Wives and Husbands - the Gay Marriage Thread

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Nova Scotia Permits Gay Marriage





OTTAWA (Reuters) - Nova Scotia on Friday became the fifth of Canada's 10 provinces to allow gay couples to marry when the provincial supreme court ruled that banning same-sex unions was unconstitutional.



CBC television showed film of people inside the Halifax court applauding after Judge Heather Robertson announced her decision. Ottawa did not seek to challenge the ruling.



The growing number of provinces allowing gay marriage prompted the federal government last year to draw up draft legislation to legally redefine marriage.



It handed the draft over to Canada's Supreme Court, which will next week hear a case on whether the proposed legislation is constitutional. Earlier this month the Pope criticized Ottawa's initiative, saying it would create "a false understanding of the nature of marriage".



Canada's ruling Liberals say they had little choice after courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia -- home to 75 percent of all Canadians -- all struck down the old definition of marriage. The western province of Manitoba and the remote northern Yukon territory have also followed suit.



Robertson's ruling, which changes the definition of marriage in the Atlantic province to "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others", came in response to a challenge by three couples.



"I can't express how excited I am today, because we've been talking about getting married and now we can actually start planning," said Ron Garnett-Doucette, one of those who took the case to court.



"For us it's about feeling equal and today we do," he told a news conference in Halifax.



The Conservative government in Nova Scotia did not seek to challenge the decision.



"We certainly did not want to waste taxpayers' money," the CBC quoted Justice Minister Michael Baker as saying.



Hundreds of same-sex couples, some traveling from the United States, have been married in Ontario since the province's supreme court ruled in June 2003 that the traditional definition of marriage should be thrown out.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

House Defeats Gay Marriage Ban Amendment



By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent





WASHINGTON - The House emphatically rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Thursday, the latest in a string of conservative pet causes advanced by Republican leaders in the run-up to Election Day.



The vote was 227-186, 49 votes shy of the two-thirds needed for approval of an amendment that President Bush backed but the Senate had previously scuttled.



"God created Adam and Eve, He didn't create Adam and Steve," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., on behalf of a measure that supporters said was designed to protect an institution as old as civilization itself.



Democrats countered that Republicans were motivated by election-year politics as much as anything, particularly since a Senate vote this year ended any immediate chance the amendment could be sent to the states for ratification.



Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, accused GOP leaders of "raw political cynicism" and said they hoped to "create the fodder for a demagogic political ad."



Bush issued a statement expressing disappointment with the vote's outcome.



"Because activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of the country, we must remain vigilant in defending traditional marriage," the president said.



The measure drew the support of 191 Republicans and 36 Democrats. Voting against it were 158 Democrats, 27 Republicans and one independent.



The debate on the gay marriage amendment came a day after the House voted 250-171 to overturn a 28-year municipal ban on handgun ownership in the District of Columbia. And last week, Republicans forced a vote on legislation to protect the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance from court challenge. It passed, 247-173.



While both of those measures face uncertain prospects in the Senate, they — along with the gay marriage proposal — appeal to voting groups whose support Republicans are counting on in the Nov. 2 elections. Recent surveys in battleground states in the presidential race indicate roughly one-quarter of Bush's supporters say moral or family values are uppermost in their minds.



The gay marriage amendment said marriage in the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman." It also would have required that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."



Even among majority Republicans, the issue generated dissent.



Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was the principal speaker on behalf of the measure, taking a role that is almost always reserved for the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction. In this case, though, the leadership bypassed the Judiciary Committee, and GOP officials said the panel's chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., made clear he wanted no part of the debate. His spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment.



DeLay said the need for congressional action was "forced upon us by activist judges trying to legislate from the bench." He noted that under 1996 legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, marriage is defined as between a man of a woman.



"One would think this would be the end of the story. But it is not," DeLay said. The law is "under an incessant and coordinated attack in the federal courts," where he said judges feel a greater "responsibility to their own political ideology than the Constitution."



"The limitations of traditional marriage rest not on an intent to discriminate, but on what is most beneficial for society and children as evidenced by volumes of social science research," added Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo.



"Traditional marriage is worth preserving, because the nuclear family is far and away the best environment in which to raise children. Every child deserves both a father and a mother," said Musgrave, whose persistent advocacy for the measure has gained her national notice unusual for a first-term lawmaker.



Critics saw it differently.



"We feel love and we feel it in a way different than you," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is openly gay. "We feel it with someone of the same sex, male or female, and we look at your institution of marriage and we see the joy it brings. How do we hurt you when we share it?"



Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. quoted Vice President Dick Cheney — who has a gay daughter — as saying, "The fact of the matter is that we live in a free society and freedom means freedom for everybody."



Public polls show strong opposition to gay marriage, but opinion is about evenly divided regarding a federal constitutional amendment to ban it.



At the same time, voters in 11 states will decide the fate of proposed amendments to their state constitutions this fall, and opponents of bans on gay marriage concede they will be difficult to stop.



The issue has gained prominence this year. Massachusetts residents have had first-in-the-nation rights to same sex marriages since May, the result of a ruling by the state's highest court. A judge in Washington recently struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Amendment Banning La. Gay Marriage Tossed



By ADAM NOSSITER, Associated Press Writer



BATON ROUGE, La. - A state judge Tuesday threw out a Louisiana constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, less than three weeks after it was overwhelmingly approved by the voters.



District Judge William Morvant said the amendment was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because it had more than one purpose: banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions.



Michael Johnson, an attorney for supporters of the amendment, said he will appeal the ruling.



A gay rights group challenged the amendment on several grounds, arguing among other things that combining the question of gay marriage and the issue of civil unions in one ballot question violated state law.



The courts had rejected a similar argument before the Sept. 18 election, saying it was premature.



Some 78 percent of those voting favored the amendment. The vote was part of a national backlash against gay marriage, which followed last year's Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling allowing gay couples to wed.



