Would this family be allowed to exist in Virginia?

By a 71-28 vote, the Virginia House has passed a law which codifies the state’s Board of Social Services policy of allowing private adoption agencies to discriminate against potential adoptive parents on the basis of gender, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation and family status. The supporters of the bill cite religious freedom, while the opponents say any agency which has a state contract cannot discriminate.

Naturally, the loudest voices are being raised over the issue of same sex couples or gay individuals being barred from adoption in Virginia. That ignores the discrimination being allowed against others.

Under this law, a Virginia private adoption agency can decide that they will only provide services to a white, married couple, aged 25 through 35, who belong to an evangelical church, are found to be perfectly healthy by medical examination and who are “pillars of their community” with an inherited or achieved status that includes a yearly income over $100,000 a year. The suitability of the couple will not be an issue, just their ability to meet these arbitrary and superficial criteria. A couple could meet all those criteria and turn out to be child molesters or spousal abusers. Psychological abuse does not leave visible bruises, but leaves scars just as damaging and devastating.

Legally, the opponents are right. Private firms that accept government contracts and government money are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws are government agencies. This law will probably end up being challenged in court. Hopefully, it will not be presented as a single-issue lawsuit. An older couple should be able to adopt, particularly since there are so many older adoptable children in America. A person in a wheelchair can be an excellent parent. People of every faith and people of no faith can be good parents . And what the hell does “family status” mean?

This law is a case of “cover your ass” legislation. To keep gays from adopting, Virginia’s legislature has voted for broad-spectrum discrimination, just so they will not be accused of being homophobic. These are great laws, really they are. In covering their homophobic asses, these homophobes leave themselves open to having the laws overturned under all the laws this country has about not discriminating against people with disabilities, or on the basis of race, religion, age or gender. Thank you, Virginia, for being so utterly stupid.

Related articles

• VIRGINIA: State Board Allows Adoption Agencies To Discriminate Against Gays (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Virginia’s Anti-Gay Adoption Restrictions May Create Costs For State (thinkprogress.org)
• New Virginia Adoption Rules Permit Anti-Gay, Gender, Disability And Other Forms Of Discrimination (thinkprogress.org)
• Obama Backs Gay Parents in Proclamation for National Adoption Month (towleroad.com)

According to the language of House Joint Resolution 22, “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. A marriage, civil union or similar relationship entered into by persons of the same sex that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void and shall not be recognized for any purpose in this state. In the exercise of the state’s police power and recognizing the state’s strong interest in governing the relationships between married persons, the provisions of this section shall apply retroactively.”

When it comes to respecting marriage, though, Chavez has a pretty spotty record. In October 2010, Chavez was accused of domestic abuse, and his wife filed for divorce. The two were married for four years and two months.

This is a consistent theme. Many of the politicians who oppose same-sex marriage have problems with marriage. They tend to be divorced repeatedly or have problems with domestic abuse, and so forth.

“I’ve been married to my wife for 14 wonderful years. Like many couples out there, we’ve had our hardships, we’ve had our trials, but nothing like the LGBT has to go through. It pains me to see my family and friends blocked from the same rights, privileges, protections that my wife and I are granted, just because we are legally married. What does it say to the youth of Indiana when a whole segment of our society is treated like second-class citizens?”

H/T Towleroad

In an editorial, Mehlman wrote:

The party of Lincoln and Reagan should stand first and foremost for freedom. It’s part of our heritage and ought to be part of our DNA. Freedom for Americans of all races is why our party was founded. And our greatest moments — from the unbelievable economic recovery unleashed by lower taxes and less regulation to the fall of the Berlin Wall — resulted when we promoted freedom.

Stripping away the right of adults in New Hampshire to marry the person they love is antithetical to freedom. If we really believe (and we should) that every citizen is endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness, shouldn’t this include the right to marriage? If we believe in limited government, how can we justify expanding the authority of the state to take away this most personal, fundamental right? Aren’t politicians already too involved in too much of our lives? Why would we want to expand government to such a personal space?

. . .

During my time in politics, I always believed that good policy is good politics. Looking at the views of New Hampshire voters, it’s pretty clear that stripping the right to marry is bad policy and bad politics. Sixty-two percent of New Hampshire voters oppose taking away the right to marry.

I will be in New Hampshire this week — to urge legislative members of my party to reject House Bill 437. It’s time to stand up for individual freedom and liberty, to live by the Golden Rule and to oppose any effort to diminish or strip away individual rights, and to return to the real business of building business, keeping taxes down and growing our economy. “Live Free or Die” should be more than just a slogan.

Many Americans are tired of having the Religious Right dictate what the nation is suppose to be like, and they want an end to these discriminatory laws and they want the maximum amount of personal freedom that the State can manage.

It may take some time, but hopefully, Mehlman can redeem himself and reverse the damage he has done to the LGBT Community during his time in politics.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120126/OPINION02/701269967

Elizabeth Warren

At a time when It Gets Better videos all tend to be flashy and almost campaign-y, former school teacher and current Senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren has issued a video that is very low key. Her video matches her personality in that it is simple and direct. In the video, Warren starts:

“I’m Elizabeth Warren, and you may be wondering what I have to say to you. After all, I haven’t lived your life. But when I graduated from college, I was a schoolteacher, and I watched what happens in hallways, on sidewalks, out in the schoolyard. I watched kids who pushed, who bullied. I saw how much pain some kids could inflict on other kids.”

Aubrey Sarvis, the outgoing Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, stated:

“This is a clear victory in the fight to achieve full equality for service members. In his 2010 State of the Union, President Obama committed to repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and indeed, it would not have been possible without his determination to do so. Even as we celebrate this milestone tonight, let us not forget that our work is far from done. While gay and lesbian service members may now serve openly if they choose, they are still not serving equally. They are without the same protections from harassment and discrimination that are afforded others, and legally married gay and lesbian service members do not receive the same recognition, support, and benefits for their families as their straight married counterparts. We must keep fighting until the mission is complete.”

Polk County Judge Eliza Ovrom issued her ruling this past week, based entirely on standing law. In Iowa, if a couple is married, as a consequence of court rulings in 1945 and 1999, the husband’s name is automatically listed on the birth certificate, even if there is a question about his contribution to the child’s DNA. Melissa and Heather have been together since 2003. They had a son, Zachary, in 2007, through anonymous donation. Heather was the birth mother and Melissa adopted Zachary. But, in April, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state must allow same-sex marriage, and in June, 2009, Heather and Melissa were legally married. When Heather gave birth to daughter Mackenzie in September, 2009, they expected Melissa’s name to be listed on the birth certificate in accordance with Iowa law.

In Judge Ovrom’s view, the law that says a husband’s name must automatically go on the birth certificate applies to all legal marriages in Iowa. It would not apply to all same-sex couples who are legally married in Iowa, however. Ovrom ruled that it applies in situations like the Gartner’s where there is no established identity for the donor of the sperm. Where a biological father is known, the state needs to be mindful of his rights.

Not being on the birth certificate seriously impedes Melissa’s rights as a parent, not allowing her to make medical care decisions, enroll her in school or pick her up at a day care. She would not even be allowed to obtain a copy of Mackenzie’s birth certificate. Adoption is a very expensive process, that would create an unusual and legally unnecessary burden on the Gartner family.

