hold in your head. No one expects to see a black president in the White House in this lifetime but hey, it’s getting very promising.
@Gossipsaigon, why again?
Today, outlawing gay marriages.
Tomorrow, legalizing incest marriages.
Why?
Because,
If Prop 8 passes, there’s a good chance that its backers are gonna try to legalize marriages between incest couples. Why? Because the Bible condones incest, starting with Adam’s and Eve’s children. Since Adam and Eve were the first couple, they and/or their children had to commit incest in order to procreate. Imagine that their children had to have sex with each other and their parents. Yikes.
The backers of Prop 8 are insidious and sick.
Just say No to incest no matter what your priest tells you.
So you see yourself as descendants of incest. I think the Bible is sick to come up with that tale in the first place.
There is nothing in Prop 8 that even hint incestuous marriage.
I, myself, don’t buy your fairy tale or horror literature on Adam and Eve because I don’t believe that I am descendant of incest. Furthermore, incest reduces genetic pool and ultimately leads to extinction. So naturally, those who commit incest, without the interjection or miraculous power of your christ, they will disappear from the face of the earth because of NATURAL SELECTION.
I don’t think supporters of Prop 8 are insiduous. It’s all there in the argument. The insidious ones are those who extrapolate out of fear using children to back their argument.
Vietvista wrote : “No one expects to see a black president in the White House in this lifetime but hey, it’s getting very promising.”
It’s not true ! in the last 2 decades most people believe that there is a high possiblity that a black man or a woman will become the president in the near future. Hey, why not ? there have been many great black and female leaders around the world in the last few decades, why not in the US ?
Personally I’ll vote for Obama since I believe he will be a lot better a president than McCain.
But, marriage between the same sex is a total diferent matter. It’s the universal & natural process in all part of the world, for ten thousand of years, that men and women come together, to form a lasting relationship, have children, build families and families become the foundation of all societies. That’s the marriage universal model. It’s natural, traditional, and necessary … (but not necessary sacred!). It has been the norm, anywhere, anytime since the dawn of mankind.
It’s always natural that a man attract to a woman. But, hey … there is always exception ! so many progressed societies (eventhough still a bit embarrassed & uneasy) are starting to accept and tolerate those un-natural relationships. Many laws were created to grant rights and protect gays people –an example is the legal rights for registered domestic partnership. But that is the best the world can do for gay people and that’s also the limit. To push for a full-fledged “marriage” acceptance is a bit too far … and that’s why I think Prop. 8 will pass.
I don’t believe in the childish fairy tale of the world started from Adam & Eve and I found that to say woman is an extension of man is an insult.
I think the reference to Adam and Eve in the Bible is not be taken literally. It is best to consult with a very knowledgeable priest (either Catholic or Protestant), best if a highly trained individual, to put the accounts in context.
@Elaine Mai
Men and women come together for procreation with out any institution or laws by choice if you are going to go back ten thousand year. Besides, there are so single records up until recorded history specifying any correct or incorrect form of marriage. How are you certain that prehistoric civilization hold the marriage between a man and woman is THE ONE. Are you sure about tens thousand of years. At the dawn of 8000 B.C. Are you really sure? Perhaps the form of Prop 8 didn’t pass on the “dawn” of 8000 B.C.
Your usage of the words “natural” and “the world” and “universal” seems exaggerated and straight out wrong.
Don’t hold me to that “extension” attack. That’s what the bible say. I believe it was in Genesis. You don’t believe in the Father Christ’s Fairy Tale Bible, yet brings it out as an authority to “condones” this and that. Blame it on the pen that wrote the Bible. He may be a man.
I overlooked this point last time. The Bible “condones” incest then why are so many religious sects supporting Prop 8. If Prop 8 is legalized, then we can have the incest marriage law. This is something that the church already “condone.”
@Dave. Oh, don’t take it literally? You should be excommunicated. Devout Christians take everything word for word from the Bible. What group are you in? Don’t you know? The Bible is the absolute! I think an educated person with the ability to think critically and is able to read doesn’t need a “highly trained” authority to “interpret” what they read. They couldn’t even agree among themselves what it means thus leading to the division of Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Latter Days, Adventist, and so on.
