Court Annuls Texas Couple's D.C. Skype Wedding

Nice try, but no wedding cake: Washington, D.C.'s marriage bureau refused to validate a marriage certificate for a same-sex couple joined in wedlock by a D.C. marriage officiant. The reason: the officiant was in Washington, D.C., but the grooms were in Texas, and the ceremony was conducted via Skype.

The e-wedding took place on Oct. 10 and was the subject of coverage in the national media. But any popping champagne corks proved to be premature, a Nov. 29 TBD posting said, as the D.C. marriage bureau eventually determined that the marriage--not having been wholly conducted within the District's legal jurisdiction--was not valid.

Grooms Mark Reed and Dante Walkup said their vows in Dallas, Texas, in front of a large screen with a live video feed of marriage officiant Sheila Alexander-Reid, who pronounced them married from Washington, D.C. But, Alexander-Reid informed TBD, "The D.C. marriage bureau kicked back the certificate we had filed."

The District's Superior Court sent a letter to Alexander-Reid saying, "The return is invalid because it has come to the attention of the court that the subject contracting parties to the marriage and you, the officiant, did not all personally participate in a marriage ceremony performed within the jurisdictional and territorial limits of the District of Columbia." However, the bureau sent along a license for Alexander-Reid to use should Reed and Walkup care to travel to Washington, D.C. and marry in the District "with all parties . . . in physical attendance."

"The law is really kind of ambiguous" when it comes to modern communications and the ancient tradition of the contract of civil marriage, noted Alexander-Reid. "It doesn't say all parties have to be present--just that the ceremony needs to be performed within the jurisdiction of D.C. And it was, technically."

Indeed, the marriage was hailed as the shape of things to come by Ezra Klein in a Nov. 15 Washington Post article. Klein noted that local laws presented a barrier to non-residents wanting to wed online, but added, "if this interpretation of the law holds, it means that a gay couple can be legally married from anywhere in the nation."

Mark Reed also noted that two D.C. marriage bureau officials had told him that a Skype wedding would be fine as long as the officiant was in the District. The grooms were "shocked and devastated" according to Reed, reported Dallas Observer blog Unfair Park on Nov. 29.

"In good faith, we planned our wedding accordingly because we thought we were talking to the experts," Reed told Unfair Park. Reed speculated that the invalidation of their marriage certificate was motivated by bias--an impression underscored by the lack of any communication from the marriage bureau or the Superior Court prior to the notification the men and their officiant received.

Operating on the theory that someone learned of the Skype wedding from the media and then complained to the court--or that a court official took direct action upon learning of the wedding--a professor with the Michigan State University College of Law, Mae Kuykendall, told Unfair Park. Kuykendall is a proponent of marriage ceremonies conducted via modern telecommunications, the blog noted. "It's fairly extraordinary for the court to have taken action adverse to Dante and Mark's interests based on something they read in the paper without advising them they were contemplating doing so," the professor opined. Kuykendall was also surprised that a third party had taken action to invalidate the couple's union.

The blog reported that the men had lodged a discrimination complaint against local newspaper the Dallas Morning News, which refused to carry their wedding announcement. That complaint has been set aside for the moment, until the men can reestablish the legality of their marriage--most likely by traveling to D.C. and repeating their ceremony.