The legalese of the ruling cites the relevant section of the Iowa Code, which states that birth certificates would include the name of a “husband” as the “father.” But the ruling also includes the Iowa Supreme Court ruling about same-sex marriage which stated that all language in Iowa Codes should be amended to allow gay and lesbian couples full access to the legal protections of civil marriage.

The manner in which the Iowa Department of Public Health implements the ruling will determine if other same-sex married couples need to file their own lawsuits. If they limit listing the partner’s name on children conceived through anonymous donors, it may be necessary to work out new rules concerning known donors.

Related articles

• Iowa Judge: Both Same-Sex Parents’ Names Belong On Birth Certificates (thinkprogress.org)
• Iowa Must Issue Two Mother Birth Certificate (julieshapiro.wordpress.com)
• More good news from Iowa; Same-sex parents win lawsuit! (queerlandia.com)
• Melissa And Heather Gartner, Iowa Lesbian Couple, Win Child’s Birth Certificate Lawsuit (huffingtonpost.com)

Archbishop John C. Nienstedt has stated that any priest who does not agree with the Church’s stance on a constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples had better just shut up and never talk in public. He said this in a private speech:

It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this Archdiocese will support this venture and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead. The gravity of this struggle, and the radical consequences of inaction propels me to place a solemn charge upon you all — on your ordination day, you made a promise to promote and defend all that the Church teaches. I call upon that promise in this effort to defend marriage. There ought not be open dissension on this issue. If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly. If anyone believes in conscience that he cannot cooperate, I want him to contact me directly and I will plan to respond personally.

Various members of Progressive Catholic Voice are upset with Nienstedt. Paula Ruddy, a parishioner at St Boniface in Minneapolis, said “When I first read this letter I couldn’t believe that the Archbishop was telling priests and deacons to be silent if they were opposed to the marriage amendment. Is one’s position on whether the State constitution should be amended a matter of Church doctrine? How are Catholics to form their consciences if their pastors are not candid with them?”

Ruddy is on the board of Progressive Catholic Voice, and their editor Michael Bayly said “The Archbishop’s letter is problematic in many ways. As a gay man, I find it particularly offensive that he can’t even bring himself to name gay and lesbian people. We’re simply a ‘minority’ seemingly out to destroy the church and civilization. Such an absurd caricature would be funny if not for the hurtful and damaging consequences to individuals, couples and families resulting from the Archbishop’s anti-marriage equality activism.”

Minnesota’s Catholic Church hierarchy started to find itself under intense scrutiny over their support for the constitutional amendment.

Related articles

• MINNESOTA: Archbishop Tells Priests To Shut Up If They Oppose Anti-Gay Bill (joemygod.blogspot.com)

Rick Santorum, by Donkey Hotey

We have had this conversation before about Rick Santorum, back when he was in the U. S. Senate. He uses studies that relate to straight parents to defend his position on gay parenting. His newest one cites “one anti-poverty expert” who, according to Santorum, “…found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children’s lives.” The first time Santorum came to my attention, he was speaking on the Senate floor, weeping copiously, displaying charts created based on a couple of “studies.” The first was the infamous “Marriage in Scandinavia” That study alleged that the legalization of same sex marriage had adversely impacted straight marriage in “Scandinavia.” The study used statistics from the 1970s through the 1990s which did show a decline in marriage rates in Scandinavia. Problem is, The Netherlands isn’t in Scandinavia. Scandinavia consists of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. None of those countries had same sex marriage. They didn’t even have civil unions. The Netherlands had progressed, over a ten year period, through registered domestic partnerships and civil unions to same sex marriage. Their Bureau of Statistics said that there hadn’t been enough same sex marriages to draw any statistical conclusions about their impact.

The second study Santorum used was about the effects of divorce and single parenthood in straight couples. Not a single same sex couple was profiled. That study did say that a child benefitted from having both a mother and a father. But it didn’t say anything about having two mothers or two fathers.

The studies that Santorum ignored were the ones that showed that same-sex parents waited to have children, were more financially stable (have to be, becoming a same-sex parent is expensive), were better educated, more emotional mature and really, really, really wanted that kid. They also showed that two parents, of any configuration, was better than one. Santorum is still ignoring those studies. They don’t fit with his narrative. They deny the necessity of men.

That is what this comes down to with Rick Santorum. The work that is being done now that could lead to the conversion of a human egg into the equivalent of a sperm is Santorum’s worst nightmare. If women could have babies without any contribution, natural or otherwise, from a man, what is the point of having men at all?

There is a new research brief, Childbearing Outside of Marriage: Estimates and Trends in the United States, that shows that more women are having babies outside of marriage. It’s just the kind of study Rick Santorum loves. The right wing is pushing the study to show that single motherhood is a public concern because “it is linked to negative outcomes for women and their children across a range of measures, as well as with a reliance on public assistance.” Agreed, if all you look at is a teenager who got pregnant by accident and whose baby-daddy took a hike. But that conclusion ignores the increase in single motherhood among educated, financially stable women, older women, who have given up on trying to find a man and chosen to have a family instead. Add in the single women who adopt, like Diane Keaton and Sandra Bullock, and you have a whole other picture. It is also worth looking at the way “staying together for the sake of the children” no longer works as a reason to stay in a bad marriage, unless there is some deficiency in the wife – lack of education, lack of resources, psychological factors. Women are coming to the conclusion that becoming a mother isn’t worth the investment in time, effort or commitment with a less-than-acceptable man.

Rick Santorum will continue to rail against gays and lesbians and same-sex parenting for two reasons. First, he’s deeply homophobic. He admits it, sort of. He acknowledges that the whole idea of gay makes him ill. That covers the gay men bashing. He hates lesbians because they prove that it is not necessary to have a dick to be an important person or raise great kids. Lesbians diminish Santorum’s level of importance in the world. They, and straight women who chose to be single parents, are making the statement that straight men need to prove themselves capable of something more valuable in society than spreading their seed. Jane is saying Tarzan should get an education and a decent job and stop sitting on the couch, drinking beer, watching “the game” and scratching himself.

On Friday, Santorum told an audience that “Marriage is not a right. It’s a privilege that is given to society by society for a reason. We want to encourage what is best for children.” Wrong. Marriage is a legal contract for the protection of property or to secure inheritance rights to a position. For centuries, women were told that marriage protected them. Not hardly. It denied them every imaginable freedom.

Somewhere in all the uproar over Rick Santorum’s positions on gay marriage and gay rights, his equating of homosexuality with beastiality and pedophilia, his insistence that gay marriage is a gateway to polygamy and marrying your dog, something important has gotten overlooked. Rick Santorum hates women. He doesn’t trust women to raise children, run a home, earn a living, lead productive lives without a MAN. In his view, women are only complete when they have a man and children are only valid if they have a male parent. He actually believes that having a rapist, drug dealer, murderer or psychopath for a father is better than being raised by a woman alone.

