LINCOLN, NEBRASKA — Harold Wilson and Gracy Sedlak want the same right that so many others are fighting for in the United States today, the right to marry whoever they choose. The reason they are not able to legally marry each other is because Sedlak is a transgender person in transition from male to female. Therefore, their union is legally considered a violation of Nebraska’s constitution, amended in 2000 to allow marriage only between a man and a woman.
After losing two of their own lawsuits challenging that amendment, Wilson and Sedlak have asked permission to be added as plaintiffs to a similar case being brought by the ACLU. For this particular couple, the stakes in this marriage equality fight go beyond the obvious. Wilson is serving a decades-long sentence for attempted murder and other crimes. Without marrying him, Sedlak is barred from visiting her partner because she was herself an inmate within the past three years.
Like many of the battles in the war over marriage equality, each of these cases has a history. Nebraska amended its constitution by ballot initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That move prompted the ACLU and other groups to sue. The case made history in 2005 when U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon became the first to overturn a state marriage law. In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit overruled Bataillon, handing same-sex marriage its only significant judicial defeat prior to the Supreme Court weakening the Defense of Marriage Act last year.
Since that time, a growing consensus among courts has said denying lesbian and gay couples the freedom to marry has no legitimate basis. — ACLU Nebraska spokesman Tyler Richard
Only one federal circuit — the sixth, covering Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee — has upheld such a ban since the Supreme Court’s ruling, setting the stage for revisiting the Nebraska measure. In preparation for this lawsuit, Nebraska’s ACLU carefully vetted a group of seven couples from among the many which volunteered to participate.
According to the Lincoln Journal Star, “Six of the couples are legally married in other states. Four have children. One has been together for three decades; another nearly that long. They include a therapist, a lawyer, a CPA, a doctor, four consultants, a disabled veteran and an advocate for families with disabled children.” The group was selected to send a message that there is nothing dangerous to society about allowing same-sex couples to wed.
Wilson is in the midst of a 56 to 170 year sentence for attempted murder, kidnapping and sexual assault in Dawson County. He’s been in prison since Sedlak, born John Jirovsky, was two years old. The only way to get around the state rule keeping former inmates from visiting prisons is through marriage, a route barred to the couple as long as they are both legally considered male.
Wilson and Sedlak sought to marry under the care of the Lincoln Monthly Meeting of conservative Quakers, where Sedlak, a Wiccan, attends worship. However, the prison blocked the attempt. They were further denied a marriage license twice, and then sought relief in both state and federal courts.In 2013, both cases were denied. The federal case was barred by a settlement in another matter, and the state case — which alternatively asked for Sedlak to be legally recognized as a woman — was denied because the couple failed to pay the necessary filling fees.
After the ACLU case was filed in November, Wilson and Sedlak made a motion to be added as plaintiffs. Attempts to reach Sedlak for comment were unsuccessful.
In their motion against the couple, ACLU lawyers have argued that adding additional plaintiffs now would create an unnecessary delay in the case. According to an AP report, Wilson and Sedlak “have not demonstrated or alleged that the seven Nebraska couples already in the suit do not adequately represent the couple’s interests.”
Judge Bataillon, who originally overturned Nebraska’s constitutional amendment in 2003, will be making the final decision on the ACLU case, including the current motion to include Wilson and Sedlack No date has been publicly announced for a hearing on the motion to be added, which will be decided before the larger case moves forward.
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
They include a therapist, a lawyer, a CPA, a doctor, four consultants, a disabled veteran and an advocate for families with disabled children. Clearly the ACLU has assembled a mediagenic “dream team” of plaintiffs, a predictable PR tactic. New plaintiffs who would raise issues of minority religion and incarceration are unlikely to be welcome.Not saying I admire Nebraska ACLU for this, but I do understand it. I don’t understand a prison system that obstructs any incarceratee wedding. One prison goal is, forgettably, to reform offenders, and marriage is reputed to help that, Blessed be, Harold and Gracy!
There can be no legal benefit for Wilson and Sedlak in being included in the case. If the decision is that marriage cannot be limited by gender, they can get married.
On the other hand, their involvement might open the door for extraneous issues that could possibly diminish the likelihood that the decision would go in their favor.
A very messy case. Thanks to Terence for clearing it up for us lay people because it is exactly the type of cases where mis-information can durably hurt several parties.
Now I would describe myself as a supporter of same-sex marriage but, like Baruch, I understand why the ACLU declined taking care of this specific case. Everywhere in the West, same-sex marriage is on the rise and while I don’t know the specifics for Nebraska, it might not be impossible to think that the law may be overturned soon. Of course, bigots on the other side will try their very best to fight this action and they will use everything they can find to demonize the defenders of same-sex marriage.
I also do not understand the need for this ´couple´ to marry in order to see each other. in the article linked by Terence it is written that
Sedlak, 27, can’t visit Wilson now because of a Nebraska Department of Correctional Services rule that puts a three-year waiting period on former inmates visiting prisons. Sedlak was released from prison in 2011.
Aren’t we in 2015 ? Can’t Sedlak visit her ´partner´ now? If yes, why making such a big fuss about it all? I understand that those people should be allowed to meet, but this ´couple´ is basically the worst kind of PR for the defenders of same-sex marriage. I won’t throw the first stone to the ACLU for avoiding getting entangled in such an ugly mess and, to be frank, I won’t shed a tear if this particular couple doesn’t get what they asked for.
