A lesbian couple together for more than a decade smiled through tears Tuesday as they became the first same-sex couple to marry in the District of Columbia, on the first day such unions are legal in the nation's capital.
Sinjoyla Townsend and Angelisa Young said they had waited years to marry. They were first in line last week to apply for a marriage license at Washington's marriage bureau.
"You are my friend, my partner, my love," Young, 47, told Townsend, 41. "I will love you today, tomorrow and forever."
After the wedding, those present cheered as the two women embraced and cried. They have been together for 12 years and have children, according to biographical information released by the Human Rights Campaign and D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality.
...Also among the first couples to marry Tuesday were Reggie Stanley and Rocky Galloway, both 50. The couple have two daughters, Malena and Zoe Stanley-Galloway, each 15 months old, according to the biographical information released by the equality groups.
Also married on Tuesday were the Rev. Elder Darlene Garner, 61, and the Rev. Lorilyn Candy Holmes, 53, of Laurel, Maryland. Both of them serve in leadership roles in the Metropolitan Community Church. The women are mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers, according to the groups.
Blub.
Opponents of same-sex marriage—those bigots with the desperate insecurity about their super-special relationships losing the shimmering, golden glow that only denying marriage equality to same-sex couples conveys upon their gloriously gilded unions—are still, yawn, making the argument that same-sex marriages will somehow, magically, undermine opposite-sex marriage. But my opposite-sex marriage does not feel undermined today. My opposite-sex marriage means more to me today, because the institution has become more inclusive—and by each little expansion of its borders does it become ever more about love.
Love is a concept that is largely absent from our modern debates about marriage equality—because, of course, the people who seek to deny marriage to same-sex couples lose ground when the emotions of the thing impose upon their clinical, passionless talking points about protecting an institution they'd happily return to little more than a property exchange between landowning men, given half a chance.
For a very long time, marriage between a man and a woman didn't have a lot to do with love. (In fact, in some cultures, it still doesn't.) One of the most remarkable things about our culture is that we have the freedom to marry for love, to forge lifelong bonds based not on class or race or religion or the number of goats our dads can spare, but on a feeling so beautiful that poets have spent lifetimes trying to lay it on a page, that artists have passionately sought its capture in one still but enduring moment. Operas and books and films and pop songs, so heartbreakingly lovely that they can steal one's breath, if just for a moment, have been written by people in the thralls of love, or the searing pain of its loss. Monuments have been built, wars have been fought, and some of the greatest happiness ever experienced by humankind has been born because of love.
We are blessed with the luxury of love, and, make no mistake, it is a luxury. Marriage at its best is an expression of love. When it's simply an institution to facilitate the continued existence of a society through the birth of new generations, it is a splendid functional legal contract and nothing more. When it's a sign of commitment forged out of love, it is something ever so much grander. It is the stuff of legend.
Aristophanes said, in Plato's Symposium, that humankind, "judging by their neglect of it, have never, as I think, at all understood the power of Love. For if they had understood it they would surely have built noble temples and altars, and offered solemn sacrifices in its honor." He then laid out the most beautiful explanation of the origin of love I have ever read, just a piece of which I will excerpt here (having updated the translations with gender-neutral language):
[T]he original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, having a name corresponding to this double nature, which had once a real existence, but is now lost… In the second place, the primeval human was round, hir back and sides forming a circle; and ze had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. Ze could walk upright as humans now do, backwards or forwards as ze pleased, and ze could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on hir four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when ze wanted to run fast.
The gods were scared of humans in this powerful state, and Zeus conspired to diminish their strength by striking each of them in two with a lightning bolt.
He spoke and cut humans in two, like a sorb-apple which is halved for pickling, or as you might divide an egg with a hair; and as he cut them one after another, he bade Apollo give the face and the half of the neck a turn in order that the human might contemplate the section of hirself: ze would thus learn a lesson of humility… After the division the two parts of humanity, each desiring hir other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one, they were on the point of dying from hunger and self-neglect, because they did not like to do anything apart; and when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor sought another mate, man or woman as we call them, being the sections of entire men or women, and clung to that. They were being destroyed, when Zeus in pity of them invented a new plan: he turned the parts of generation round to the front, for this had not been always their position and they sowed the seed no longer as hitherto like grasshoppers in the ground, but in one another; and after the transposition the male generated in the female in order that by the mutual embraces of man and woman they might breed, and the race might continue; or if man came to man they might be satisfied, and rest, and go their ways to the business of life: so ancient is the desire of one another which is implanted in us, reuniting our original nature, making one of two, and healing the state of humankind.