He’s politically savvy enough to understand that he can’t just come out and say that if he could he would strip women of their rights, but that’s what is lying just under the surface of his positions on family and children. He is 100% with St. Paul, who said that a man was the head of the household just as Christ was the head of the Church. Maybe that’s what he really meant when he said he was the “Jesus candidate” – he’s the person who thinks men are the earthly equivalent of Christ and are to be obeyed and followed in all things.

On a more earthly note…..

Now that Santorum is center stage, literally and figuratively, people are finally looking at his finances. He portrays himself as blue-collar, with an Italian immigrant coal-mining grandfather. Well, the grandfather part is true. Santorum’s raking in about $1.3 million a year as a member of the board of a health care company, a consultant for a Pennsylvania energy company and his work for a Washington lobbying firm. Not bad for a guy who, while in the Senate only made $165,000 in salary and $32,000 in book royalties. He is hardly the Washington outsider he says he is. He’s taken the path of least ethics since being defeated for re-election – he’s a paid lobbyist for those very interests that most hurt us – for-profit health care and over-priced energy.

Related articles

• Rick Santorum Argues with Students About Same-Sex Marriage and Polygamy: VIDEO (towleroad.com)
• Rick Santorum booed for suggesting gay marriage ‘harms’ children (topix.net)
• The Desperate Spin Of Rick Santorum (lezgetreal.com)
• ABC News video | New Hampshire college students boo Rick Santorum for anti-gay marriage stand (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Santorum Tells Kids With Gay Parents: You’d Be Better Off With Parents In Prison (thinkprogress.org)
• Bill O’Reilly Questions Rick Santorum About His ‘Extreme’ Plans to Invalidate Same-Sex Marriage Licenses: VIDEO (towleroad.com)

via Wikipedia

Ricky Martin is not getting married in Spain. That has been the rumor for some time, but he has routinely denied it. Instead, he plans on marrying his boyfriend Carlos Gonzalez on 28 January in New York City. Same-sex marriage is legal in New York.

Martin came out in March of 2010, and has since expressed his support for marriage equality. Martin has called for marriage equality in Puerto Rico, where it is currently illegal. He has said in the past “What I want is for them to say no to discrimination so that equality among us human beings may be a reality in my country.” Rumors of his getting married in Spain began after he was granted Spanish citizenship on 4 November.

This is still somewhat speculation. A Puerto Rican newspaper is reporting this, and they were told by a source close to the couple.

Via FOX News

The state Department of Health’s newly created website to apply for a civil union is hawaii.gov”>https://civilunion.ehawaii.gov .

Applications for marriage can also be made online at marriage.ehawaii.gov”>https://marriage.ehawaii.gov .

That former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum wants to impose his religious beliefs upon others is not a surprise. He is very open about it, in fact. In the following clip, Santorum explains not only his desire to have an amendment banning same-sex marriage, but how he wants to ensure that all those marriages are rendered null and void:

SANTORUM: I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody. We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law…

TODD: What would you do with same-sex couples who got married? Would you make them get divorced?

SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,” then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution… I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Santorum is a devout Catholic, and his view of marriage is nowhere near universal. Instead, this would amount to the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans being imposed upon the beliefs of the majority. While legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the nation would not result in people having to give up their religious beliefs, it would force those religions that support same-sex marriage to be considered second-class beliefs.

Rep. Ron Paul

There are many problems with Ron Paul’s position on marriage including the fact that, like it or not, the idea that you are married if the community thinks you are married ignores the fact that many Americans move constantly, and that the marriage contract ensures that all communities recognize people as married.

The idea is not horrific, in all honesty.  It was how many cultures worked about a thousand to fifteen hundred years ago when, well, people did not move around a lot.

It is one of those beliefs of Ron Paul’s that looks good on the surface, but a little bit of logic and accounting for modern times tends to render it rather badly conceived.

This is not, however, why the National Organization for Marriage hates his ideas regarding marriage.  They recently wrote “Many believe that Congressman Paul is a conservative, but when it comes to marriage, he’s no conservative—his position is radical and will lead to the destruction of traditional marriage in America.”

They also wrote “Go and see for yourself what he has to say. When asked if gay marriage should be legal, his response was, ‘Sure.’ Even should a federal court impose gay marriage (as a district judge in San Francisco has already done), he opposes a constitutional amendment to restore traditional marriage. In fact, he has even gone so far as to say that civil marriage should be abolished altogether.”

The ad from them is above.

Related articles

• Ron Paul Still Backing Getting Government Out Of Marriage (lezgetreal.com)
• An Open Letter Of Apology To Amy Koch From The LGBT Community (lezgetreal.com)
• Money Hard To Come By For Anti-Gay Groups (lezgetreal.com)

The law exempts clergy from having to solemnize civil unions. The legislation reads “Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any person authorized to perform solemnizations pursuant to chapter 572 or civil unions pursuant to this chapter to perform a solemnization of a civil union, and no such authorized person who fails or refuses for any reason to join persons in a civil union shall be subject to any fine or other penalty for the failure or refusal,”

In the complaint, the lawyer representing the two churches stated that they thought that Act 1 did not include the exemption and Shawn Luiz wrote “Neither Act 1 not it’s [sic] implementing regulations exempts religious institutions, churches and houses of worship, clergy, officers and members from being subject to the injunctive relief and fine provisions of H. R. S. 489. Within the last 12 months, private individuals have already initiated complaints with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission against churches and houses of worship for refusing to rent their facilities for same-sex unions and/or marriage ceremonies.”

They also claim that the bill will have a ‘chilling effect’ on people’s religious expression.

Via Courthouse News
Via OnTopMag

According to the spokesperson for Colectivo Diversidad “This market niche … is very attractive for European, Canadian and American (homosexual) couples.” Activist Patricia Novelo stated that this upcoming January, the first same-sex group wedding will be held in the resort area. Eight of the couples that have confirmed their desire to marry are from Mexico.

Still, more couples are expected, and Colectivo Diversidad, Fusion G, Gaytoursmexico and the International Gay & Lesbian Travel Association are handling the preparations for the marriages. According to Novelo, even before the unions were legally recognized in that state, there was a great demand from travel agencies for these marriages in Cancun and the other resorts.

FOX News noted that:

Novelo said that this “is something very positive. Besides the social part there are many economic benefits because the gay community generates between 45 and 60 percent more income on top of conventional tourism.”

At least they were together for longer than most of the recent celebrity divorces. The two were married on 23 October 2010. They have no children. Brand did release a statement saying “Sadly, Katy and I are ending our marriage. I’ll always adore her and I know we’ll remain friends.”

Brand appeared on Ellen this month in order to attack the whole divorce rumors bit. He said “I’m really happily married … I’m married to Katy. Perpetually, until death do us part was the pledge. I’m still alive.” The couple did not spend Christmas together, nor have they been wearing their wedding bands.

There are some indications that Perry was blindsided by this.

Via OnTopMag

The reason why is simple. Just before Christmas, Antonio found some musty old letters while clearing out an old chest old chest of drawers. The letters detailed an affair that Rosa had been engaged in back in the 1940′s. When confronted, Rosa confessed to the affair.

The couple have five children, a dozen grandchildren, and one great-grandchild, but they are going to throw this whole marriage away on the fact that she had an affair some seventy years ago.

