I am breaking my newly-enforced rule that my pieces will have a controversial title in order to bring you this information.
This is a universal story with a moral we can all understand and empathize with. This story could be about you or your brothers or sisters. Anyone you know.
Kristin Perry has worked to help children all her life. As The New Yorker puts it, "One day, he (Chad Griffin, who orchestrated the Prop. 8 trial) was speaking on the phone with Kris Perry, a woman he and Reiner had known for years, because she was active in children’s-policy debates and was now the executive director of First 5, a state agency that promotes health and education for young kids."
"We get a lot of enjoyment out of our life as it is. The kids, like for all parents, kind of drive the agenda," says Perry.
Perhaps what is most surprising about the life of Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier is how normal it was, up until recently. The lesbian couple has been raising four children in a quiet Berkeley, Calif., neighborhood, one known these days more for its cozy bungalows and good coffee than for '60s-era radicalism. Later this month, they will mark their 10-year anniversary, a decade spent mostly focused on the ups and downs of domestic life, like helping with homework or surviving morning-rush-hour commutes.
Despite her activist nature, Perry was dubious about doing something political to win marriage rights, and only reluctantly agreed when she realized it's a federal lawsuit. She and her wife, "partner" under the stupid California law, have four kids and jobs, and didn't know if they want to deal with the pressure from the trial.
These people with flaws and faults inadvertently become the spokespeople for the cause they represent in the trial, for better or worse. The Lovings are a good example of this: they are respected as the face of the drive to make interrracial marriage legal.
They considered the heaviness of all these things, and they considered that they'd be shunned if they didn't stay together after this case, and they decided to do it:
Perry and Stier figured that they were in a better position than a lot of other committed couples to do something like this. "We’re in stable parts of our careers," Perry said. "Our children aren’t really young, we live in a really liberal place, and we weren’t worried about a lot of rejection from neighbors and friends."
They wanted to sue federally because it would have an actual end result. There wouldn't be waiting, after this. There'd be no going back to the ballot box, over and over, changing marriage statuses and dealing with the stress of unfair laws. They just want stability like anyone else, you know?
"We told each other, 'We'll do it when it's for real.' We have jobs and four kids; we wanted things to be real."
I’ve been in love with a woman for ten years, and I don’t have access to a word for it," Perry said. And when Stier took the stand, in an anchorwoman pink jacket and slim black skirt, she elaborated on the name problem: "We’re not business partners. We’re not social partners. We’re not glorified roommates."
Just imagine this. I know it is probably painful. Imagine your ten year marriage, and think about being unable to legally call it marriage. How would it affect you?
I couldn't imagine having to call someone something that is similar to a roommate.
As awful as that is, they understandably felt humiliated that where they lived, a majority did not accept them.
As she told the court, "You chose them over everybody else, and you want to feel that it is going to stick and that you are going to have the protection and support and inclusion that comes from letting people know you feel that way."
This is so reasonable that it's almost beyond comprehension that it's banned. Why can't they raise a family within a marriage like others?