Proposals to restrict marriage to a man and a woman are on the ballot in November in 11 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Missouri voters, like those in Louisiana, overwhelmingly approved such an amendment earlier this year.



The Louisiana Legislature pushed through the proposed ban this spring. Louisiana already had a law against gay marriage, but conservatives warned that unless it was put in the state constitution, a Louisiana court could one day follow the Massachusetts example.



Christian conservatives launched a vigorous grassroots campaign to secure passage.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[skittles]

Kittens, again, I don't want to post a news article, but it is necessary. I'm 'rather' angry right now, but I'm also trying to control the anger & use it productively....



CNN News Article

Quote:

---

California AG: Laws limiting marriage genders constitutional



SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman do not run afoul of California's constitution, Attorney General Bill Lockyer declared Friday in a long-awaited legal opinion that sought to avoid offending either side in the same-sex marriage debate.



In answering two lawsuits seeking to put California on par with Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, Lockyer said it was up to voters or the Legislature to decide whether to change "the common and traditional understanding" of matrimony that "pre-dates the founding of this state or nation."



"There is simply no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage in California or in any other state," he said, while acknowledging that "committed and loving relationships between two individuals deserve recognition under California law."



The lawsuits claim California's marriage laws violate the state constitution's anti-discrimination provisions, an argument Lockyer rejected in the 37-page brief. He noted that state lawmakers have taken significant steps toward granting full spousal benefits to gay couples who register as domestic partners.



The plaintiffs sued in March after the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco officials to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.



The plaintiffs are relying heavily on the same arguments that persuaded Massachusetts' highest court to legalize same-sex marriage there this year -- namely, that laws limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman discriminate against gays, violating their civil rights and several constitutional guarantees.



Jon Davidson, who is helping represent 12 suing couples as a senior attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said that in his view, Lockyer "is putting up a vigorous defense."



"It looks like the attorney general is making the strongest case the state can make to defend the restriction against same-sex couples from marrying given the current state of California law," Davidson said. "I am disappointed about his view that not allowing same-sex couples to marry is not discrimination against gay people."



Both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage were eager to see how Lockyer, a Democrat who has expressed interest in running for governor in 2006, planned to navigate the politically volatile question.



By taking the position that any change in marriage eligibility criteria must come from the Legislature, however, Lockyer essentially advanced the same legal strategy that Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly, a fellow Democrat, unsuccessfully used to prevent gay couples from being able to wed in his state.



Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

---

skittles

Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child.

When life hands you lemons, ask for a bottle of tequila and some salt

[skittles]

From Deb Price's column in the Detroit News

Quote:

---

Gay marriage succeeds in Massachusetts



By Deb Price / The Detroit News

November 29. 2004



Episcopal priest Anne Fowler deeply believes in conversion experiences, spiritual light bulb moments when she as a Christian hears something she couldn't before hear, sees something she couldn't before see.



Two decades ago, while at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., she experienced a life-changing conversion: Her best friend, a gay man who was also a seminarian, remarked, "My boyfriend and I don't get to socialize much with straight couples."



Fowler recalls thinking, " 'I can get married and ordained' -- neither of which he could do at the time. And I thought, 'How can we expect faithfulness and monogamy from people who have no support?' "



Suddenly she saw gay people's burdens in a new light. She set off on a spiritual journey that eventually led her to join a diverse network of religious Massachusetts leaders who've helped make the opening of marriage to gay couples a huge success.



The number of happily hitched gay couples grows daily. Well over 4,000 couples have wed in the six months since May 17, when Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to stop excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage.



The result?



Ask folks in Massachusetts and you'll get an earful about couples thankful to finally share health benefits and gay parents who sleep easier knowing that both spouses are legally empowered to make medical decisions if one of their kids breaks an arm skateboarding.



You'll likely hear tales, as I have, of a once-unaccepting dad who proudly toasted his son and new son-in-law. And of three elderly ladies who faithfully attend all their church's gay weddings. And it's easy to find ministers who joyfully report seeing more gay couples sitting in previously unfilled pews.



The doom-and-gloom predictions just haven't come to pass: Heterosexuals are still marrying. The state still boasts the nation's lowest divorce rate.



No church or synagogue has been forced to marry any gay couple. (The U.S. Constitution protects every denomination's right to bless whomever it chooses.)



Massachusetts' voters defeated three state legislators who had voted to amend the state constitution to revive marriage discrimination. And in six of eight open-seat races pitting supporters of gay marriage against its foes, candidates favoring gay marriage won.



Want more glad tidings?



The state's old House speaker, who supported marriage bias, has been replaced by Salvatore DiMasi, who wants to keep the current, inclusive marriage law.



Earlier this year, the legislature voted 105 to 92 to amend the state constitution to restore marriage discrimination. To go to the voters, the measure would have to pass a second time. The state's terrific election results certainly improved the chances of blocking it.



If the amendment does get on the 2006 ballot, voters will have had two and a half years of seeing how marriage helped their gay relatives and friends.



My bet is Massachusetts won't want to return to a world where gay families are excluded from the protective safety net of civil marriage.



Now, the ranks of the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry keep swelling. And clergy like Fowler will be back on Beacon Hill to talk with lawmakers "about justice and freedom and inclusive love."



"Being able to marry same-sex couples is something I've wanted to do for 20 years," says Fowler, who's witnessed a multitude of "conversions" among lawmakers, clergy and parishioners since May 17.



"I'm thankful it happened in my lifetime. It's a fulfillment of my vocation, not a twist."



Massachusetts' uplifting experience is converting a lot of doubters: When people take time to really look, they see. When they stop to listen, they hear.



You can reach Deb Price at (202) 906-8205 or dprice@detnews.com.

---

skittles



Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more… He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew.. and it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

Just when I feel upset and think the world can't get much colder, I read delightful news like this that fills my heart again with hope for the future.



Good one for massachusetts! I for one hope their forward thinking will inspire America.