So much for the sanctity of marriage.

Via USA Today

Kardashian’s was a whopping 72 days.

Gawker quotes O’Connor as saying:

Within 3 hours of the ceremony being over the marriage was kyboshed by the behaviour of certain people in my husband’s life. And also by a bit of a wild ride i took us on looking for a bit of a smoke of weed for me wedding night as I don’t drink. My husband was enormously wounded and very badly effected by that experience and also by the attitude of those close to him toward our marriage. It became apparent to me that if he were to stay with me he would be losing too much to bear. And that being with me was not going to serve him positively , career wise or any other wise. I saw his life leave him because of how people close to him reacted. And I can’t take anyone’s life. And a woman wants to be a joy to her husband. So.. U love someone? Set them free.

Sinead then wrote that “Meanwhile I intend to get on with being fully me. With never an apology for ANY part if being FULLY ME. No matter what. I am a 21st century full woman and proud of living it.”

O’Connor has been in the spotlight lately for things like her quicky marriage and her love of anal intercourse. She has managed to remain famous mostly by being someone who does weird things every so often.

Of course, maybe the problem was the big tattoo of Jesus on her chest.

Durant explains in a mailer that she made for Equality Maryland that:

I’l admit it, as a 65 year-old straight woman, I didn’t think LGBT rights was my issue. There are lots of competing concerns out there in the world, and though I wasn’t opposed to gay rights, I didn’t see what it had to do with me. If I ever did think about it, my first thought was that other people are working on it and so, again, it didn’t have much to do with me.

Then I met Carrie. We worked together and grew to know each other. Simply put, we became friends. One day, she showed me photos of her wedding, and suddenly this issue of equality was staring me right in the face. You see, my friend Carrie, whom I had come to appreciate and respect, had a wife! I had to challenge my thinking about what a loving relationship involves. Only then could I see that Carrie’s relationship with Pam was just as committed and deserving of respect and protection as other marriages.

Valuing and protecting my friend’s marriage suddenly became my issue. But it took me awhile longer to understand that being supportive of Carrie and Pam wasn’t enough. I needed to see how the fight for inclusiveness and protection of their marriage and those of other LGBT families was truly my fight—the fight for basic human rights, the fight to live with dignity and respect. These are my issues.

Yes, her story is part of a fundraiser for EQMD, but it is important to remember that there is something more important than just money to the fight over marriage. There is the very real human connections that people create. When people can see see each of us as human, they are less likely to hurt or deny us our rights.

The bill allows for same-sex couples living in other states to dissolve their marriages so long as they are legally married in DC, but they will not have to move there. This is a way to circumvent the Defense of Marriage Act which allows the majority of states to ignore marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples, and thus, prevent them from getting a legal separation. Many states as well as DC have residency requirements with regards to divorces.

According to the Edge:

At a Dec. 8 oversight hearing held by the Committee of the Judiciary, Mendelson, the committee’s chairman, heard testimony from only two witnesses: local LGBT activists Bob Summersgill and Richard J. Rosendall, who both testified in favor of the bill.

Summersgill, an ANC commissioner from Ward 3 who emphasized he was not speaking in any official capacity, cited the case of Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston, a lesbian couple from Rhode Island who sought a divorce after being married in Massachusetts in 2004. In a 3-2 decision, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled they could not receive a divorce since same-sex marriage is not legal in Rhode Island. As a result, the only way for the women to divorce would be for one of them to move to Massachusetts, establish residency there for at least six months and then seek to dissolve the marriage.

Rosendall stated that “This bill fills the gap in the law created by our being ahead of the historical curve. None of us celebrates the dissolution of a marriage, but equality under the law must extend to every contingency. The lack of a clear legal mechanism for divorce can make an unhappy situation much worse for all involved.”

At the oversight hearing, Mendelson stated that he was thinking of combining this bill with one that would “grant same-sex couples parental rights when adopting a child who was born in the District but whose adoptive parents live elsewhere, because they involve similar legal issues.”

Given that the current House is Republican instead of Democratic, the bill may be vetoed in Congress.

The prayer reads:

Heavenly Father,

Through the powerful intercession of the Holy Family, grant to this local Church the many graces we need to foster, strengthen, and support faith-filled, holy marriages and holy families.

May the vocation of married life, a true calling to share in your own divine and creative life, be recognized by all believers as a source of blessing and joy, and a revelation of your own divine goodness.

Grant to us all the gift of courage to proclaim and defend your plan for marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman in a lifelong, exclusive relationship of loving trust, compassion, and generosity, open to the conception of children.

We make our prayer through Jesus Christ, who is Lord forever and ever. Amen.

Nienstedt could find himself pushing out more Catholics from the diocese over his insistence in meddling in political affairs- something that many Catholics are irate over right now. What is more, he is out of touch with the Catholic laity, most of whom support same-sex marriage.

H/T Towleroad

Newt Gingrich, photo by Gage Skidmore

Two-time adulterer and three-time serial monogamist Newt Gingrich has affirmed his support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage because supposedly the institution of same-sex marriage will erode so-called traditional marriage, but divorce and infidelity will not.

Gingrich is currently leading in national polls when it comes to the GOP presidential nomination. He informed the FAMiLY Leader that he would sign an executive order restating that federal funds should not be used to pay for abortions overseas, and that he would defend the First Amendment right to religious liberty. Of course he plans on defending religious liberty by imposing religious tyranny on people who do not agree with his version of Christianity or Catholicism. Thus, he will impose a religious tyranny on Mormons, Liberal Christians, Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and so forth.

He also said that he would “vigorously enforce” the Defense of Marriage Act. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama ended his Administration’s defense of DOMA because it is unconstitutional.

The FAMiLY Leader will endorse one of the four candidates who endorsed the ban on same-sex marriage and who have signed the pledge. Bob Vander Plaats, the head of the grou, stated that “We are pleased that Speaker Gingrich has affirmed our pledge and are thankful we have on record his statements.”

The pledge includes saying that they will appoint judges who are “faithful constitutionalists”, which is code for appointing activist judges who will restrict people’s rights, and a rejection of Islamic law despite the fact that, so far, no one has been pushing for Islamic sharia law to be imposed on the United States.

The pledge also has a provision about marital fidelity, something that Gingrich has problems with.

Via USA Today

Willard "Mitt" Romney

There are married gay veterans out there. This was a problem for Mitt Romney, in fact. His campaign got slightly mauled by an encounter in New Hampshire with a gay Vietnam veteran who was sitting with his husband at the Chez Vachon restaurant. It was there that Romney spotted the Vietnam veteran hat and exclaimed “Vietnam veteran!” before walking over to the couple’s booth.

There he met Bob Garon and his husband who were doing the very gay activity of, well, having lunch. Garon, who is an Independent voter, quickly asked Romney if he supported the attempts by the Republicans in that state to repeal the same-sex marriage law.

Romney responded with “I support the repeal of the New Hampshire law. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s my view.” Have to give Romney this much. . .it takes chutzpah to tell a married gay veteran that his marriage is wrong.

Garon fired back saying “It’s good to know how you feel, that you do not believe everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights.”