@Vietvista. Hahaha. Try selling that to a highly trained scholar. Best to go to Wikipedia and look up reasons why Christianity broke of into different branches, beyond my scope.
Juvenile 8th grade history. Not necessary for Wikipedia. Point is, Christians can’t even unite among themselves which negate’s Elaine Mai “universal” blah blah blah. But if i recall correctly, weren’t Christians originally persecuted against under the the Roman empire and later and legalized by Constantine? Not through a proposition but an edict of “toleration.” Then why do Christians jump so quickly to discriminate and persecute like their Pagan counterpart?
@Vietvista. Are you talking about the persecution in the past or now? No one can speak on the behalf of others, only for himself or herself. I don’t persecute or discriminate anybody, as a Christian. Don’t forget the level of practice of a religion to take into account.
What you ask applies to all faith.
It’s rhetoric, Bill. And good for you for actually practicing your religion well. I respect that.
You really don’t see religious groups pouring millions of dollars even from out of states to push this Discriminatory Prop 8 as persecution?
@Vietvista. I think it has to do with the idea that young children are being told what alternative union is. In addition, why not create a separate proposition for this specific civil union, rather than impose the exception to the norm? You don’t see the unfairness in that?
Sorry, I have to go now. Have a good evening. Take care.
Viet Vista,
I dont know for sure that churches are or not sending money from out of state for this proposition. But I do know that alot of churches are working on this campaign. One church in particular is hanging a yes on prop 8 banner on the front of their church. And I know alot of churches are distributing lawn signs for prop 8.
Here we go. Back to the “children” argument. Discrimination is discrimination. Giving African American equal rights was an “exception to the norm.” Would you call that unfair?
Oh yeah, Paul, it’s their Last Crusade with this one.
Thanh, we appreciate your contributing article and I truly hope best for you. It’s very hard to overcome family objections and their blessings on your most important, life lasting decision-”marriage”.
Although I have deep respect for you, we can not change the whole definition of
marriage to accomodate your voluntary action/decision.
The marriage …I believe is a family affair because it involves more than just two people in love and sometimes it gets even more complicated later on.
Parents have certain amount of expectations and hopes for their children /grand kids with full rights…. because simply they are our own blood shared parents in this entire planet.
Best luck.
I am somewhat confused by something Thanh wrote. If he and Andrew purchased a house (i.e. real property) together, presumably both their names would appear on the recorded deed on file in Santa Clara County. No matter how the property was deeded (e.g. tenancy- in -common, joint tenancy, etc.) both would enjoy posession of the property.
In the event one predeceased the other, the surviving “tenant” would still retain possession of his share of the property. The surviving family members/heirs of the deceased partner may be able to force the sale of the property to liquidate their share but I do not believe the surviving partner could simply be deprived of all interests in the property and tossed out into the street. (I believe this would hold true even if two unrelated individuals who are not intimately involved own real property together.)
Hospital visitation rights, however, are a different matter altogether.
Thank you, Bolsavik for posting Thanh’s compelling personal testimony.
I am sorry that Thanh and Andrew were called “faggots” by Andrew’s brother in the heat of a family argument. How hurtful.
Arguments Against Proposition 8:
http://enderminh.com/blog/archive/2008/10/22/2287.aspx
No on Prop 8: Equality for All – The second-most important political decision this year:
http://enderminh.com/blog/archive/2008/10/17/2273.aspx
JB said,
“I am sorry that Thanh and Andrew were called “faggots” by Andrew’s brother in the heat of a family argument. How hurtful.”
I’m tired of people like you and the others on this blog hiding your intolerance and insecurities behind slight references of respect and empathy. You have no idea the social and political meaning and implications behind the word “faggot.”
This is about equal rights, and when you deny a group of people rights the rest of us have, then you are reducing them to second class citizenship. When you wholeheartedly support Prop 8, you are essentially calling Thanh and Andrew, and the thousands of other gay and lesbian couples “faggots.”
So puhleeze, stop the bullsh*t. Your words of compassion and empathy are empty, when your thoughts and actions say otherwise.
Vietvista wrote : “You don’t believe in the Father Christ’s Fairy Tale Bible, yet brings it out as an authority to “condones” this and that”.