Tara & Willow Together Forever!!! Blessed Be Eternally!!!

[The Smee]

From: www.virginia.edu/topnews/...-2004.html







Teenagers Of Same-Sex Parents Developing Normally, Study Finds



November 17, 2004 -- Teenagers of same-sex female parents are developing as well as the children of opposite-sex parents, and good quality family relationships are more important contributors to successful development than family type, according to a new study published in the November/December issue of the journal Child Development.



The study also indicates that teenage offspring of same-sex couples have similar dating and romantic relationship behaviors as children of opposite-sex couples.



“The best predictor of teens’ adjustment is the quality of their relationship with parents,” said Charlotte J. Patterson, co-author of the study and professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. “If parents are supportive and maintain close relationships with them, teenagers are more likely to be successful and happy at home and at school.”



Patterson and her colleagues based their research on a sample of 12- to 18-year-old adolescents from 88 families. The sample was drawn from a large national survey of American adolescents, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Forty-four of the study participants were parented by same-sex female couples and 44 were parented by opposite-sex couples. The two groups were matched by demographic characteristics.



On measures of their psychosocial adjustment and school results, such as grades and test scores, both groups had similar outcomes, and their adjustment was not affected by the type of family – whether same sex or opposite sex parents.



The researchers matched participants by age, income levels, social situations and other factors — with the exception of family type — to ensure that the two groups were comparable.



Because data for this study was drawn from those collected for a large national survey, researchers encountered important advantages. First, participating families came from various parts of the United States, instead of from a single geographical area, as in most previous research. Second, the sample included participants from different racial and socioeconomic groups, and was more diverse than samples in most previous studies. Finally, because the data were originally collected for other reasons, any possibility of bias has been minimized. These strengths add to confidence in the main findings that the quality of relationships within families are more important for adolescent development than whether parents have same-sex or opposite-sex partners.



Patterson’s co-authors are Jennifer Wainright, a doctoral student at the University of Virginia, and Stephen T. Russell, a professor of human development at the University of Arizona.



Contact: Dr. Charlotte Patterson, (434) 924-0664







ee-yup.

This has been a message brought to you by SmeeCorp.

[KiwiAlcyone]

Well, I don't know how many people will be interested to hear that there have been major debates raging down under for the past few weeks as the controversial Civil Union Bill was brought before our parliament.



The Bill allows defacto couples, including gay and lesbian couples to enter into a civil union, which gives them all the rights of married couples. So while it's not gay marriage as such it's a huge step forward for gay rights in New Zealand.



It finally became law today after months of protest on both sides, with churches in particular crying outrage at what they see as 'gay marriage in drag.'



I don't think it is gay marriage, it's simply granting the same rights to gays and lesbians as heterosexual couples and yay for that I say!!!!



Alcy

Reality continues to ruin my life - Calvin and Hobbes

[russ]

Looks like progress at both ends of the globe.

Quote:

---

Ottawa rejects gay-marriage compromise



By CAMPBELL CLARK

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Canada's top court hears Ottawa reference on same-sex marriages







Ottawa — Justice Minister Irwin Cotler left no wiggle room for compromise options like civil unions as he indicated yesterday the government will move to legalize same-sex marriage no matter what the Supreme Court says about the controversial issue.



Just one day before the court issues its opinion on the constitutionality of same-sex marriages — and with the Liberal Whip polling MPs to see if a bill to legalize them will pass — Mr. Cotler made it clear the government has chosen its path and will move quickly.



"We will introduce legislation which will extend civil marriage to gays and lesbians in conformity with the Charter and will protect religious faiths in that no religious official will be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage," he told reporters.



The issue of same-sex marriage was thrown to the Supreme Court in June of 2003, after lower courts in several provinces declared the traditional definition of marriage violated equality provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.



Ottawa said it intended to legalize same-sex marriage, and asked the court if its draft bill was constitutional. After Paul Martin's government replaced Jean Chrétien's, Mr. Cotler also asked the court to rule on whether the traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory, opening the door for the court to offer an option like non-marriage "civil unions" for gays and lesbians if the justices feel that meets the test of the Charter.



At hearings before the Supreme Court in October, the lawyer for the government, Peter Hogg, had said Ottawa intended to legislate the legalization of same-sex marriage no matter what the court decided, although his political masters had taken a wait-and-see approach.



Yesterday, Mr. Cotler backed Mr. Hogg's statements: "Yes. That's our policy. That's our approach. We hope, as I said, that the Supreme Court will support us. And we will proceed with the bill."



That assertion sparked criticism from Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay, who called it an "unfortunate and pre-emptory" statement that cuts off an option many Canadians would choose.



"I personally favour having a system that respects both the religious definition, traditional definition, while at the same time puts in place a civil union that ensures that the rights, privileges, protections and responsibilities that flow from marriage are treated equally under the law," he said.



Same-sex marriage is currently legal in six provinces after courts in each ruled that the traditional heterosexual definition of marriage violates the Charter.



Mr. Martin had sought to delay the issue from coming to the political forefront before last spring's election. But he changed tack as his support fell, and turned to campaigning as the defender of the Charter of Rights by charging that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper would use the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter and block gay marriage.



The Supreme Court is widely expected to side with lower courts in ruling that the traditional definition of marriage violates the Charter, and that extending marriage to same-sex couples is the only legal option.



But while its decision is authoritative, it is technically non-binding, and Parliament has the power to override the Charter by invoking the notwithstanding clause.



Liberal backbencher Pat O'Brien yesterday called for the notwithstanding clause to be used, and insisted that many Liberal MPs will oppose same-sex marriage. "This ought to be the time to overrule the courts," he said.



He said the issue is a political loser.



"I think we risk alienating many, many long-time Liberals," he said. "I know it cost me votes in the last election and I'm sure it's going to cost us votes in future elections."



Government House Leader Tony Valeri told MPs at a Liberal caucus meeting yesterday that there will be a "two-line whip" on the vote, meaning cabinet ministers must vote for the bill but backbench MPs are free to vote as they choose.



