Gay Marriage

could this be a young Pete Burns?  According to a report today, Pete Burns who married Michael Simpson, in a civil partnership only ten months ago, has separated from his partner. He was seen on the Richard & Judy Show, flashing an engagement ring and speaking of his happiness at marrying his partner, but now he has [...]

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce c

A new poll by the Norwegian newspaper, Vart Land, discovered an overwhelming majority of Norwegians support the proposed law that would allow gay marriage to become legal in their nation. Of those surveyed, 58% expressed support for the new Marriage Act and 31% were opposed. The remainder either were uncertain or had no opinion. Gay [...]

This is not easy to write about controversial issues like gay marriage, but this is what you will have to do in your essays on gay marriage.   First thing you should remember is that it is necessary to be extremely polite when writing your essays on gay marriage. What does it mean? Well, even if you [...]

Norway already has a “partnership law” that allows homosexuals to form legal domestic partnerships. It now appears gays and leslbians will be allowed in Norway to marry since a majority in parliament is expected to pass such legislation. Anniken Huitfeldt, minister in charge of children and family issues, termed the proposed law “an historic step [...]

When Utah is endorsing the idea of treating gay and lesbian folk just like everyone else, you know that the Rapture can't be far behind. The Utah House has overwhelming approved legislation that would permit Salt Lake City, and other municipalities, to treat same sex couples the same as anyone who has been joined by sacred covenant in the Salt Lake City Temple.Just don't call it marriage—or domestic partnership either.While the no name feature of the law is a snide institutionalized swat, if they are going to start treating everyone like full-fledged citizens, maybe it is not really all that important. Civilly and legally a marriage is just a civil union. And since everyone likes to play word games these days, maybe it really doesn't matter what they want to call it—or if, like

Yesterday Hillary Clinton made a comeback of sorts winning the Democratic primaries in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island while Obama took only Vermont.That leaves this race undeniably very tight.Mr. Obama has 1,477 pledged delegates compared to Mrs. Clinton’s 1,391. 2,025 are needed to win. With this close race we have now I see that makes my North Carolina Lesbian Mom vote a much more relevant and necessary one for both candidates to woo if they want to be the Democratic chosen one.Here is what remain for primaries races:March 8: WyomingMarch 11: MississippiApril 22: PennsylvaniaMay 6: Indiana, and my home state, North CarolinaMay 13: Nebraska (primary), West VirginiaMay 20: Kentucky, OregonJune 3: Montana, New Mexico (R), and South DakotaIt does not take an Einstein to figure the math and k

From Jeffrey Lalloway at the California Divorce and Family Law Blog, comes the news that the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on gay marriage on March 4. Excerpts from the California Divorce and Family Law post: "The pros and cons of same-sex marriage will get an airing here March 4 in oral arguments before the California Supreme Court, the court announced Wednesday. In dispute

From Jeffrey Lalloway at the California Divorce and Family Law Blog, comes the news that the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on gay marriage on March 4. Excerpts from the California Divorce and Family Law post: "The pros and cons of same-sex marriage will get an airing here March 4 in oral arguments before the California Supreme Court, the court announced Wednesday. In dispute

Thanks to this recent New York Divorce and Family Law Blog post for reporting on the recent New York Appellate Division (intermediate level state appellate court) case of Martinez v. County of Monroe, which recognized a same-sex marriage of a lesbian couple which had been performed in Canada, and gave it effect in New York, despite the fact that New York, like all U.S. states save Massachusetts,

Thanks to this recent New York Divorce and Family Law Blog post for reporting on the recent New York Appellate Division (intermediate level state appellate court) case of Martinez v. County of Monroe, which recognized a same-sex marriage of a lesbian couple which had been performed in Canada, and gave it effect in New York, despite the fact that New York, like all U.S. states save Massachusetts,

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds ofcrazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a doghas legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn'tchanged at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marrywhites, and divorce is still illegal. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriagewere allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-funmarriage would be destroyed. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed tomarry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs morechildren. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since str

I had been planning to post an article on gay marriage some time soon (I’ve also been planning to write an article on procrastination, but I keep putting it off), but I’m glad to say that Ebonmuse has beaten me to it at Daylight Atheism. He’s done a far more thorough and clinical job than I would have done, so it’s my pleasure to direct you to it. Had I written my thoughts on the matter, though, I would have included Roy Zimmerman’s great song Defenders of Marriage, which I’ve decided to do anyway. Enjoy!