Romney rather clumsily tried to counter with “No, actually, I think that at the time the Constitution was written it was pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court has changed that.” Um…ok. That makes…sense, I suppose. It kind of leaves out a lot too. At the time the Constitution was written, it was alright to discriminate against people based upon race and even religion. People could be denied the right to vote by way of things like poll taxes and literacy tests.

Romney’s aide decided that it was time to get his boss out of there as fast as possible claiming that there was an interview to do with FOX News. Garon then hit him with “Oh, I guess the question was too hot.” Indeed, it was. After all, Romney cannot b.s. his way out of that one.

Romney’s decision to abandon states rights has now lost him at least one voter. Garon stated that “I was undecided. I’m totally convinced today that he’s not going to be my president — at least in my book. At least Obama will entertain the idea. This man is ‘no way, Jose.’ Well, take that ‘no way, Jose’ back to Massachusetts.”

He told reporters later “The guy ain’t going to make it. You can’t trust him. I can see it in his eyes.” He noted that he and his husband were married this past June, but “in New Hampshire, where it’s legal. Unless Mitt Romney gets elected.”

Romney is now one of the Republicans who want to ban same-sex marriage via a Constitutional amendment.

Via the Huffington Post

According to Brad Clark, the executive director of One Colorado, “The verdict is in. Poll after poll shows the same thing. Everyday support for the full legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples grows as Colorado voters come to know our families — Republicans and Democrats alike. Issues like this — with broad public support — deserve a full and fair hearing by the Colorado Legislature.”

Via KDVR

ROSIE O'DONNELL- CREDIT: ABC/ DONNA SVENNEVIK

Rosie O’Donnell is engaged to get married. O’Donnell’s publicist and a spokesman for the Oprah Winfrey Network have said that the host of “The Rosie Show” informed the studio audience of her show while on a commercial break. O’Donnell will be marrying long time girlfriend Michelle Rounds.

The date has not been set.

Rounds is a 40-year-old headhunter for an information tech company. O’Donnell is the mother of four, and was previously married to Kelli Carpenter.

Via Huffington Post

The Ohio Statehouse, Columbus

LGBT and Allied activists took to Ohio’s Statehouse yesterday for a pro-marriage equality rally. The group said that it was time to take a stand for equal rights, according to 10TV’s Danielle Elias. John Gouvas, one of the demonstrators, stated “I have no rights now, and I want them, I deserve them. We are American citizens it should be legal to marry in Ohio.”

Ohio banned same-same marriage constitutionally back in 2004, and the demonstrators want to overturn that ban. Tom Morgan, another demonstrator, stated “We’re constantly accused of wanting to redefine or destroy marriage. That’s the last thing we want to do. We want in on it.”

Morgan would like to propose to his boyfriend of 14 years and said also “We know that we cannot legally marry in Ohio. But no one can stop us from being engaged so that’s what we did.”

There is some hope among the advocates that their state legislators will take notice and consider taking down the constitutional amendment.

Let us be honest, it is absurd. While, yes, polygamy and polyandry could become legal in the not so distant future, but marrying inanimate objects or animals is just down right stupid, and honestly, shows that their arguments against same-sex marriage are just worthless.

Here is the transcript:

Wilson: So that’s why we are among many others who are fighting so vigorously for the traditional marriage, and it is because it is not just that we are—we’re not homophobic and we just hate homosexuals—but that whole mindset is being pushed upon America and the end result of America giving into it is that the door is flung open. And it’s more than just homosexual marriage or homosexual relationships that will come out of it, polygamy comes out of it, what’s the term?

Wilson: Polyamory, that’s gonna come out of it. We have talked about people who brought to the forefront their desire to marry—one guy had a desire to marry a building, another one a car, another one his dog. It’s just unbelievable, if you throw off the restraints and you say there’s no Christianity that’s going to guide how we look at this issue as a nation, then anything goes.

The alarmist view expressed by some that the recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage will lead to the legitimization of polygamy misses the whole point. As Maura Strassberg, Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, points out in “Distinctions of Form or Substance: Monogamy, Polygamy and Same-Sex Marriage” (1997) North Carolina L.R. 1501 at 1594, the doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those of heterosexual marriage as revised to conform to modern norms of gender equality. This counters, as well, the argument advanced by many, that “in this day and age” when we have adopted expansive views of acceptable marriage units and common law living arrangements, the acceptance of polygamy, or at least the abandonment of its criminal prohibition, is the next logical step.

Newt Gingrich by Donkey Hotey, Creative Commons

Newt Gingrich wants you to forget about the past. His past, specifically. He wants people to ignore the fact that he has been married three times, and conducted an extramarital affair with the woman who is currently his wife. Gingrich is starting to have difficulty, though, with the people he is most in need of swaying- the Evangelicals.

The serial adulterer has been hit with an ad going after his infidelity. The group Iowans for Christian Leaders in Government sent out the three minute ad which begins with Gingrich saying that he is a strong proponent of family.

Gingrich recently stated “I’m going to be the nominee. I mean, it’s very hard to look at the recent polls and think that … the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee.” Still, it is his statements in a recent debate that are perking up ears for his detractors inside the Republican Party. He said “If you go back to your district and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family, you’re going to have a hard time explaining why that particular subset is being broken up and forced to leave.”

The ad goes on to highlight a variety of problems that Gingrich is going to face on the subject of family. The twice divorced, three timed married former House Speaker carried on an affair while he was married during the same time that he was leading the charges against President Bill Clinton for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky.

The ad quotes Richard Land of the Souther Baptist Convention as saying “Was there hypocrisy involved? Of course there was. And it needs to be called for what it is. Hypocrisy.”

Newt Gingrich was one of the champions of the Defense of Marriage Act, and he called marriage equality a temporary aberration. Of course, he has never tended to defend marriage all that much.

Via OnTopMag

Rep. Michele Bachmann (photo by Gage Skidmore)

Michele Bachmann is not having a good time of it. Seriously, Bachmann is just not doing well in the polls, and her views of homosexuality have really started to hurt her. So, what happens when one a High School student challenges Bachmann on the issue of same-sex marriage?

Well, of course, Bachmann refuses to admit that she is wrong about the damage that will occur if lesbians and gays can get married. She also appears to not get that she has been outwitted by a High School student.

The members of the Maryland Marriage Alliance believe, though, that marriage should be based solely on the basis procreation and be defined as being between a man and a woman. Pastor Joel Peebles of Jericho City of Praise stated that “Our nation has thrived on the fabric of the family.”

The group is recruiting interfaith religious leaders and community members to go out there and brow-beat their legislators into pushing for theocracy in Maryland. Coalition members are now saying that changing the definition of marriage impacts their religious freedom, even though they have yet to show that in any way shape or form.

Deacon Douglas Al Turner, the director of the Office of Black Catholics for the Archdiocese of Washington “It is not discrimination to treat fundamentally different things differently.”

Victor Kirk of Sharon Bible Fellowship stated that “When it became more obvious that the threat was real, the faith community and other supporters of marriage rose up.”

Their group is still going to have to contend with a number of other groups fighting for same-sex marriage including Marylanders for Marriage Equality which is made up of the Baltimore chapter of the NAACP, Equality Maryland and various other community members.