That isn't about marriage. It's not about being straight or gay, either. It's about feeling such a desperate need to be close to another person(s) that you are certain the two (or more) of you were once torn asunder. It's about love. And that is neither the sole province of unions between one man and one woman, nor a luxury we should ever take for granted. It is a luxury so precious that denying of some people any and every expression of its unique and awesome qualities, treating their love as different, as less, is an affront to the tremendous gift we have been given in our capacity to feel love.
If we really understood love, we would not just build in its honor noble temples and altars, and offer solemn sacrifices, but would believe without reservation that to deny its existence in every human heart is to reject our humanity.
Congratulations, Sinjoyla Townsend and Angelisa Young. And all the other couples being married in D.C. today, who couldn't get married yesterday.
The upper house of India's parliament has approved a bill to reserve a third of all seats in the national parliament and state legislatures for women.
The bill was passed with 186 members of the 245-seat house voting in favour. Only one member voted against. Several smaller parties boycotted the vote. The bill was introduced on Monday amid uproar from opponents, resulting in the suspension of seven MPs on Tuesday. First proposed in 1996, the bill now has support from India's main parties.
At present women make up just 10% of the lower house (Lok Sabha) of parliament, and significantly fewer in state assemblies.
Sonia Gandhi, Congress party president, has said she attaches the "highest importance" to the proposals and passing them would be a "gift to the women of India".
..."The bill is a historic and giant step towards empowering women and a celebration of their rights," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in the Rajya Sabha.
"Women are facing discrimination at home, there is domestic violence, unequal access to health and education. This has to end," he said.
Communist leader Brinda Karat said it would change the "culture of the country because women today are still caught in a culture prison. In the name of tradition, stereotypes are imposed and we have to fight these every day."
Blub.
Opponents of the bill tore up copies in protest, sloganeered, shredded papers taken from Vice President Hamid Ansari's table and threw the scraps at him, and generally caused juvenile disarray. Seven MPs were suspended for disorderly behavior, and subsequently had to be forcibly removed from the chamber when they refused to leave.
Only in a world governed by the most absurd, deeply-entrenched misogyny would there be rioting over requiring one-third of a government to be held by one-half the population.
We've done this one before, but not for almost a year, and it's always fun... How did you find Shakesville? (Or, if you're a long-time Shaker, Shakespeare's Sister.)
Space Cowboy's got a wonderful and very detailed answer to this one, btw. He even remembers the exact post that brought him here, via a link at Crooks & Liars!
Since I can't really give an answer to this question, I'll instead just say thanks for being here, and I'm glad you found your way.
The family-values California Republican legislator who was reported to have been at a gay club on the night last week that he was arrested for drunk driving has acknowledged he is gay.
"I'm gay," State Senator Roy Ashburn told a radio host from his central California district in an interview this morning. "Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long."
Ashburn, a divorced father of four, said that his many votes against gay rights were efforts to represent the conservative views of his constituents.
Good for him on the admission. As for his reason for voting against gay rights -- "I'm thinking of my constituents" -- well, to thine own self be true.
I've never bought the argument that an elected representative is merely a conduit for his or her constituency, and it's a cop-out to throw up your hands and say, "Hey, I'm just doing what I'm told." An elected representative has an obligation to use their judgment and insight to both their constituency and themselves as well as knowing what's best for the greater good of both their district and the country at large. Besides, being gay is apolitical: obviously conservatives as well as liberals are members of the LGBTQI community, and I daresay that he represents a fair number in his nice little Southern California Pleasantville.
