Note from Laurel: On Valentine’s Day 2011 my fellow Washingtonians Ben Crowther and Danny Canham joined dozens of other LGBT couples in over 13 states taking part in GetEqual’s direct action “drawing attention to the fact that loving couples – some of whom have been together for decades – are still living as second-class citizens without the right to marry.” I asked Ben and Danny to describe their experience and they kindly agreed. Here is their story in their own words.
On Valentine’s Day, two students marched down to the local courthouse in Bellingham, WA and demanded they be given a marriage license. As expected, they were denied and turned away, but not without giving bystanders a show first.
As the Washington State Co-Lead of GetEQUAL, Ben Crowther started hearing about Valentine’s Day protests several weeks ago. The stories and plans of other activists from around the country and the energy, passion, and creativity he heard from them inspired him to organize an event where he lives in Washington. The night before the action was to take place, he asked who among his friends wanted to try and marry him the next day.
His friend, Danny Canham, volunteered to be his partner in crime. While Danny doesn’t view marriage as a necessity for equality or something that should be aspired to, actions for equality are still actions for equality. No matter the cause, even if one doesn’t believe in marriage equality specifically this was an action worth participating in.While neither intends to get married in the near future, they want the opportunity for this to be available in the future. Additionally, institutional inequality is inherently damaging because it establishes a system wherein some identities are designated as inferior.
That afternoon, Ben and Danny met to plan their action. Together they filled out their application for a marriage license. As they reviewed the application, Ben noticed the gendered language of the form and quickly decided to correct it so the form read “male” and “fe male.” They alerted their friends and reporters from the campus newspaper and within an hour were headed to the courthouse.
Knowing the reality that they would be rejected, Crowther and Canham approached the demonstration to prove a point. They wanted to challenge the state office, forcing them to justify the law while simultaneously showing how ridiculous it was. Further, they aimed to raise awareness of this as an important issue. As they learned from reading the article in the school paper the next day, this was the first time the Whatcom County state auditor had had a same-sex couple apply for a marriage license in her 23 years.
Entering the Licensing Office with an entourage of media in tow and forms in hand, they took their place in line. A county records clerk called them forward, and as they explained their intent to apply for a marriage license, the clerk became uneasy and explained that Washington does not allow same-sex couples to marry. The clerk suggested that they instead apply for a domestic partnership, which offers all the state benefits of marriage. When they questioned the value of domestic partnerships and demanded to know why they were excluded from marriage, the clerk quickly called in the state auditor.
By this point, others in the office were taking notice of the fuss being made at the counter, their heads peaking over cubicle walls. The state auditor approached the counter. When Ben asked why the pair couldn’t get married that day, she urged them to speak to the state legislature attempting to remain polite as possible while clearly becoming increasingly frustrated.
Ben immediately pointed out that she was the one who ultimately decided whether or not they would walk away with a marriage license that day. As the person in a position of authority at the moment, she was the one saying no, and he would be approaching the legislature regardless.
When she made the argument that she was not legally allowed to give them a marriage license, Ben countered with the fact that she was under no obligation to follow a law that is unconstitutional under multiple court rulings specifically that stating laws against marriage equality are against the constitution. Ben made similar arguments to President Obama at a protest before the fall elections when it was first ruled that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was unconstitutional.
He asked how she would react if they were an interracial couple. Would she deny them in that instance even though it has been ruled unconstitutional? He was met with the same lines. Talk to the legislature to change the laws, talk to the Secretary of State office about getting a domestic partnership. The problem with domestic partnerships is that they create a separate but equal system that is inherently flawed. If it were actually equal to marriage, there would be no reason for different names.
He brought up the point that even if he and Danny had been together for 20 years, regardless of their relationship, they would still be denied access to the 1138 Federal rights associated with marriage, simply because they both had penises. Yet he could have married Eliza Chan who Ben only known for about a week simply because she has a vagina. Comically, he stood between Eliza and Danny saying “marriage” and “domestic partnership” as he stepped from one to the other.
After one final question, Ben wished the room a happy Valentine’s Day and walked out the door. He was told later that as the debate escalated, a security guard had entered the office.
Outside, they were asked what they would have done if the auditor had granted them a marriage license. Both approached the action presenting themselves as a hypothetical couple, the idea being to bring light the failures within the system not to actually get married. Had they been offered, they would have accepted the license, being the first same-sex couple in state history to have received a license.




9 Comments


And this proved …what other than another lame display by GetEqual and two sugar twinkies.
Oh I’m sure that will create change in Washington State.