Where did I bring out the Chritian Faith to back up my arguments ? FYI, I’m a not a religious person, and I don’t believe in the many fairy tales written in the Bible. In fact most of the times I disagree with religious theories and teachings. My support of Prop. 8 is an independent decision, I don’t care much for what the Christian churches condone or prohibit. But personally, I think the legal rights granted for gay couples as “registered domestic partners” by the US is enough. You guys have come a long way from the terrible discriminations just a few decades ago.
I know the homosexual community in the US is a powerful group, with a lot of clouts in the media, and political organizations. That how they successfully won the support of California Supreme Court, but one should realize that no matter how vocal the homosexual community is, it’s still a very small group, and still needs to tread the water carefully. It should work diligently but slowly to win the acceptance of the general societies.
I think confrontational and loud tactics, if applies too vigorously by the Gay community, will only backfire and result in negative responds from the general population.
It will take time for the US and the world to accept gay marriage. You guys can try,
but I think it will take a few more generations (if it ever be accepted). For now, I think Prop 8 will pass. Sorry guys, but I want to borrow a line from Clint Eastwwod :
“(gay) men gotta know the limitation !”.
@Mai, “General population” and “general societies” ? C’mon. You mean your own narrow mind. What century are are you from anyway? Stop speaking on behalf of the masses.
Thanks for claifying that you don’t believe most of the tales from the bible. It sure makes you a much better person. Just a little more sane.
You have gotta be confrontational and loud. It’s call fighting for your rights. It takes a lot of hoots and hollas to win the civil rights battle in the 60′s to win equal rights for miniorities of which I believe that you belong to. Face it truth Mai. You belong to the MINORITY. It takes whole of of outcry for you to gain your rights today. So please don’t lecture me about confrontations and loud.
We will find out of Tuesday. I am confident that the “general population” will say no just because they have a conscience and and doesn’t want to prolong the discrimination.
You are misquoting Clint Eastwood at the same time failing to understand what he’s saying from Magnum force.
“Mans gotta know his limitations.” That includes you. And once you know there are some force that just can’t be stop, you will realize what it mean.
I;ve got a good Eastwood one-liner for you:
“There are two kinds of men in this world, those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.”
Stop digging up quotes that is beyond your limited understanding and throw it out to support your case.
And here’s another one to drive it all home:
“Go ahead punk, make my day.” And that’s TUESDAY. We’ll settle this argument.
We don’t hate gays and lesbians as they are equally protected by the state family law. The question is rather with re-defining the term ” marriage” itself by the 4 judges against public consent. We shall see the result on Nov.4th.
Bolsa Cute Girl,
My reasons for supporting Proposition 8, in addition to what I wrote in an earlier post, are also expressed by Jung Kim’s post of 2 November 2008 2:04p.m.
Impugning my motives for offering empathy and compassion for Thanh and Andrew is your choice but it does not prove or change anything.
I have been abused before for the views I hold and I will be abused again. So be it.
To be fair, I invite our bloggers to go to http://www.protectmarriage.com to view how others think of this issue.
http://www.noonprop8.com/
I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!! and VEGAS ROCK!!!
Click on to http://www.thevblogforum.blogspot.com to watch how some of the best questions about Prop. 8 are presented.
Enjoy!
JB, oh you’re such a victim. Poor you. Your motives are clear.
Were you one of those people at a Yes on 8 rally in which my friend and I drive by today? They were carrying Yes on 8 signs and were calling at us to honk in support of Prop 8. We rolled down our windows and shook our heads no. So, they started yelling “lesbo” and “faggot” at us. The crowd included a bunch of teenagers, likely bused to the rally straight from Sunday church. Ah, such empathy and compassion. So Christian.
Jung Kim,
Why so civil all of a sudden? What happen to the hate mongering? Is it because we all know who (Truong Diep) you are now? Worried it may affect your campaign?
I vote “No” for Prop. 8 . Everyone has the same rights .