I can understand all too well his inability to face the truth: it's not easy to come out of the closet at any age because of the social stigma placed on being openly gay, especially when it's reinforced by elected officials who engage in gay-bashing to assuage their own self-loathing and for electoral gain. Admitting it to yourself and the people who care is the first step. And if he's going to be truly honest with his constituents and his family, he has some apologies to make; not for being gay, but for his lack of honesty to them and to himself.
Angie Jackson, the blogger who chronicled her abortion via Twitter and YouTube, was on CNN today, talking with anchor Kyra Phillips about her awareness-raising project. Angie was awesome; I love how she seamlessly worked in a plug for I'm Not Sorry. Kyra was weird and judgmental, if significantly less weird and judgmental than, say, that douchebag Rick Sanchez would have been—although I wonder how much weirder and more judgmental she might have been if Angie's primary reason for getting an abortion was, simply, "I don't want a kid right now."
Anyway, here's the video, and a full transcript is below. Enjoy.
Angie Jackson, on YouTube video clip: Yeah. I'm having an abortion right now. It's not that bad. It's not that scary. It's basically like a miscarriage. I'm live-tweeting my abortion on Twitter. Not for some publicity stunt or attention or to justify this to myself. I am at peace with my decision.
Kyra Phillips, in studio: So what motivated Angie to end her pregnancy? She says she used an IUD for birth control, but it failed. She also said that her pregnancy nearly killed her and her doctor told her not to have another child. So the 27-year-old Florida woman took the abortion pill RU-486, putting this private information out there for everyone to see. And it's gotten a lot of reaction. Positive, negative, even threatening. So why tweet about it? Angie joins me now live from Tampa. So, Angie, did it take a while to come to a comfort zone that you wanted to do this? Tell me how you eventually decided: "This is how I'm going to do it and I'm going to let everybody see it happen."
Jackson, via satellite: Well, thank you so much for having me. I'm a blogger, and I'm actually writing a book "Birth and Death: Life of a Newborn Cult" about my experiences. And a talk about a lot of controversial or hot button issues every day. So for me this wasn't even that different. This was just an extension of continuing to talk openly about taboo subjects in a way that just by sharing my own story allows other people to share theirs or to talk about how they feel.
Phillips: Let's go ahead and look at another chunk of that live tweeting that you did as you were having an abortion.
Jackson, on video: Yes, it had the potential for that embryo to become a fetus, to become a person. Hypothetically. It could have been a person that was made up of my boyfriend and my DNA. But it was more likely to kill me. And you're not going to shame me. You're not going to silence me. I do not feel sorry that I saved my life. I do not feel sorry that I stayed here for myself, for my boyfriend, for my kid that I've already got.
Phillips: What did your doctor say was going to happen to you if you tried to carry that child?
Jackson: Well, when I had my son, who is four now, I had a tremendously difficult pregnancy and 98-hour back labor. My doctors advised me to avoid becoming pregnant again, which is why I had an IUD inserted in my cervix. However, there is no 100% effective form of contraception, not even tubal ligation or vasectomy. And so I had prepared that, if I became pregnant anyway, I would have an abortion because the risks were too high for me to continue a pregnancy.
Phillips: As you well know, we've been looking at all the various comments, both negative and positive to what you did. And these are really harsh—but people wrote in and said—they called you all kinds of names from being a whore to someone who just couldn't keep her legs closed; they called you a baby killer. I mean, it's even hard for me to say these things because some of those, the e-mails and the responses were so brutal. How did that make you feel? Did that bother you? Did it make you think twice about what you did?
Jackson: Actually, if anything, it showed me more how important it is to talk about taboo things or to talk about personal things. About half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy before the age of 45. And one in three American women will have an abortion sometime during their childbearing years. And yet this is something we almost never talk about—or at least we talk about the political aspects, but not the individual women. Some of the heat that I've gotten has certainly showed me what the cost of that silence is, is that when a woman does want to discuss it, she's—uh, the reaction is quite strong.
Phillips: What would you do if you got pregnant again?
Jackson: Of course the goal is to avoid that. But I mean, my health conditions have not changed. And if I was pregnant again, I would, of course, have another abortion.
Phillips: Final question. What made you decide to do the RU-486? Is that something you discussed with your boyfriend? How quick did you make that decision? Why that route?