Here’s a story which Mitt Romney might really find of value for his anti-France campaign. He’s already attacked France with untrue claims about marriage practices there which probably came either from a 1993 comedy or a science fiction story about Mormon practices in space. Now we have a report which argues that there was legalized same-sex marriage in medieval France: “Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize,” Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. “And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.” For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term “affrèrement,” roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said. In the contract, the “brothers” pledged to live together sharing “un pain, un vin, et u

After yesterday’s rant, I thought I sum up a bit on how I feel about the topic of gay marriage. I haven’t written about it because, as I said before, it’s an old argument that has run its course. But, I thought that I’d at least let you all in on how I honestly feel about it. I’m not one to get on a soap box and spew my ideology until people’s ears start bleeding. There’s no reason to harp on something over and over again. When you do that, you simply can’t evolve. I prefer to stay unstuck, to keep moving and to grow in my opinions and in life. In order to do that, I say my peace and then I move on. Here’s my “peace” on gay marriage: I don’t mind being a bridesmaid. I think it’s fun to be involved with the wedding and to witness two people who think so much of one another that they decide to pledge their love and spend the rest of their lives together. But lately I’ve been pondering the ever-popular c

Elizabeth Edwards did what no other Democratic or Republican presidential candidate or spouse of him, including her own husband, still hasn't. She has publically endorsed the idea of gay marriage.“I don’t know why someone else’s marriage has anything to do with me, I’m completely comfortable with gay marriage.”Few marriages are as rock solid as the Edwards'. If they don't feel threatened by gay marriage, no one else should either.

Diane Steele, a 52 year-old woman participating in a Christian extremist rally in Boston to support a same-sex marriage ban, was arraigned on assault charges for attacking a gay marriage supporter at an opposing rally. It seems that Ms. Steele went out of her way to express her Christian love, crossing the street to slap her surprised victim.Boston Police spokesperson James Kenneally said Steele apparently decided to "escalate" the debate into a physical confrontation.Unfortunate and hardly the first time this sort of thing has happened. It is bad enough that Christian extremists want to take away the freedom of two consenting American adults to marry without their having to resort to violence to express themselves.H/T to Pam's House BlendTags: gay marriage, religion, Christian extremism, Christian extremists, Christianity, Christian, intolerance, homophobia, Boston, assault, marriage

Massachusetts legislatures today voted against putting a gay marriage ban amendment on the ballet in ‘08. The bigger issue here to me is the way that the legislature with help from the governor, Deval Patrick, have shown complete disdain for the state constitution. A group was able to gather 140,000 signatures in favor of the amendment, this should have been more than enough to have the issue go to the voters. At first it looked as though this would happen, however the governor started applying immense pressure and even bribed members with the promise of government hack jobs in return for their votes, and in some cases to have the legislators accept the jobs and step down before the vote. This group did everything according to the state constitution to have an amendment voted on and the legislators turned their backs on the constitution. You can read more about that here, and here. Governor Patrick was able to successfully delay the vote until he was able to get the vote he want

In a huge victory for gay rights activists the state legislature of Massachusetts today defeated a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage. This ends a three-year campaign to overturn the legalization of gay marriage.The Boston Herald reports that the ban was defeated in a roll-call vote of both houses of the Legislature. This dramatic legislative battle ended with the thunderous applause of gay couples seated in the Senate House. The final vote tally was 151-45, a slim 5 point margin of victory for gay marriage supporters.Massachusetts is currently the only state where same-sex unions are legal. Today’s vote means the ban will be blocked from reaching the 2008 ballot, allowing gay marriage to clear its first hurdle since it was legalized in a historic 2003 state court ruling. The 2003 decision ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional that paved the way for the country's first same-sex marriages the next year. According to Reuters, over 8,000 gay and lesbian couples

