Mark Reed-Walkup, left, and Dante Walkup
A gay couple has filed a discrimination complaint against The Dallas Morning News for refusing to publish their same-sex wedding announcement.
Mark Reed-Walkup and Dante Walkup, who were legally married in Washington, D.C., in October, filed the complaint on Friday. The couple’s wedding has made international news in recent weeks because it was held in Dallas but officiated from D.C. via Skype.
Reed- Walkup said he’s been trying for several weeks to get The Morning News to publish their paid announcement in its “Weddings” section. But the newspaper has refused due to a policy that says same-sex wedding announcements can only be published in a separate section called “Commitments.” The policy reportedly is based on the fact that same-sex marriage isn’t legal in Texas.
The couple filed the complaint under a city ordinance that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing and public accommodations. Reed-Walkup says he believes wedding announcements, which are paid advertisements, constitute a public accommodation.
“Our ultimate goal is for the newspaper to realize that this is discrimination and change their policy,” Reed-Walkup said. “They [the city] may agree with the newspaper that because of the ban on same-sex marriage in Texas, they have every justification to not publish it in the ‘Weddings’ section. At least we can say that we tried, and take it from there.”
Beverly Davis, director of the city’s Fair Housing Office, said she didn’t receive the complaint until Monday.
“We just got it,” Davis said Monday afternoon. “I haven’t had time to make an assessment yet.”
The Fair Housing Office investigates complaints under the ordinance before turning them over to the City Attorney’s Office for possible prosecution. Each violation of the ordinance is punishable by a $500 fine.
Jim Moroney, publisher and CEO of The Morning News, couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
Well, If there were legally married in D.C. via Skype but reside in Texas then I do not see why the DMN does not publish their announcement since they were technically married in another place but are residents of the city in which they wish to publish their WEDDING announcement! Straight couples go to Hawai’i and get married on the beach all the time and I’m sure their current cities would publish their wedding announcements even though they weren’t married in the city in which they wish the announcement to be published. COME ON DMN! Get with the times!!!
This couple should sue the state of Texas for the marriage benefits that they deserve. They pay taxes like everyone else, so there is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, for the state not recognize their marriage.
Because the voters say so is not a reason in a federal court of law.
“Carl”, I think you hit the nail on the head referring to how Hawaiian weddings of Dallas couples could/would get published in the DMN, but not these two guys’ wedding!!! I agree, they need to get with the times!
FYI, The New York Times was the first major American newspaper to begin publishing announcements of “same-sex commitment ceremonies and of some types of formal registration of gay and lesbian partnerships” in its “Weddings” section. At that time, the only state to legally recognize civil unions was Vermont. On Aug. 18, 2002, The Times announced that it would change its “Weddings” heading to “Weddings/Celebrations,” to accommodate the public celebrations of commitment by gay and lesbian couples.
The Dallas Morning News announced its policy to accept same-sex union announcements in July 2003, saying that such announcements would be published in the Sunday “Vows” pages of the Texas Living section under the “Commitments” heading.
Both papers required only that the ceremony be held in a public setting and that the officiant be named.
First amendment applies here. DMN is being rude but legal.
The DMN has absolute first amendment rights to decide what to publish or not. It’s bad business decision to refuse money, but that’s their free right.
First amendment aside, are Skype marriages legal in Texass even for heterosexuals?
Something else not mentioned in this article is that this couple is not even legally married, anyway. A Washington D.C. court sent them a letter informing them that the wedding ceremony in which the officiant stood in Washington while the couple stood in Texas, is invalid. They have to be within the boundaries of Washington D.C. for their wedding to be recognized, just like everyone else.
They went through the trouble and expense of flying to Washington to get a license in a jurisdiction where same-sex marriages are recognized. They should have taken the time to consult with an attorney there to find out whether or not their novel idea for having a long-distance wedding via Skype would be legal.