Several cabinet ministers have voted against same-sex marriage on previous occasions in the House, but will have to change positions if they want to remain in cabinet.



"In politics, we all take a decision that is a collective decision, and in that collective decision, you have to make some adjustments," Human Resources Minister Joe Volpe said yesterday.



The government is clearly nervous that the bill could be defeated, and aides to Liberal Whip Karen Redman were pulling aside middle-ground MPs at the meeting to ask how they would vote.

---

I'm glad to see the government's stand on the issue, though I'm also worried the proposed legislation may not pass. With a minority government, a split Liberal Party, and a strong right-wing opposition, it will be difficult to get the required votes to pass the bill. The cynic in me thinks the Liberals may be setting it up to fail. This would allow them to say "we tried" and leave the issue in the hands of the provinces. The whole thing is complicated in that today's Supreme Court decision will be binding unless the government takes the action of invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to overrule it. This the current government will not do.

Russ



When we love and give it everything we've got, no matter what the consequences, we are doing what we were put here to do -- Geneen Roth

[Dave V]

The Supreme Court of Canada has rendered its decision.



From canoe.ca:

Quote:

---

Fri, December 10, 2004



Gays cheer ruling



Religious groups slam decision of court on same-sex marriage



By KATHLEEN HARRIS, Ottawa Bureau



Canada's highest court gave its constitutional blessing to same-sex marriage yesterday, a decision hailed as a landmark victory by gays and civil libertarians but panned by religious groups who say the centuries-old institution has been "hijacked." In a 28-page opinion that backs the Liberal government's plan to legalize gay nuptials, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Parliament has the exclusive power to redefine marriage. The non-binding judgment also offered assurance religious officials won't be forced to marry gays against their beliefs.



"This is victory for all Canadians, a victory for Canadian values, a victory for the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, and for the principles of equality and dignity and respect that it embodies," said Alex Munter, a spokesman for Canadians For Equal Marriage.



Refusing to provide an opinion on whether the definition limiting marriage to one man and one woman violates the charter, the top court tossed the hot potato back into the laps of federal lawmakers.



QUICK PROMISE OF LEGISLATION



The Liberal government responded with a quick promise to table legislation in January as bitter opponents vowed to ramp up lobby- ing efforts to block the bill.



Liberals, with the exception of cabinet ministers, will have a free vote in a deeply divided House of Commons.



Charles McVety, Canada Christian College president, warned politicians could face punishment at the polls if they back throwing out the traditional definition of marriage.



"When you redefine a term as fundamental as marriage, you have redefined the foundation of society and the foundation of faith," he said. "I think that is catastrophic for society. Marriage has been hijacked today, and I'm very sad about that."



Recognizing the potential conflict between equality and religious rights, the Supreme Court insisted religious freedoms are enshrined in the constitution and are broad and "jealously guarded."



ESTABLISH ONE LAW



Premier Gary Doer said Ottawa should act quickly to establish one law on same-sex marriages for all provinces to follow.



"We've argued before we shouldn't have one law in Kenora, one law in Manitoba and another law in Yorkton," Doer said. "I think the Supreme Court has properly said to Parliament, 'You have the right to decide. Get on with it and decide.'"



Stefphany Cholakis, who became the first Manitoban to register a same-sex marriage when she wed her partner, Michelle Ritchot, three months ago, said the battle is not over.



Cholakis said she'll be watching with interest to see what happens in Parliament.



"One barrier, or roadblock, has been opened," she said of yesterday's opinion.



Same-sex marriages have been recognized in Manitoba since September.



Conservative MP Vic Toews said same legalizing same-sex marriages should be a matter decided by members of Parliament.



The government asked the court's opinion on draft legislation after declining to appeal lower court rulings. To date, top courts in six provinces and one territory have ruled in favour of same-sex marriage.

---

Gary Doer is the Premier here in Manitoba. I hope things go smoothly in Parliament. russ' comments above indicate the stumbling blocks.

[sheila wt]

SFGate Article

Quote:

---

Canada Goes To Hell

Legal pot? Legal gay marriage? Universal health care? What's next, free porn and candy?



By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Wednesday, December 15, 2004



Did you hear the screams? Did you feel the menacing chill? Did you see the black and ominous clouds, moving north?



Did you sense, in other words, the very presence of Satan himself as he laughed maniacally and tossed around bucketfuls of ultrathin condoms and little travel-size packets of Astroglide like confetti while riding his Harley

Softail up to Toronto or maybe Edmonton to join the ghastly and sodomitic celebrations?



Because it's happened. Canada's high court just ruled that the government can, if it so desires, redefine marriage to include gay couples, which it has declared it will do almost immediately, thus solidifying Canada's place as the

chilly yet mellow and gay friendly and hockey-riffic epicenter of all known hell.



It's true. It's rather amazing. Gay marriage will be completely legal in Canada very soon. It's been oddly ignored in much of the U.S. media and hasn't

really been much discussed among those in the terrified red states except when, deep in the night, from their respective lumpy twin beds, they whisper to each other across the room as they pop their Ambien and stroke their

portfolios and curse their very genitals: oh my God what's wrong with those freakin' Canadians?



I mean (they continue), I thought they loved red meat and brutish sports and manly hunting. Are they all just freaks and perverts now? Have they been sniffing too many elk pelts? Is it something in the clean and plentiful water up

there? Something to do with those weird French-esque people in Quebec, maybe?



I knew we should've been paying more attention to that border! Didn't I say so, honey? Didn't I say we should keep an eye on those northern weirdos after they dissed the Iraq war and legalized medical pot and sort of went about their happy and calm Canadian business whilst we here in panicky red-blooded America chewed our own karmic legs off in a paranoid and jingoistic rage? Hippies and perverts, I said! Save a few bombs for Ontario, George, I say!