Proponents have also been organizing support.

Groups such as Marylanders for Marriage Equality, a coalition of political, religious and community groups, are working to legalize same-sex marriage. Members of Marylanders for Marriage Equality include the Baltimore chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Equality Maryland and community members who support same-sex marriage.

Lagos, Nigeria

In a not exactly unexpected move, the Nigerian Senate has approved a bill that would, if passed by their House, criminalize same-sex marriage in Africa’s most populous nation. The legislation would throw people in jail for fourteen years if they enter into a contract of marriage with someone of the same-sex, and anyone who witnesses, abets or aids in the marriage will receive up to ten years in jail or a fine of about 5,000 naira ($32). That is ten times the average daily income for the nation.

Of course, jail was not the option that some lawmakers wanted. Senator Baba Dati stated that “such elements in society should be killed.” Homosexuality is already illegal in Nigeria. In the half of the nation under Sharia law, it is already punishable by death, and in the rest, it is punishable by 14 years in jail.

Lawmakers rejected international criticism of the legislation with Senate President David Mark saying “Anybody can write to us, but our values are our values. No country has a right to interfere in the way we make our laws.”

Nigeria has enough oil that they can afford to ignore international criticism, though it should be noted that they are facing major problems with religious rioting, starvation, poverty and environmental obliteration in the name of the oil.

Bill sponsor Senator Domingo Obende stated that “With the legalization of same-sex marriage, every school in Nigeria would be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Instead of providing for father and mother, the advent of same-sex marriage will create millions of motherless and fatherless children and this is morally wrong.”

It is expected to pass their House of Representatives. And if their statements seem oddly familiar, that is because many American Evangelicals have been involved in pushing these particular bills throughout Africa.

Via OnTopMag

That is, of course, part of the problem is it not? The definition of what a bigot is reads as one who holds a “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” You see, while many LGBT Americans have no problem with people who want to say that same-sex marriage is wrong, they draw the line at pushing that into the law. Simply put, if you hate same-sex marriage, don’t get one.

Thing is, Maggie, we agree with you. You aren’t a bigot. You are a mercenary. You are a bigot for hire who loves to take money from rich donors for your own good.

Oh, and if someone brings up same-sex marriage at Thanksgiving…that depends, are they the bigoted relative like Maggie Gallagher, or are we talking about your parents who want you to get married and have children.

Big difference in conversation there.

Maine is one of three marriage equality battlegrounds in 2012 with the others being Minnesota and North Carolina.

In 2009, Maine overturned marriage equality in that state through the ballot, but today finds the state’s population expressing regret over that vote and supporting a push for same-sex marriage. According to Matt McTighe, the director of public education at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Maine, the message is “really just talking about the journey of going from, not necessarily opposition, but just skepticism or concern about the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples, and going on that journey to being very supportive now.”

The push in Maine is to educate voters that lesbians and gays are not that different from straights. McTighe stated that “We don’t just want to make it a laundry list of legal benefits or anything like that. There are so many more important reasons to get married. It really is about love. It’s about committing to one person for the rest of your lives and taking care of one another.”

University of Southern Maine professor Ron Schmidt stated that “That strategy does actually makes sense. You’re potentially reaching out to people who might be on the fence and the idea of making that a way to think about it that’s personal, that’s related to aspects of everybody’s life, potentially — I think that’s smart.”

Pastor Bob Emrich, the pastor at Emanuel Baptist Church in Plymouth find the ads both effective and misleading saying that “People can love their children, their parents, their neighbors, whoever it is, without agreeing with them, without voting to change marriage. And that’s the disingenuous part.”

Emrich chairs the board of the Christian Civic League of Maine and he did note that the opponents of marriage equality do not have any ads to run yet, and that they will not until the measure gets on the ballot. He said that “We would remind people that the people of Maine already voted on this and were very clear in their vote.”

Which is not an overly winning argument to make. Since 2009, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been repealed, New York passed same-sex marriage, and the nation has become more comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. So far, marriage equality supporters have 100,000 signatures, and all they need are 57,000 by January to get this on the ballot.

Via MPBN

When Pastor Petty brought up the subject, she did not know how it would be received by her congregation. It took only a short time for them to make that decision. Only holy unions will be conducted at the church because they “reflect the spiritual nature of the solemn commitments between two people in a loving relationship.”

Via Unicorn Booty

Moore stated that “As a woman, a mother and a wife, there are certain values and vows that I hold sacred, and it is in this spirit that I have chosen to move forward with my life.”

The two were spotted at Bruce Willis’ vacation home in early November, which just makes one wonder if their relationship was doomed at that point. Apparently Kutcher has already moved out on Moore. The two married six years aog in 2005 when she was 43 and he was 27. Still, their marriage lasted longer than Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries’ marriage.

Kutcher stated via a tweet that “I will forever cherish the time I spent with Demi. Marriage is one of the most difficult things in the world and unfortunately sometimes they fail. Love and Light, AK.”

Hopefully, Kutcher will not follow in the footsteps of his Two and a Half Men predecessor Charlie Sheen and go stark raving mad.

No word what will happen now. We are certain that the tabloids will begin speculating that Moore will start dating some 20-year-old boytoy while Kutcher will be spotted romancing his cast mates. If they are really creative, Moore will start dating some 20-year-old woman while Kutcher tries to make out with Jon Cryer. Oh wait...that already happened.

Now the tabloids will just have to say that Kutcher and Cryer are making out in real life.

Via Huffington Post

Jaxson spoke to Good Day LA and said that “Two weeks prior to her wedding she knew it was not something she wanted to do. Unfortunately they were obligated to honour contracts [with the E! network which had TV rights] otherwise they would have owed a lot of people a lot of money.” Earlier in the week, Jaxson stated that “She’s never gotten over [her ex Reggie Bush].”

Kardashian and Bush had an on-again-off-again relationship that fully ended in March 2010.

Jaxson did say that he would often help Kardashian stage publicity stunts while he worked for her stating “I staged several of the moments that the world has seen of her, such as a ring that we alleged was from Reggie Bush.”

So…what you are saying is that all of this tabloid fodder/reality TV show/real life spectacle is nothing but one big publicity stunt? Stop it Jaxson…you’re not breaking our hearts here.

Jaxson did reveal how he would tip off the paparazzi to take pictures of Kardashian leaving the jewellery store in order to stir up rumors of an engagement between her and Bush. Apparently, he also spotted her wearing a ring on her left ring finger in public that was identical to the one that Humphries used to propose to Kardashian.

Jaxson says that Kardashian made a bundle of money off of it, but the elder Kardashian, Kris Jenner, insists that Kim Kardashian “didn’t make a dime out of the wedding “ Jaxson, though, disagrees saying that ‘They had a lot of contracts, they had endorsements. To say they weren’t paid is a lot of foolish garbage.’

Kardashian has denied that the marriage was a fake saying that “Anyone that would get married for a TV show, it’s just, you know, ridiculous. It’s just sad that I even have to defend that.” But that was not in direct refutation of Jaxson’s statements.

Of course, the wedding and marriage do not have to have been faked for it to be a sham. That happens all the time.