Elaine Mai,
Here’s something to read…actually written by a Prop 8 supporter posted on your friend Jung Kim/Tomahawk/Pancake Face’s favorite blog site, Red County.
http://www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2008/11/why-california-republicans-sho/
What does it say? Your worst nightmare is actually a reality! More people support gay marriage than support it, including a large majority of young people (age 39 and younger) whose views don’t change that much with age.
The times…they are a-changin’. Too bad you’re stuck in the past, Elaine.
Thanh/Andrew 2016?
Please vote ” NO”
Thanks to America , i now have the right to pursuit happiness and the freedom to choose .
And I do hope that perhaps one day , I can go back to Viet Nam and marry my own brother and that will allow him a passage to the land of dreams. Posibilities are endless. Condemn me , call me a lowlife call me by any name that declares me reprehensive , I don’t care because I knew that I am equal
louciffer,
Thanks for voting no on Prop 8. But sorry, marriage is for normal people. Incest and bestiality are not welcomed. You are a lowlife and a sick person. You must be related to Jung Kim/Tomahawk/Pancake Face/Nip Family Member. Please take yourself and your brothers in for family counseling. And then please go back to Vietnam.
What is prop. 8 again?
Radio commercials tout it as “vote NO” because of discrimination.
Well … none of them really speak out the issue at hand which is legalizing same-sex marriage, legalizing homosexual marriage.
What ever the lifestyle one chooses is fine with me but the radio commercials make me wonder why they don’t say it as it is and stop being unclear to the public.
I vote NO for the same reason as above by louciffer
Yeah … marriage is for NORMAL people. You got that right.
Yes Lucifer, we’re now on the same page. Normal people have always included gay people.
and so does “Incest and bestiality”.
This is a real crap…..if Prop. 8 passes then we will have increase in incest?
Keep ringing the bell until your ear falls off but we are voting YES on Prop. 8!
Lucifer,
There you go again. God and I knew you couldn’t change.
Gay people are allowed in heaven. But if you decide to have sex with your brother or mount the neighbor’s dog, Rover, then you can’t enter the kingdom of heaven. Stop teaching Jung Kim the wrong way.
Bolsa Cute Girl wrote : “More people support gay marriage than support it, including a large majority of young people (age 39 and younger)…”
Bolsa Cute Girl is trying to twist the data to fit her view ! the poll said “age 29 and younger” NOT 39.
What about the age group 30 to 64 years old that the poll intentionally obmitted ?
So, even if “everyone” in the 18-29 age group vote “no” on Prop. 8, the other age group (30-85) will overwhemingly vote “Y” and Prop. 8 will pass.
Since this poll shows that younger people are more favorable of gay marriage, like I said in my previous posts, it might take a few more generations for the whole society to accept it.
You guys have to wait until oder folks like me to die off (I wouldn’t reveal my real age though
) and so like I said : “not in my life time”.
Quote from the Red County’s blogger :
“A recent Pew poll finds (pdf) Californians age 18-29 favor gay marriage by a greater than two to one margin (68% to 25%). However voters age 65 or older disapprove by a wide margin (55% to 36%). That massive skew-by-age holds nationally and over time. A nationwide CBS News Poll of May 20 – 23, 2004 showed 75% of 18-29 years olds supporting gay marriage or civil unions, while only 44% of those over 65 did. “
Ronald Reagan once told pro-choice abortionist people ” I am surprised you guys are already born!”
Same logic can apply to pro gay marriage people ” Thank God your parents were mom and dad”
Hey Sis,
The poll did not omit the other age groups. You forgot to read the PDF report from the Field Poll that was embedded in the second large paragraph in the Red County article. These were the results when asked the question whether people support gay marriage:
Age
18-29: 68% approve, 25% disapprove, 7% no opinion
30-39: 58%, 34%, 8%
40-49: 51%, 42%, 7%
50-64: 47%, 46%, 7%
65 or older: 36%, 55%, 9%
The only group that had more non-supporters than supporters were those 65 or older. Sorry to burst your bubble, but acceptance is not going to take generations. Acceptance is already here.
Thanks sis, yes I didn’t see the PDF file.
I doubt it ! but … well let’s see whether the Field Poll is correct. The result will be out in less than 10 hours.
True, we’ll see what happens.
I voted YES on Prop.8 this morning.
I voted YES as soon as the prop. was introduced
)