LGB activism is getting so amatuer it’s pathetic.
No wonder people are laughing.
lots of people are listening, not laughingIf YOU are laughing and criticizing, you are simply adding to the problem… and maybe that’s what you intend.
Today in NH hundreds, perhaps thousands, will meet to demonstrate at a hearing to repeal our 1 year old Same Sex Marriage law. I don’t think there will be a lot of laughter, just people serious about speaking up and opposing a very harmful state legislation.
A wonderful actionAs is clearly stated in the article,
“this was the first time the Whatcom County state auditor had had a same-sex couple apply for a marriage license in her 23 years”
Certain persons may view this action as stupid, or pointless, but it is so obvious, that for the vast majority of Americans, issues affecting the LGBT community, no matter how deeply they may affect us, barely register in their minds, or lives, even the tiniest little bit. This is one way of putting the issue right out front.
We need every single bit of attention we can command. The only way to win this war is with the help of our straight allies. And we won’t have any of those if they don’t even know the war is going on. Straight people already think that gay people enjoy either equal rights, or in some cases “special rights”. The enemy has clearly done a better p.r. job than we have. They have many advantages over us, the largest ones being the pulpit, and money.
Political actions like these, which garner press, and don’t cost anything, are the perfect strategy.
Just stay home and watch the WheelLet other people do the hard work of changing society for the better. But I’m sure you’ll be happy to accept the benefits their actions will bring to you in the future, even if you had no part in making it happen.
Could’ve been more effectiveStunts like this are more effective if the couple involved is truly a couple and not a hypothetical couple. They have to actually want the marriage license for themselves at the end of the day.
Effective, maybe, but could’ve been more effective. Memo to GetEqual: find a real couple, and repeat.
Sorry, I’m not on boardIf the couple had been a legitimate couple who really wanted to get married, then I would be standing and applauding what they did.
But the fact that they are a “hypothetical” couple who didn’t intend to actually get married turns this into a political stunt – one that will backfire and be used against us once the anti-equality forces get a hold of this. They will be able to claim that we don’t really want to get married, we are just trying to make a mockery of marriage and somehow destroy it for everyone – and in the case of this action, there is some truth to this claim.
The clerk is entirely correct here.
Good luck to you in NH today!Cathy I hope you’re there to participate in the hearing not just to “demonstrate,” as in do some generalized agitation thing.
Re: the Iowa demo
If I had been the Clerk, I would have had to bite my lip to avoid laughing. My God, these boys look about 16 years old. Would they even be eligible to marry if one of the couple was female?
It was a stunt. Get a real committed couple, not a fake couple, and do it again.
ResponseHey there everyone,
My name’s Ben, the one written about above, and I’d like to address some of the concerns brought up in the comments.
First of all, I resent being called a “sugar twinkie.” My size and stature shouldn’t be used to negate or devalue my activism. Sizism isn’t ok in any form. And direct action is hardly lame or amateur, it’s extremely effective at achieving certain goals, especially getting attention. And that was the goal of this event, to draw attention to the issue. It was the first time that auditor had a same-sex couple apply. Every person in that office had their head up and was listening to what was going on. Everyone there had to listen to the auditor try and justify why we couldn’t get a marriage license, and how ridiculous the justification was. And everyone got to put a face to the cause. It’s no longer some abstract political issue they’ll only have to worry about when it comes up at the ballot. There were two gay men there that challenged their ideas, and I’m proud of that.
Secondly, there were concerns that Danny and I aren’t a real couple. I think Danny and I would both have preferred to be there with some one we were actually dating and looking to marry. Unfortunately, that wasn’t in the cards. And we didn’t want to let that stop us from making our point. Honestly, the point can be made just as well even with a hypothetical couple. The auditor still gave the same reasons, I still gave her my same comebacks, and people looked and paid attention all the same. So yes, while it would have been ideal to have a real couple, our choice was a hypothetical couple and not doing it all. We made our choice, and we stand by it.
Thirdly, yes I realize we both look young (we’re both 20) so we couldn’t have been together 20 years. But like I said before, we approached the action and presented ourselves as a hypothetical couple. I told her IF we had been together twenty years, it wouldn’t matter. But I could marry a girl who I had only known a week. The point was made and received.
Lastly, ArizonaDave, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on whether the clerk had the authority to issue that marriage license. But at the end of the day, and as I told her, she was the one telling us we couldn’t get it, so she had to justify it.
Next February…Perhaps I can convince Michael to go down to the courthouse with me. (We live in Bellingham.)