Let us now do the naughty math: Canada has roughly 32 million inhabitants, of whom about 75 percent are over 18, of whom it can be loosely estimated that anywhere from 2 to 8 percent are gay (depends, of course, on who you

ask).



All of which translates into a ballpark figure of anywhere from 1 million to 2 million gay Canadians of legal marrying age who will now eagerly laugh and kiss in the streets and confound poor reactionary born-again George W. Bush, and they will flash their wedding rings at parties and annoy all the single people, all while proving for the umpteenth time that love knows no gender limitations or legal restrictions and will trump your whiny sanctimonious religious puling any given Sunday. Heathens!



It's getting more confusing by the minute, isn't it? I mean, Canada now has legal medical pot and legal gay marriage and universal health care and no known terrorist enemies and a relatively successful multiparty political system. They also have, according to U.N.'s Human Development Index, one of the highest qualities of life in the world. All coupled with a dramatically reduced rate of gun violence and far better gun-control legislation than the U.S., despite having the exact same per capita rate of gun ownership and

gun-sport enthusiasm.



What the hell? How is this possible? Why aren't they scared to death like whiny red-state Americans? Why don't they want to kill each other along with anything that might threaten their access to televised hockey and cheap beer

and yummy poutine?



Aren't they aware of what's happening in the world? Don't they know they are openly hated for their freedoms and their cafés and their vinegared french fries? Aren't they human, fer Chrissakes? Oh, red states. How confused and

irritated you must be.



After all, unlike the U.S., Canada backed the Kyoto Treaty (along with 165 other heathen nations). They also spend more per capita on education and less on health-care overhead than the U.S. They have a $10 billion federal

surplus, a new record. They are not, as of yet, abusing the hell out of their vast natural resources (freshwater, huge forests, oil and natural gas, mineral deposits, etc.) and embarrassing themselves on a global scale every single

day and making a mockery of their constitution or their citizens' civil liberties. What the hell is wrong with them?



Yes yes, I know, Canada's universal health care is flawed and not always of the best quality, and a great many Canadians think their prime minister is a bit of a schmuck and they hate paying taxes and of course they can be all

profitable and progressive when they don't have a massive bogus unwinnable war to pay for, one run by a ravenous and fiscally idiotic federal government, and they only have one-tenth of our population and one-fiftieth of our

desperate consumeristic gluttony. They have it easy, right?



Remember, Canada is boring. Canada is rarely in the news. Canada has no massive belching socioeconomic engine like America does, what with our NASCAR and Hollywood and Fox News and bad porn and the absolute best medical care on the planet despite how only a tiny fraction of us have access to it while the rest languish in bloated abusive HMOs and poverty and disease and 40 percent of us have no access to health care whatsoever. Take that, Canada! Oh wait.



We hate gays and love guns and think pot is evil but hand out Prozac and Zoloft like Chiclets. Meanwhile (as "Bowling for Columbine" so beautifully illuminated), Canadians leave their doors unlocked and don't feature violence and death on every newscast and still value community and diversity and discussion over solipsism and protectionism and a general hatred of foreigners and the French. See? We rule! Oh wait.



All of which makes you wonder: how many more countries will it take? How many more nations will have to, for example, prove that gun licensing works, or that gay-marriage legislation is a moral imperative, or that health care for all is mandatory for a nation's well being, before America finally looks at itself and says, whoa, damn, we are so silly and small and wrong? Is there any number large enough? After the announcement that gay Chinese and gay Russians may legally marry and grow lovely gardens of marijuana as they all get free dental care, will America remain terrified of nipples and queers?



Canadians. So mellow. So laid back. So gay. So not producing any truly superlative modern-rock music or ultraviolent buddy-cop movies and not actively siccing Wal-Mart or Starbucks or Paris Hilton on the rest of the world like a goddamn cancer. They're just so ... nice. And boring. And calm. And solid. And friendly.



And they simply beat us senseless on the whole open-minded, progressive thing. Kicked our flag-wavin' butts. Trounced our egomaniacal self-righteous selves and made the red states look even more foolish and backward than the whole world already knows them to be.



They did it. Canada made the whole gay marriage issue look effortless and obvious and healthy, and a massive black rain of hellfire did not pour down upon them and the very idea of hetero marriage did not immediately explode and their economy did not unravel like all the sneering cardinals and right-wing nutballs screamed it would. We must ask, one last time: what the hell is wrong with them?



Oh wait. Maybe we should rephrase. What the hell, we should be asking, is wrong with us?

---

------------------------------

Sheila

[Gatito Grande]

Good news out of Massachusetts: same-sex marriage looks like it's here to stay!

Quote:

---

Mass. Voters Don't Want Gay Marriage Amendment

by Michael J. Meade 365Gay.com Boston Bureau



Posted: February 7, 2005 7:30 pm. ET



(Boston, Massachusetts) The Massachusetts legislature will take up the second phase of a proposal to amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage this year, but a new poll shows most voters want the effort abandoned.



The Bay State Poll, taken for the Eagle-Tribune, and released on Monday, shows that most people in Massachusetts have grown comfortable with same-sex marriage.



"We have it. It's been happening. The sky is not falling," [GG: Duh! ] said Bay State pollster Russell K. Mayer, the director of the Center for Public Opinion Research at Merrimack College.



The poll found 52 percent of respondents do not want to see the amendment on the ballot.



Last march lawmakers approved the proposed amendment which would define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. It would, however, allow civil unions with legal marriage rights (story) It must be approved again in this session of the legislature in order to go to voters in 2006.



Same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in May 17, 2004.



The Eagle-Tribune reports that the poll found that despite heavy lobbying by the Catholic Church to oppose gay marriage, the Catholic vote was nearly split.



Eighty-five percent of Jewish voters oppose putting an amendment on the ballot. Among those people describing themselves as atheist or agnostic 71.4 percent were opposed to a vote on banning same-sex marriage.



However, newer residents to the state and Republicans were more eager to see the issue on the ballot.