with 53 cosponsers, 52 Democrats and one lone Republican.The bill is being introduced by Daniel O'Donnell (D-Morningside Heights)The co-sponsers;Marc Alessi (D-Mastic), Jeffrion Aubry (D-Corona), Michael Benedetto (D-Pelham Bay), Jonathan Bing (D-Upper East Side), William Boyland, Jr. (D-Brownsville) Adam Bradley (D-White Plains), James Brennan (D-Park Slope), Richard Brodsky (D-Greenburgh), Kevin Cahill (D-Kingston), Vivian Cook (D-South Jamaica), Luis Diaz (D-University Heights), Jeffrey Dinowitz (D-Riverdale), Patricia Eddington (D-Medford), Steve Englebright (D-Setauket), Herman D. Farrell, Jr. (D-Washington Heights), Ginny Fields (D-Oakdale), Deborah Glick (D-Greenwich Village), Richard Gottfried (D-Chelsea), Andrew Hevesi (D-Forest Hills), Sam Hoyt (D-Buffalo), Ellen Jaffee (D-Suffern), Hakeem Jeffries (D-Fort Greene), Susan John (D-Rochester), Brian Kavanagh (D-Turtle Bay), Ivan Lafayette (D-Jackson Heights), Rory Lancman (D-Flushing), George Latimer (D-Rye), Charles Lavine (D-

I recently read something on NY Governor Eliot Spitzer and his legislature for same sex marriage in New York; Governor Eliot Spitzer's same sex marriage hoax. According to the writer, there was no law in New York that denies the right to marriage for gay couples. In fact, the writer goes to say that the law is not gender specific and the only thing standing in the way is in the Department of Health where they state it is between one man and one woman. Could it really be that simple? Governor Spitzer could simply change the wording in the Department of Health documents pertaining to marriage by executive order and same sex couples can marry? No legislature necessary; can it be? There was a letter written from the Attorney General’s office to Darrin B Derosia from the City of Cohoes in NY and Peter Graham from the town of Olive in NY back in 2004 addressing this very issue. It gave an overview of the Domestic Relations Law, formal requirements, voidable marriages, annulments and

The main argument commonly used against gay marriage is the necessity to protect the “sanctity of marriage” — whatever that means.  For the most part it is an argument based on religious positions.  Since our constitution requires a separation of Church and State, it is only logical that the government should get out of the marriage business completely. The benefits being sought by gay couples are mainly legal and economic in nature.  This amounts to a contractual agreement, freely made, between two people.  There is no valid reason for the government to stand in the way of a consensual contractual agreement. The benefits of a “religious” marriage are based on faith and commitment.  There are already churches that will perform this ceremony for people, gay or straight.  This type of commitment does not need the sanction of government authority to take place, it just needs an agreed upon mindset between two people. The co

New York Governor unveils gay marriage bill - AP/Concord MonitorExcerpt:"Following through on a campaign pledge, Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer unveiled a bill yesterday that would legalize gay marriage in New York - a bill he has conceded has almost no chance of passing."http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070428/REPOSITORY/704280360/1013/NEWS03Alex

If there is any doubt Spitzer is spending his political capital like a drunken sailor, I give you his push for gay marriage to a divided legislature.Spitzer is a strong support of gay marriage and has vowed to work to make New York the second state to legalize it, and the first to do it by legislation.Some polls have shown a small majority of New Yorkers support gay marriage. A larger majoriity support civil unions and domestic partnerships. More over, although I have no proof of this, my belief is that to most New Yorkers, gay marriage is low on the issues meter; meaning if it was legalized, the large minority who opposes it would not suddenly begin rioting and picketing, nor would it destroy Spitzer or the state's Democratic Party.Still, Spitzer's chances of getting a bill to sign into law are slim. Although a majority in the legislature supports it, some Democrats oppose it and the Republicans still control the State Senate.While I applaud the Governor's spending of political cap

Earlier today I discovered a blog owner that had copied two articles from my blog as well as hotlinking the photos. I emailed him and explained the error of his ways. He made the appropriate changes. Mike Davidson, CEO of Newsvine, and designer of a very popular MySpace template, discovered a...