Jackson: Sure. I investigated—I looked at a couple of web sites, one of which is imnotsorry.net, which includes a lot of personal abortion stories. And I read how different women had felt. I thought that the RU-486 abortion pill at home would be a more natural and comfortable experience. I was also too early in my pregnancy to be eligible for a surgical abortion. I was only four weeks. And so RU-486 was the medically recommended choice.
Phillips: Angie Jackson, very interesting. It definitely caught our attention. I actually didn't believe that you actually did it until I saw it. And it's pretty fascinating, the reasons that you have for doing it. And we're going to follow the video and the continued responses that you've gotten. You've also received a lot of support for what you did as well to sort of demystify what it's like to have an abortion. Interesting. Angie Jackson, thanks for your time.
Sophie spends most of her day perched atop my monitor—or trying to sit on my chest, shoulder, or head—but whenever I speak to someone on the phone, especially if I put it on speaker, she hops down and curls herself up next to the phone and flips on her back so I can rub her belly, or begins to preen herself, or does something else redonkulously cute. I took this picture one day last week while I was talking to Spudsy.
"I can foresee rampant violence in the military if macho men must share shower facilities, bunk beds in a submarine, or fox holes with sex-crazed gay males."—Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, on the potential implications of repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, in a fundraising letter.
Fox Holes with Sex-Crazed Gay Males is totes my favorite Dink Flamingo production, btw.
Today is International Women's Day, and this year's theme is "Equal rights, equal opportunity: Progress for all."
I've already read great posts from Cara, Zohra, Deborah, and Anna—and PhDork notes how to find IWD events here.
Gender Across Borders is hosting a blogswarm, compiling all the participating bloggers, which I can't recommend enough. Definitely check it out. (And note the unfortunate gender-imbalance of its participants: I despair to see the dearth of male allies, especially on the theme of "Equal rights, equal opportunity: Progress for all.")
I feel obliged to try to write something profound for International Women's Day, but, the truth is, I just want to recommit to treating every day as a day in which it is important to fight for international justice for women.
I am a practicing feminist, and I wield a teaspoon. ô,ôP
See Deeky's archive of all previous Conniving & Sinister strips here.
[In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.]
Which one of these things doesn't belong? From the Washington Post's On Leadership column:
Barack Obama still sneaks cigarettes. Gordon Brown has a mean temper. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin struggles with her weight. At what point do a leader's personal vices begin to undermine effectiveness?
Um.
The follow-up question is priceless: "Is it better to hide them or acknowledge them?"
I'm going to start hiding my TOTESFAT! immediately so I can be a more effective leader of Shakesville. Black is slimming, right? I'm going to start dressing like a ninja so everyone will mistakenly think I'm skinny and respect me.
by Shaker Vgnvxn, a lady-attorney who lives in DC with her parrot and foster kitty (want to adopt a kitty?).
I am an advice junkie and love to read Dear Abby, even though she isn't always a beacon of progressiveness. However, I was particularly horrified to read last Thursday's article, a response to an article she wrote in December about holding doors open for women.
Before I get started, I want to point out that I am speaking of one specific instance of door-holding: A man gets to a door well-ahead of a woman, then holds it open as she approaches. Not to prevent a door-slam to the face, not because she has packages or visible disability (though that's another issue), not because they were both at the door at the same time so he just grabbed it, not because he opens it for everyone like that, not because of the weather or because he knows she likes it, but because she is a woman.
So back in December, some dude holds a door for a woman, and is "told off" by her: "She said she didn't need any ‘help,' that she was capable of opening her own doors, and it should have been obvious that she wasn't disabled." So this hapless dude (well, his "friend") wants to know if there was "polite comeback" he should have used to respond to this woman.
Dear Abby responded: "No, not unless he wanted to get into a spitting contest with a viper. You say your friend was raised to open doors for ladies. Well, it appears he opened a door for a woman who wasn't one. Please tell him not to give up because anyone with manners would have said thank you and appreciated the gesture. I know I would have."
!!! Uh, what? Absolutely no awareness of the history of chivalry, feminism, or ablism…and totally insulting. But wait, there's more!