The poll of 710 people had a 3.8 percent margin of error.



There are also growing indications that the legislature is also growing tired of the issue. When the proposed amendment was submitted last year it divided the legislature, resulted in acrimonious debate, and continued for two days.



In November, a more liberal House and Senate was elected , with Democrats picking up seats in both bodies.

---

www.365gay.com/newscon05/...ssPoll.htm



GG Marriage in Massachusetts is like leaven : given time, the Gay Marriage Wedding Cake will rise EVERYWHERE! Out

[russ]

Quote:

---

Americans should butt out of same-sex debate, coalition suggests

Associated Press



Montreal — Canadians can decide the issue of same-sex marriage for themselves and don't need help from other countries, a coalition of same-sex marriage advocates said Tuesday.



Right-wing Christian Americans have been telephoning MPs to tell them how to vote on the proposed Civil Marriage Act. One Ontario MP has said she has received 30 calls from Americans in the last 10 days.



Evangeline Caldwell, co-ordinator of the Quebec Coalition for Same-Sex Civil Marriage, said at a news conference that Canadian opponents of the bill are already effectively stating their case.



"It's not that people from other nations can't say something, but arriving with the cavalry is little bit unnecessary," she said. "We can take care of our own debate and we are doing so."



The news conference focused on lobbying efforts targeting Quebec MPs to get their support for the proposed law. No date has been set yet for MPs to vote on the legislation.

---

Let's hope they keep it up. If there's one thing that might sway uncommitted Canadian public opinion in favour of the bill, it's being told what to do from south of the border.

Russ



When we love and give it everything we've got, no matter what the consequences, we are doing what we were put here to do -- Geneen Roth

[Ben Varkentine]

Quote:

---

Says nation cannot lead and allow legalization

By Michael Levenson, Globe Correspondent | February 26, 2005



SALT LAKE CITY -- Speaking before an adoring audience of Utah Republicans last night, Governor Mitt Romney drew a link between America's prestige around the world and the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts.



''America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home," Romney said, calling the Supreme Judicial Court's legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts ''a blow to the family."



Hours after gay marriage supporters in Boston criticized him for his recent, strident criticism of same-sex marriage, Romney delivered a half-hour speech laced with references to religion, family values, and praise for Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. In the latest in his recent series of out-of-state political appearances, he smiled as Utah Republicans made fun of Massachusetts' liberal reputation in their introductory remarks.



''I'm happy to be in my home away from home, here," Romney said, gushing at the mountain views and the abundance of Republicans. ''I love it here!"



He quoted what he said was an excerpt from the book, ''The Wealth and Poverty of Nations," by Harvard professor David S. Landes, declaring, ''If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference.



''America's culture is also defined by the fact that we are a religious people," Romney said. ''We recognize our God not only in our Declaration of Independence, but even in our currency. And we are also unique in that we recognize that the family is the fundamental building block of American society."



Romney said he took the same hard line toward balancing the budget at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002 that he's taken in Massachusetts, where he initially faced a $3 billion deficit and had vowed not to raise taxes.



''We cut more state and city workers in Massachusetts than any other state in America," Romney said. ''We found a way to do more with fewer."



Romney did not elaborate on the assertion. The US Department of Labor reported last year that Massachusetts cut deeper into its government workforce than any other state during the recent economic downturn.



The Labor Department reported that between 2001 and 2003, a period that began before Romney took office, Massachusetts cut its payroll by 5 percent. The Globe reported last year that the federal numbers for 2004 showed that cities and towns were hiring again, but that the number of state workers continued to drop.



Romney delved into foreign policy, which he seldom mentions in Massachusetts. He sounded at times more like a candidate for national office than the chief executive of a Northeast state.



''Ronald Reagan is one of my heroes," Romney said as he praised Reagan's strategy for winning the Cold War: ''We win; they lose."



He blasted Democrats in Congress for criticizing the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he said are succeeding. ''To those who yearn for world peace, I hope they remember that its staunchest ally is a strong America," Romney said.

Romney's trips out of Massachusetts have fueled rampant speculation that Romney will seek the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2008 and prompted criticism from Democrats and liberal activists.



At the State House yesterday, about 40 gay rights advocates, including Hillary and Julie Goodridge, the couple who were lead plaintiffs in the court case that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, decried remarks Romney made in a speech to South Carolina Republicans last weekend.



In that speech, Romney said, ''Some [same-sex couples] are actually having children born to them." Complaining about an effort to use gender-neutral language to describe parents on birth certificates, he also said: ''It's not right on paper. It's not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and a father."



''To us, it sounded as if you were using certain Massachusetts families either to garner applause or as a laugh line," said Hillary Goodridge, reading aloud part of a letter that was delivered to Romney aides yesterday.



''We want to remind you that gay parents and lesbians raising children are real parents who share with every other parent the same hopes and dreams for their children."



In a sign of other political trouble at home yesterday, US Senators Edward M. JFK and John F. Kerry, both Democrats, wrote a letter to Romney imploring him to fight President Bush's plans to slash federal funding to Massachusetts cities. A local labor union also called him a ''flip-flopper" for vetoing retroactive pay raises for UMass workers after giving such raises to his senior staff.



But in Salt Lake City last night, Romney's opposition to gay marriage and the signs that he is interested in running for the White House were warmly encouraged. He repeated virtually the same lines about gay parents last night, to the applause from the political figures, donors, and business executives who were on hand at the fund-raising dinner for the Salt Lake County Republican Party.



''There's a rumor that's going around Washington that Mitt might come to Washington in 2008, and I would be delighted to welcome him," Utah's junior US senator, Robert F. Bennett, said to applause from the several hundred guests.



Romney smiled as Republican speakers poked fun at the Bay State. US Representative Rob Bishop of Utah called Romney's home state the ''People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts" and joked that it ''has a tax rate lower than Sweden's, kinda."