After years of listening to the gay marriage debate, I agree with the conservatives; gay couples should not get married. I too, feel that it would rock the foundation of marriage. Imagine how threatening a gay couple living next door to a heterosexual couple would be? Those men managed to earn a living; participate in cultured and civic life; and still find the time to do the dishes, fix the sink, prepare an exceptional dry martini, reupholster the furniture, and redecorate the entire house on a yearly basis. As for lesbians, think about what the shared housework, shared child raising and equal financial contribution would spark in all of those desperate suburban housewives? How could the heterosexual male compete? Soon, the inability to meet the same expectations would cause the marriage to crumble and divorce rates to skyrocket well beyond the already existing 50% divorce rate! Think about all of the single parent households that would produce and God knows it takes both a male an

sarcasm at it's finest...Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile coup

12.10.06In 1994 Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) wrote a letter to the log cabin republicans. In it, he makes several statements that imply his support in gay marriage, especially the federal "don't ask, don't tell" policy when he wrote it, "will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military". Conservative leaders immediately began to express doubts. However, he did get the endorsements of Missouri Governor Matt Blunt and Florida State House Speaker Allan Bense.

Yesterday, Conservative Judaism decided to take a somewhat liberal approach to gay marriage (and gay rabbis): It's allowed, but it's up to the individual congregation to decide to accept it. As explained by The New York Times:In doing so, the committee left it up to individual synagogues to decide whether to accept or reject gay rabbis and commitment ceremonies, saying that either course is justified according to Jewish law. "We believe in pluralism," said Rabbi Kassel Abelson, chairman of the panel, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly, at a news conference after the meeting at the Park Avenue Synagogue in New York. "We recognized from the very beginnings of the movement that no single position could speak for all members" on the law committee or in the Conservative movement.I've said it before, but it bears repeating: Not only is this openminded and fair, but it's the right answer.

Yesterday we saw the proposed constitutional to ban gay marriage defeated in the House by a vote of 236-187 (hooray for our side!). While this is certainly good news on some level, the fact remains that while this amendment probably won't go anywhere, many states are easily passing and upholding bans on the state level, and even trying to eliminate the possibility of civil unions.But as I listened to Dennis Hastert saying "Be assured that this issue is not over," and then to Joe Pitts of PA saying, "We must not allow an institution of such great importance to be arbitrarily redefined for the entire nation by a small number of unelected judges," I was left with the same question that I always seem to be left with on this issue. What's the big deal?If the Republicans and their friends want to be honest and just say "We hate queers and we just don't want them to have any rights whatsoever," then I can understand. But this whole issue of the sanctity of marriage or this so-called "in

I am personally all for gay marriage. I have no issue with and am impressed by the S.A. governments liberal and progressive stand point regarding this issue. I do have an issue with rushed marriage, gay or straight.I think that marriage is something that should be considered carefully, financially, emotionally, mentally and physically. It should not be fucked with, at all, ever. I fear that many, many gay South Africans will soon be following Vernon Gibbs and Tony Halls who went to get married on the day that same-sex marriage was legalised in South Africa. I am concerned not because of the implications and that bullshit banter. I am concerned because I think that many people will simply be getting married cause it's the latest trend in the pink circles. Crit me, mock me or disagree, but I think that there will be many, many gay divorces in the near future. Join the heteros and get married, cool, but lest us not forget that marriage is all too often followed by divorce.

Add another government entity to the list surrounding the US that has approved gay marriage. Canada and now even the Mexican state of Coahuila that borders Texas has approved gay marriage.How long will it take to gain equality in America? As long as that Christian fundamentalist GW Bush is in office we will never gain equality. I am pinning my hopes on the next presidential election when a Democrat is swept into office....Type rest of the post here

12.10.06In 1994 Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) wrote a letter to the log cabin republicans. In it, he makes several statements that imply his support in gay marriage, especially the federal "don't ask, don't tell" policy when he wrote it, "will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military". Conservative leaders immediately began to express doubts. However, he did get the endorsements of Missouri Governor Matt Blunt and Florida State House Speaker Allan Bense.