So on March 4th, Dear Abby printed reader responses to that craptastic letter. Most offered various insults to future door-hold-objectors: You're rude, not a lady, old, and "must lead a bitter life." Amazingly, there were three responses which did validate the woman's reaction: One from a woman with fibromyalgia, who noted that attempts at help could unsteady her; a short woman who said that it made her physically uncomfortable to walk under a man's arm; and a woman who stated that the practice makes her feel inferior (though I wish she could have gone into why—for me, it's because it originate from a practice that treats women as weak, and it feels like tokenism).
So, you would think our Dear Abby would print a retraction of her original response when faced with evidence that women have valid reasons for objecting to this practice. Instead, she practically cheered on the reinforcement of patriarchal standards through harassment, with a few totally contradictory anecdotes! It was almost as if a woman's physical safety, comfort, or bodily integrity is up for debate—against a man's desire to feel good about "helping!" This brings to mind the street harassment argument: Why should I stop doing something "nice" for women just because some find it offensive/scary/unpleasant?
I actually learned something pretty relevant in my corporate diversity training last year: The Platinum Rule. The Platinum Rule decrees that we should treat others as they wish to be treated. It's not whether we like having doors held open, or our girlfriend likes it, or we think it's probably best, or we just really like to fucking do it—it's realizing that some women don't like it, and it only takes a moment to figure out what she prefers. I love that phrase because it reminds me as a privileged person and as a marginalized person to check myself before I assume I know how someone would prefer to be treated.
And you know what, Abby? Teaspoons notwithstanding, we will never create a more polite and respectful world by wielding rudeness to correct perceived rudeness. (Which okay, I learned from Ms. Manners. I told you I was an advice junkie!)
Write Dear Abby here or send snail-mail to P.O. Box 69440, Los Angeles, CA 90069—and wield a teaspoon in her general direction.
Current state law grants tax credits on productions considered "family friendly" — with no smoking, sex, nudity or profane language.
The proposal by Republican Rep. Stephen Precourt of Orlando would increase the credit and expand the field of disqualified productions as those that include any "exhibit or implied act" of nontraditional family values and gratuitous violence.
Precourt says he's not targeting the gay community but that shows with gay characters would not be something he'd want "to invest public dollars in."
I have a couple of questions. First, I would like to know how Mr. Precourt defines "nontraditional family values" and what exactly that means. For example, would that exclude making a film version of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? Huck comes from a non-traditional family, he smokes a pipe, and I assume that when he goes swimming in the Mississippi River, he's not wearing Ocean Pacific surfer jams. Or what about filming a remake of The Ten Commandments, since there's a lot of "gratuitous violence" in there, not to mention animal sacrifices and lots of drinking.
Second, since I am a taxpayer in Florida, my money therefore becomes "public dollars," along with a lot of other members of the rather sizable Florida gay community. I wouldn't presume to speak for the rest of them, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people within and without the gay community that would have no objection to seeing their money spent on films and TV productions made here in Florida that have gay characters in them. There are also a lot of families in Florida that are just as traditional as any family Mr. Precourt can dream up from his Leave It to Beaver stereotype that have gay people in them -- including mine.
Third, if my money isn't good enough to pay for this tax credit, why should I be paying into the public coffers? Can I get a refund on the money that won't be going towards the tax credit because I'm gay and therefore not worthy of being considered a full citizen of the state?
What if you heard a commercial that used language like this (words in brackets indicate a paraphrase to heighten your suspense!) :
There’s nothing good about [ __________ ]. They don’t [engage in beneficial activities]. All they do is [cause a specific problem]. That’s their sole contribution to mankind.
And that’s why, they have to die.
It’s that simple. You cannot rehabilitate [ __________ ]. You have to kill him, his little friends and the [reproductive capacities of “his” community].
What you need is a quick, easy extermination plan. [One simple step] and you’re done. And here’s the really good part: everybody dies!
And while there is joy in all creatures living in harmony, it’s nothing compared to killing [ __________ ]. Now, that’s a rush.
What would you think filled in the blanks? What would you think of the language? What would it remind you of? Don't worry; this was just the style of a fire-ant-killer commercial I heard yesterday. Still, it bothered me so much that I came home and looked it up to see what the hell was creeping me out.