Picking up on the theme, Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. welcomed Romney and his family to ''a roomful of good Republicans, which is something I know they never see at home."



He called Romney ''the most exciting and impressive leader in the Republican Party today" and joked about his full head of hair, full bank account, and blonde wife.



''People will speculate about 2008, of course they will, because he's such an extraordinary leader," Huntsman said.



As guests filed into the ballroom for dinner, Romney greeted each one at the door. He posed for photographs, shook hands, and said hello to old friends.



In an interview, US Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, called Romney a ''terrific manager."



''If he chooses to run for president, and he can overcome the Atlantic Coast-Northeast very liberal image, I think he has an excellent chance to be president," Hatch said.

---

Yes, that's why the United States' prestige is down around the world. Gay marriage. Of course. What else could it be?



I figure someone here will know: I want to find out just what the standing of gay marriage is around the world--I'm under the impression we're actually lagging behind, but I may be wrong.

Ben



"All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions."--Adlai Stevenson

[Kieli]

And my state with a DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR keeps on making stupid decisions:

Quote:

---

U.S. National - AP

Va. Lawmakers OK Proposed Gay Marriage Ban



Sat Feb 26, 4:51 PM ET

       

By LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press Writer



RICHMOND, Va. - A proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Virginia easily won final approval Saturday by both chambers of the General Assembly.



The measure would have to be approved again by the Legislature next year and ratified by voters in the 2006 general election before it would become part of the Virginia Constitution.



The House of Delegates voted 79-17, and the Senate voted 30-10 to pass the final version of the amendment.



Virginia law already prohibits same-sex marriages. However, many legislators argued that an amendment is necessary to ensure that courts do not force Virginia to recognize gay marriages or civil unions performed in other states.



One opponent of the measure, Democratic state Delegate Albert Pollard, said he does not support gay marriage, but he does not see it as a threat to traditional values that warrants amending the Constitution.



"This is an issue that needs to be viewed like McCarthyism," Pollard said. "We are not threatened by gay marriage. We are threatened by our overreaction to it."



Supporters of the legislation did not respond to critics on the House and Senate floors.



Seventeen states have adopted constitutional gay-marriage bans, with 11 of them ratifying the measures in elections last fall.

---

We kissed for hours, wrapped around each other in the dirt, immersed in the heady, religious world of deep sex.
Love is just a different form of ego. It's nothing but a flatteringly worded form of possessiveness.--Kannaduki no Miko

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage



By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer





SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

       

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.



"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.



The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.



"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.



Kramer ruled in lawsuits brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March. The suits were brought after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004 when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.



The plaintiffs said withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians trespasses on the civil rights all citizens are guaranteed under the California Constitution.



Two legal groups representing religious conservatives joined with California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in defending the existing laws and had vowed to appeal if Kramer did not rule in their favor.



Lockyer's office has said it expects the matter eventually will have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.



A pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[WebWarlock]

and one more,



www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7182628/



Warlock

Web Warlock, web.warlock@comcast.net, The Other Side.

Liber Mysterium: The D20 Netbook of Witches & The Dragon and the Phoenix: New Adventures of Willow and Tara

"We’re gonna light up the dark of night like the brightest day in a whole new way."

[Gatito Grande]

Will the plaintiffs (et al! ) be able to get licenses, pending the defendants' appeal? Of course, folks got licenses in SF last year which were later voided, but still and all, it's far better to have those marriage licenses in hand, before any more anti-marriage maliciousness could (but hopefully won't ) take effect.



GG i.e. the whole "ex post facto" factor Out

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

I think one of the positive things to come out of this is that judges, due to the length and consistent speed of this debate throughout the world, not just the USA, have had to think about this question and deliberate upon it.



That is why I think this judgement is especially significant, as it has come not from some knee-jerk reaction, but from careful consideration of the legal position. I welcome it, and I think it gives a strong basis to fight on for marriage equality in the USA.



Politicians cannot play politics with a person's marriage.

Tara & Willow Together Forever!!! Blessed Be Eternally!!!

[TemperedCynic]

I got this link from AMERICAblog.com, and this is the way American jurisprudence should work - conservative Republican judge rules on the issue before his court based on the facts of the case. This judge will need support from liberals as well as moderates and libertarians on this issue, because he is already being called an "activist judge." May all our judges be this insightful and may we continue to support them, since this is the last section of our government not overrun by idealogues.

---

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. Woody Allen (1935 - )

[Willowlicious]

As someone who has just gained domestic partner benefits through my girlfriend's job at a (thankfully) private hospital, I am sick for the families that are being faced with losing their benefits.



Let the court cases begin. Sigh.

Quote:

---

Cox: Cities can't offer benefits to employees' same sex partners



Wednesday, March 16, 2005



BY DAWSON BELL

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER



Benefits for the same sex partners of municipal employees, currently available in a handful of Michigan cities, cannot be renewed in future contracts, according to an opinion issued Wednesday by state Attorney General Mike Cox. The opinion has clear implications for other public employees, including state and university workers.



The opinion came in response to a question about benefits for employees in the City of Kalamazoo. But it has obvious implications for other public employees, including state and university workers.



In his opinion, Cox cited language in Proposal 2, the controversial ban on gay marriage which Michigan voters approved in November. In the absence of a contrary opinion from a court, the attorney general’s interpretation of the law is generally considered binding on state agencies.



“The bottom line is that the law is what the law is,” Cox said. “This is the logical outcome of what the voters approved.”



The attorney general’s opinion was immediately denounced as disappointing and wrong by Jeffrey Montgomery, director of the gay rights organization theTriangle Foundation.



“Taking health care away from families is not what people thought they were voting for,” he said.



There have been heated disputes about the breadth of application of Proposal 2, both before and after the election. Although commonly described as an effort to ban gay marriage, opponents of the measure often argued during the fall campaign that it would extend to contractual rights of public and even private employees.



The attorney general’s opinion suggests that private employers are not covered by Proposal 2.