Why are you putting scare-quotes around couple and partner?
Because considering that they have been separated by prison walls since forever I have a hard time calling them an actual “couple” (which in my opinion entails at least some level of physical intimacy – being able to be in the same room for once). I dunno, maybe I could call them like, “Pen Couple”, kinda like “Pen Pals” ? But to be fairly honest I am not that interested in the nomenclature part of this issue.
Why do you think that your opinion of their relationship means anything about their actual relationship? Would you do the same condescending and belittling thing to a straight cis couple who had been separated by other circumstances, say if one was on deployment for a long time in the military, or sent away on some sort of job?
Regardless of your interest, you’re being quite insulting to them.
You are actually right, I am being quite insensitive toward them and I plainly acknowledge that. As for you to know, I would completely have the same negative and condescending attitude had the couple be cis/heterosexual.
I do not think though, that the comparison between this case and let’s say,a military couple is valid. Such a couple would at least, I do believe have had the occasion to actually exist before being separated. As far as I could understand, we have here two people who never lived together (the older one having, been as Terence mentions it, in jail since the younger one was two years old) and never shared anything in life. This is reason I make sense of this rather odd situation by comparing to ´Pen Pals´.
On the other hand, you are also completely right to say that my opinion has absolutely no meaning to their relationship, because, as you said, it’s an opinion. I am not interested in the welfare of this couple in any way shape, or form and I simply commented that this situation appears very odd to me (and I guess to others as well).
I would also be the first one to admit that we don’t know that much about the case and that I might be dead wrong. I would be interested to know more about Sedlak and maybe get her side of the story because I find people with fascination for hardened criminals an interesting bunch.
I gather that they were incarcerated together before Sedlak was released and transitioned.
All I’m saying is, don’t be disrespectful.
In that case I would indeed be dead wrong and acknowledge that my comments were misguided. I still wish I knew more about the case though.
Fascinating story–right up to and including the willingness of Sedlak’s monthly meeting of Conservative Friends to perform a wedding. (Conservative Friends are a different branch of the Quakers than the more familiar Liberal Friends, and one that is explicitly Christian and more conflicted on same-sex marriage than Liberal Friends, generally… though perhaps equally open to trans rights. There has been a great deal of controversy and change among Quakers on this issue in recent years!)
Still, I’m not sure that there’s a news story in the ACLU not adding the couple to their case… particularly if they “have not demonstrated or alleged that the seven Nebraska couples already in the suit do not adequately represent the couple’s interests.” That seems like a pretty clear-cut reason not to add them to the suit, especially since there were apparently many potential plaintiffs to choose from.
Yeah, the ACLU has chosen a “mediagenic” group of plaintiffs. Yeah, there are always questions on strategy in legal advocacy and activism. But I have to agree with Ian Phanes–there’s no particular benefit for the couple beyond whatever personal validation it might afford to be named in the suit. And while personal validation from a wider society is a very legitimate desire (and probably one reason any couple looks to marry) that doesn’t make it outweigh strategic concerns.
I’m curious–Terence, if you’re reading this: where did you encounter this story? It’s hard to believe its had much traction outside of Nebraska…
Hi Cat, we are constantly scanning local news, as well as national and international, for stories involving Pagans, Heathens, Polytheists etc. Stories of any kind. If it hits the internet in some form, we can find it, even when its very local.
Color me impressed. *smile*
Pretty common for them to want to control their own case and to pick plaintiffs they think will be viewed sympathetically. I hope the couple will be able to marry.
In any civil rights case, especially with any minority, the people involved have to be cleaner than clean. You literally have to prove than this faultless person was discriminated against through no fault of their own. Any fault on their side muddies the case and can cause it to be lost. Just as wining a case can set a positive precedent that can help others later on, losing a case, for any reason, sets a negative precedent that can harm people in similar rights cases down the line. The same is true with religious minorities likes our various Pagan, Heathen, and Polytheists communities. This is why 90% of the cases of Persecution and Harassment have to be turned down any Civil Rights organization, there are faults among those victims that could hurt all other cases later on. The ACLU cannot afford to spend limited funds on case likely to be lost. Our court system, and legal systems, are not about justice, but only about wining and losing. Legal Rights won, can later be a case of rights lost. Take a look at civil rights, or women’s rights, and you see what I mean. The whole fight we thought won long ago, starts all over again. We won battles, but the war never ends in our courts, or our in our politics. Generations not yet born will fight again for these same rights. We, who want the rights, have to be just as stubborn as those that want to end those rights. They will never stop fighting against rights of any kind. Freedom of any kind scares them. Just follow orders without question is what they want.
If Sedlack really knows herself to be a transgender woman, she ought to work on that piece of legal recognition and not same sex marriage. SSM in this application could wind up short circuiting the transgender battle to have their true vs born gender legally recognized. With gay marriage available, conservatives will be saying “you can get married, just admit you’re really a dude.”
Friends, I know this has nothing to do with the article, and even less to Paganism, Wicca and whatnot, but I kindly ask you to pray or have a thought for the poor people murdered in Paris today. This tragedy has been sickening me all day and I want to hear some positive words…
I think it does; we as pagans of many kinds depend upon free speech and free expression. My heart goes out to the people of Paris and of France, and, of course, to the victims of this horrid jihadist attack.
Thank you.