This commercial is supposed to be funny, but in talking about exterminating fire ants, it relies on language and imagery used throughout history to talk about the extermination of people, as well. Think what you will about my fascination with language and animals-as-stand-ins-for-humans in media, but really, how many pest extermination spots have you heard delve into the intrinsic worthlessness of pests? Annoyance and inconvenience, sure. But no-contribution-to-"mankind?" I don't run across that everyday.
I'm also hearing the commercial in a historical context as well, I suppose. I've talked previously about how media outlets reinforce connections made between people of color, particularly immigrants, and vermin/pests. Late 19th/early 20th century cartoons often portrayed Chinese Americans as living with/eating/making pets of rats and the queues of men of Chinese descent were drawn to look like rats' tails. Another example is the racist comparison of people of Mexican descent to cockroaches. And think about the ways we talk about immigration, in terms of "swarms" and "invasions."
What you need is Orthene Fire Ant Killer from Ortho. You put one tablespoon of Orthene over the mound and you’re done. You don’t even water it in. The worker ants track it back into the mound. And here’s the really good part: everybody dies, even the queen!
And while there is joy in all creatures living in harmony, it’s nothing compared to killing fire ants. Now, that’s a rush.
Orthene Fire Ant Killer from Ortho. Guaranteed to kick fire ant butt.
Now, do I think the Ortho people are operating from the same place as this turn-of-the-century company?
No. I'm just saying that language matters. Ortho's advertising people might not even be able to pinpoint what made them write the ad in this style, but for me, the cultural influences seemed obvious.
Mrs. Peel was awarded the Legion d'Honneur (twice!), the Croix de Guerre, and the American Medal of Freedom, for her work in her native France during World War II, helping downed Allied pilots to escape back to the UK. Captured by the Germans and sent to Buchenwald to die, she was lining up for a firing squad when the Americans liberated the camp, saving her life.
She married an English man in Paris, and they moved to a home near Bristol, where she lived until her death over the weekend at the age (get this!) of 105. I know I said it before, but that's so awesome, to see the righteous rewarded with long and happy life.
Take that, you gender essentialists and evo-psych knobs who suggest that women can only be roused to great courage by threats to our families. We are capable of every possible courage - as of every possible cowardice - just as any other human being. Thank you for your heroism, Mrs. Peel, and requiescat in pacem.
Tip of the CaitieCap to my dear friend Julian for the link.
I've decided I want to get my creativity working again. You might think it has been from the stuff I've written here, but that's just...warmups, mostly. And one of the best ways to get better at something is to do it. But how does one force creativity on-demand? By doing it! Weren't you listening?!
So, Caitie's Poetical Corner. I know Liss loves structured poetry as much as I do (we're both huge sonnet fangirls, for instance - I believe I posted my Star Wars in Sonnets here, didn't I?).
What I'm going to ask is this: you give me the ideas. Give me your suggestions for a song or a poem or a type of song or poem (either by name or by structure/genre/what have you), and the topic you want it on.
And by the following Monday, I'll come back to post at least one of your suggestions completed, maybe more if I'm feeling up to it. If you want a limerick about Darth Vader and Captain Jack meeting at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, I'm there. You want a villanelle on the suckiness of bipartisanship? Totally (if that's okay with all of you, that is, I don't want to take sides).
Doesn't have to be humourous, either: I wrote a sweet little love song for Zoe and Wash once, for instance. If it's a song you're wanting filked, post me a link to someone performing it (because believe me, as much as I know a lot of music, I'm well aware that there's plenty more I don't know, and the more recent, the more likely I don't).
Put my pen to the grindstone, Shakers: what do you want to see me write?
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
Congratulations, Sinjoyla Townsend and Angelisa Young!
Sinjoyla Townsend and Angelisa Young were the first same-sex couple to wed this morning in Washington, D.C.After the wedding, those present cheered as the two women embraced and cried. They have been together for 12 years and have children, according to biographical information released by the Human Rights Campaign and D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality.
Today is International Women's Day, and this year's theme is "Equal rights, equal opportunity: Progress for all."
Write Dear Abby 