Via The Daily Mail

Yes, and some of those referenda are, what, a decade or more old. Even the people of Maine now regret their voter veto of the marriage law. Currently, 51% of Americans favor the repeal of DOMA…

Brown also whined that “DOMA is the one federal law that protects marriage as the union of husband and wife, and protects every state constitutional marriage amendment in the nation.” Even though it is unconstitutional. That is correct, it violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution as well as several other key provisions.

Brown went on to kvetch:

Together, we can stop this repeal of DOMA dead in its tracks, and stop Senator Feinstein and her liberal friends in the Senate from imposing their values on the entire nation, but only if we act now!

Please tell your Senators to vote NO on Senator Feinstein’s (D-CA) DOMA Repeal Bill right now!

Tell your senators, “I oppose the repeal of DOMA, and I vote!” And please tell your friends and family.

Together, we can draw a line in the sand for marriage. It’s time to fight back!

Of course, Brown is upset that we want to have equal rights. I mean, so far no one is holding a gun to his head and forcing him to marry a man. Of course, this on the road dad just might want to consider what effect he is having on his own children….Oh, and if you are going to attack the children of my friends and family, just know that I plan on bringing up that you are a dead beat dad, Brown because you are always on the road worrying about other people’s lives.

In 2009, a voter referendum overturned gay marriage in Maine by 53% to 47%. Today’s polls show that gay marriage is favored 51% to 49% – not great, but still an improvement. Mainiacs may have caught on to the fact that they and Rhode Island both have civil unions, and the only place in proximity to Maine where gays can’t marry is the Atlantic Ocean. Unless one believes that Irene and the early snow storm were punishments for gay marriage, the fact is no state has suffered in any way by having gay marriage.

But, back to the GOP ad. It’s a pip. Now, Maine’s Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster insists that the ads were just intended to educate Mainiacs about who supports the referendum to kill the law that killed the law. He says “We’ve talked about the different left-of-center groups that are supporting this referendum and questioned why they’re doing that. That’s all this is.”

To quote a source we don’t usually quote: we report, you decide…..

Related articles

• New Maine Poll On Marriage (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Denmark To Legalize Gay Marriage (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Brazil Approves Gay Marriage? (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Republicans defend anti-gay ads in Maine voter registration battle (dailykos.com)

Archbishop Timothy Dolan

‘Hello, my name is Archbishop Timothy Dolan, and I am competing for the biggest d**k in New York.’ That is what Dolan appears to have decided to say when he issued this 18 October decree stating that same-sex marriages will not be performed on Roman Catholic soil or with anything consecrated by the Roman Catholic church. The thing is, everyone in New York knew this. It is not as if he had to repeat himself by yelling and still not get heard.

While many lesbians and gays would like to get married in a Catholic church because they are, well, Catholics, the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is against same-sex marriage is well know, and New York’s law states that no one has to actually, you know, perform these marriages unless they want to.

Dolan wrote in his decree that “The marital union between one man and one woman was universally accepted by civil law as a constitutive element of human society, which is vital to the human family and to the continuation of the human race. . .In reversal of this tradition, the New York State Legislature recently enacted a law that recognized same-sex union as marriages in the State of New York. This law is irreconcilable with the nature and the definition of marriage as established by Divine law.”

YAWN…his statements are, of course, just a reiteration of the same tired lies that he has always relied upon and rather boring in the long run. It is almost as if Dolan is afraid that if he does not keep up with the same level of anti-gay rhetoric as Rick Santorum, he will get forgotten.

For Rosemary Palladino and her partner of 38 years, Marianne Brennick, the wish has always been to have a Catholic wedding, but as she said, “It would be wonderful to be able to get married in the Catholic Church but I don’t expect it, I don’t hope for it and I don’t need it because we could get married in a civil setting.”

Palladino, who helped found Staten Island Stonewall, is baffled as to why religious groups are so intent on getting involved in this issue. She stated that:

“I think the whole issue of religious marriage was just an attempt to muddy the waters. The bill was not about making Catholic churches or other churches perform marriages for same-sex couples. It was about making civil marriage available to same-sex couples, regardless of what religion they follow or don’t follow.”

“What I don’t understand is why religious organizations try to interfere with the civil rights of people as they have done in New York and California. I especially wonder how many of their members approve of the fact that their donations are being used to wage these legal battles.”

Senator Diane Savino was rather puzzled about the whole decree thing. She stated that “Marriage is a sacrament, the church has a right to determine who they marry and who they don’t. . .I guess he felt he had to clarify, I’m not sure why.”

Via SILive

This puts these seventy employers in direct opposition to House Speaker John Boehner, who has hired Paul Clement as his pet lawyer to do the dirty work of defending the unconstitutional.

Peter J. Reilly over at Forbes noted that:

DOMA creates a few problems for employers in states like Massachusetts where same sex marriages are allowed under state law. The act creates unnecessary cost and administrative complexity and forces companies to discriminate. There are over 1,000 benefits of marriage under federal law, several of which are effectively delivered through employers. Among those are the exclusion for health insurance and the right to make a penalty free withdrawal from a 401-k for a spouse’s medical expenses. The brief cites a study that indicates that the average W-2 of the spouse with a same sex partner will, on average, show $1,069 more in federal tax than that of a similar employee with an opposite sex spouse. DOMA also complicates the hiring of highly skilled foreign employees since the employers cannot offer visas to same sex spouses.

The feeling is that the companies are forced by DOMA to become the discriminators and the companies know that they need to keep their employees happy in order to make a profit. If it were not for the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states that Federal laws take precedent over state laws. The discrimination that these companies are forced into is illegal under Massachusetts law.

In the end, business is becoming a big problem for the Republicans when it comes to same-sex marriage. In Minnesota, businesses are sternly against the attempt to ban same-sex marriage in that state.

Elon University’s poll is of all residents while an earlier poll by Public Policy Polling was just of primary voters. The Elon University poll found that 56% of North Carolinians do not support the amendment, but the PPP poll shows that 61% of voters support the amendment.

The question now is can groups like Equality North Carolina get out the voters and get voters registered so that they can take down this amendment in May.

The biggest thing to note in the polling from Elon, other than the fact that this is still a winnable situation, is that 66% of African-Americans are opposed to the amendment and 69% favor some sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples. North Carolina Republicans have been trying to woo Black voters over so that they would vote for the amendment. Several of the state leadership have joined with Black pastors to support the amendment.

According to QNotes:

Elon pollsters’ questions differed significantly from those asked by Public Policy Polling. Elon asked, “Would you [support or oppose] an amendment to the North Carolina constitution that would prevent any same sex marriages?” The Public Policy poll, however, used language directly from the amendment’s text, asking, “Would you vote for or against a constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State?”

The difference in the results could be due to the nature of the questions that were asked. At the time that PPP released their poll, they stated that:

“This is really a classic example of how small differences in poll question wording can lead to huge differences in how people respond. Voters are against ‘prohibiting’ recognition for gay couples. But if you word it in such a way that all you’re doing is defining marriage as between one man and one woman, voters are ok with that. You’re asking about the same thing in both cases, but the semantics make a huge difference and Republicans clearly know what they’re doing with the language that’s on the ballot.”

Anti-gay groups have put out the word that the supporters of the hate group the National Organization for Marriage as well as the widow of the late state Senator James Forrester, Mary Frances Forrester, that amendment supporters should never say things like “ban same-sex marriage.” Mary Forester stated “[Saying ‘ban same-sex marriage’] causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against ‘redefining marriage’ or in favor of ‘marriage as the union of husband and wife’ NEVER ‘banning same-sex marriage.’”

Forrester’s husband passed away on 31 October to the delight of many within his own state.
Still, as EQNC Communications Director Jen Jones stated, the difference in the polling question exposes North Carolinians truest thoughts on the amendment. She stated “It turns out when you tell people what the amendment does, they don’t like it.”

This is, of course, true. Most of the time, the hate groups and bigots have to rely on deception in order to get their amendments through the voters.

Stuart Campbell, EQNC’s executive director, stated “There is a lot of misinformation about what this amendment does or doesn’t do. A lot of people think it will create gay marriage and some people think it will stop only gay marriage. In reality, it does so much more.”

Qnotes stated that:

Legal scholars, including some legislators and professors Maxine Eichner and and Holning Lau of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Law, have repeatedly warned about the potential, unintended consequences of the anti-LGBT amendment. They have argued its broad, untested language would ban domestic partner benefits for public employees and could impact child custody and visitation, wills, trusts and domestic violence laws.

“I think it is important not only for our community but the community as a whole in North Carolina to realize the extent of harm this amendment could do if it is not defeated on May 8,” Campbell said.

The North Carolina NAACP has already come out in opposition to the amendment.

Lambert-Jolley called the Department of Motor Vehicles in St. Petersburg, Florida, and asked if she could present her marriage certificate in order to complete the name change. Of course, when the Founding Fathers wrote up the Constitution, they realized that this was a situation that could happen and wrote into the Constitution that a contract entered into in one state had to be considered legally binding and recognized in another.

The problem with Jolley’s contract of marriage is, of course, that she is a lesbian and married to a woman.

When Jolley got to the DMV, of course, she was humiliated and refused service in person. The first person that they talked to said that everything was fine, but after waiting an hour, a second person said that it was not because it was a same-sex marriage license. Charlotte Lambert-Jolley stated that “You are five feet away from the people in the DMV and everyone starts whispering and talking. It was uncomfortable.”

Rachel Lambert-Jolley stated “To have multiple people tell you, ‘It’s fine, it’s fine,’ [then] you go in there and think you are good, then boom! It’s a slap in the face, pretty much.”

Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles spokeswoman Ann Howard stated that “The out-of-state marriage certificate is a piece of paper that means nothing to the state of Florida. That is correct. She was ill advised when she made the phone call, and that is unfortunate. . .The law is very clear. It doesn’t recognize any document related to same-sex marriage, because it is not recognized under the Florida Constitution.”

Howard stated that the couple will have to get or update their passports and Social Security cards…Lambert-Jolley tried to use her Social Security card and that was rejected. Of course, they could go through the hassle of doing something like getting their names changed through the courts.

Of course, we could get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act and put an end to this nonsense.

Via OldNorthEast
Via WTSP

The written statements have been put in already. In the past, minority judges have been permitted to preside over civil rights cases affecting their race, ethnicity or sex. The dispute over Walker’s sexuality is likely to simply clarify this situation. Walker’s sexuality was widely known before the trial even began, though he did not make it explicitly clear. By the logic of the homophobic groups, though, a straight judge is likely to rule against same-sex marriage.

The homophobic groups are busy saying that Walker should have disclosed any interest he may have in marrying his partner of ten years, or he should have stepped aside. The homophobic group ProtectMarriage- which is out to destroy marriage at all costs- stated “Although a judge may choose to avoid disclosure by recusing himself without explanation, he cannot both remain silent and sit in judgment of a case in which a reasonable observer, with knowledge of all of the relevant facts (disclosed or not) would conclude the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

According to the LA Times:

Gay rights lawyers countered that judges must disqualify, or recuse, themselves from hearing cases only when they have a “substantial and individualized interest in the case, particularly a financial interest, that gives rise to actual bias,” the lawyers for Proposition 8’s challengers said.

“A recusal rule that turns on a minority judge’s subjective desire to enjoy his basic civil rights would effectively disqualify all minority judges,” Proposition 8’s challengers said.

This is an appeal of an earlier ruling where the homophobic groups found themselves on the losing end of the argument. By and large, they lost the case put before Walker because of their inability to actually field any credible witnesses or any evidence to back up their assertions.

The case involves three same-sex couples and Chile’s Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation, and is part of a push to challenge the constitutionality of Article 102 of the Civil Code. That article defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. On 29 September 2010, Cesar Peralta and Hans Arias tried to get a marriage license at the Civil Registry, but had their application denied. A bi-national couple, Canadian Stephane Abran and Chilean Jorge Monardes also tried, but were denied. Victor Arce and Miguel Lillo also tried to get their own license, but were denied.

The last two couples were married in Canada and Argentina respectively, but their marriages were not recognized in Chile.

The reason for the delay is the fact that Judge Hernan Vodanovic is still composing his dissent. He stands for a broader definition of marriage which would include lesbian and gay couples. The other nine judges rejected the appeal and they have been divided among three different camps.

According to Santiago Times:

The strictest reading of the law comes from Judge Marisol Peña and Judge Raúl Bertelsen, president of the tribunal. The judges hold that marriage between two people of the same sex is unconstitutional.

Three other judges within the tribunal, including former tribunal president Judge Marcelo Venegas, took a centrist position, ruling that the official’s decision was in accordance with the law and there is no room for appeal. The judges do not believe same-sex marriage is against the Constitution, however, and left the door open for future appeals.

The last opinion voiced, held by four left-leaning judges, rejected the appeal but called for legislation to be sent to Congress concerning the issue.

Representatives from MOVILH said in a statement that they would hold off official comment until the verdict was released. However, they are not planning on giving up quite so easily.

Yes, this day was so special for this woman that she is being walked down the isle by some big bloke who just looks like he is so thrilled to be there while she walks down the isle texting away…so, how will you remember your special day? As a 1 inch by 2 inch screen?

FRANKS: We understand that when we’re granting the rights of marriage, that that’s a special right Tony, that’s something we have suggested is clearly the best possible way to see children raised through the best possible environment to launch the next generation, we believe that with all of our hearts as a society, I think most people understand that. So we’ve set aside this special area of the law that says we’re going to respect traditional marriage of a man and a woman because that is the launching pad of the next generation. Let’s face it; we have made a special exception in the law that gives special consideration and recognition to that.

And when people would come along and blur that distinction and say ‘well that should apply in every way’ it not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.

In reality, sexual mores have little to do with the downfall of any culture. Rome collapsed because they stretched their military to the limits, dug up and destroyed all of the viable farm land close to the city, and created an unstable government which repeatedly fell into chaos. Oh, and they had a group of religious zealots pushing to establish themselves as the One True God and the one religion that deserved to have power.

Yes, one of the contributors to the deterioration of the fabric of Roman society was the theocratic push from the Christians.