But for public employers, Cox found that Proposal 2 requires that the “only relationship that may be given any recognition or acknowledgement of validity is the union of one man and one woman in marriage.”



“There can be little doubt” that Kalamazoo’s policy extending health, death and pension benefits to same sex domestic partnerships “constitutes recognition or acknowledgement of the validity of same sex relationships.”



Cox said Wednesday it is important to understand that cities could continue to offer benefits to someone - a same sex partner, a friend, a cousin, a next-door-neighbor, or anyone - designated by an employee. What they cannot do is recognize a same sex relationship as the equivalent of marriage for the purposes of providing benefits, he said.



Both sides agree the issue likely will ultimately be decided in court.



A case involving the Ann Arbor Public Schools, filed before the passage of Proposal 2, is pending and opponents of same sex benefits have attempted to use the amendment to bolster their position.



But the most significant showdown may come in a challenge to the policies of major public universities. Several, including U-M, MSU and Wayne State, currently offer same sex benefits.



Officials at the University of Michigan and Wayne State University have argued their policies are protected by the autonomy granted to universities under the constitution. The opinion from Cox would appear to strengthen the position of those who reject that claim, and believe universities, too, have been prohibited by the voters from offering same sex benefits.

---

[Gatito Grande]

You got that right: this is just crap on a cracker.



GG And when the No on 2 activists last fall were saying "This will take away health insurance for families under collective-bargaining agreements!" you had the mo'fo' Yes on 2 people saying, "Oh no, this is just about giving our support to 'traditional marriage.' It won't hurt anyone." Lying bastards! Out

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

On the Reservation, U.S. Indians Debate Gay Unions



By Adam Tanner





SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - On American Indian reservations, some tribes are debating whether they should embrace gay marriage or shun such unions as an affront to family values.



The controversy in these often-ignored sovereign territories within the United States comes as Americans in general are divided, often bitterly, over same-sex weddings. The controversy made headlines again this week as a judge ruled that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.



"What goes on in Indian nations now is a microcosm of what is going on across the country," said David Cornsilk, a Cherokee representing two lesbians in the most prominent case before an American Indian court.



The latest California ruling also came weeks after a legislator in Navajo Nation, the largest and most populous Indian reservation, called for a ban on gay marriage.



Scholars of homosexuality in Indian culture say Native Americans traditionally tolerated gay behavior, an attitude that shifted after the Europeans arrived in North America.



"American Indians firmly believe from forever that procreation was essential for survival, but you could play with anybody," said Lester Brown, author of "Two Spirit People: American Indian Lesbian Women and Gay Men."



"Christianity ruined a lot of it," said Brown, a Cherokee. "The religious groups that were trying to proselytize with the Indians could not accept those different people."



GAY CASE BEFORE CHEROKEE COURT



Brown's tribe is engaged in a court fight parallel to those taking place in California and elsewhere in the nation. The Cherokee case arose after a lesbian couple obtained a tribal marriage application last year, only to have the Cherokee Nation ban gay marriage and refuse to recognize the union.



Cornsilk, who will argue the case before the Cherokee's top court, said the California decision could paradoxically make his efforts to win acceptance more difficult because of conservative sentiment in the American Midwest.



"All of the effect all of these cases have had is to simply calcify resistance," he said by telephone from Tulsa, Oklahoma. "They see both sides of the country, both the East and West Coast, as liberal and not representative of mainstream America."



Voters in many U.S. states have recently approved measures against gay marriage, while one state, Massachusetts, became the only U.S. state to allow same-sex marriage last year.



Cornsilk, who is gay, said historical documents suggest a group of Indian men married each other in 1825. The Cherokee Tribal Council will hold a hearing on the issue on March 24, he said.



In Navajo Nation in the Southwest, the proposal to ban gay marriage has sparked a flurry of letters to the editor in the local Navajo Times newspaper.



"Like all indigenous tribes and ancient civilizations, homosexuality is a third gender, and marriage was for everyone," Collestipher Chatto wrote. "But sadly, many of the Dine (Navajo) people are corrupted by the Western beliefs and Christianity, causing many natives to view gays as perverted or sodomites."



Robert Williams, a University of Arizona professor of law and American Indian studies, said as sovereign nations tribes can set their own family rules, so they could ban or allow gay marriage.



"I've heard proposals going both ways," said Williams, who also serves as a supreme court justice for two tribes. In family law "state law cannot apply, will not apply."



Joe Shirley Jr., president of the 300,000-strong Navajo Nation, took a cautious approach when asked about the issue at a press conference in Window Rock, Arizona last week.



"I don't think it is an issue to be handled on the part of the administration, it's a people issue," he said. "If anything is going to be had about gay marriages here in Navajo Land, give it to the people, let the people decide on what the stance is going to be on like-people marriages."



The Navajo people recently approved casino gambling in a voter referendum.



Some U.S. politicians say constituents have lobbied them to urge local tribes to permit gay marriage.



"I had quite a few people call me and say, 'Why don't you talk to the tribes about that,"' Ron Oden, the openly gay mayor of Palm Springs, California, told Reuters.



Yet he did not expect tribes would quickly extend such recognition as they are already fighting a public relations battle over the growth of Indian casinos. "The last things the tribes want is to get more controversy," Oden said.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Ben Varkentine]

From RawStoryQ...

Quote:

---

Time magazine inks article on Ohio amendment’s usage



Tomorrow’s issue of Time Magazine will have an item about the use of Ohio’s new anti-gay marriage amendment as the legal basis for a woman to claim her former partner is not entitled to visitation rights, RAWSTORYQ has learned. The article will appear in issues on newsstands Monday.



Here is the item:





Gay-Marriage Bans: The Boomerang Effect

By CHRIS MAAG



Denise Fairchild was artificially inseminated in 1997. She raised her son with her lesbian partner Therese Leach until the couple split in 2001. Now Fairchild wants to deny her former partner visitation rights, and she’s citing Ohio’s new constitutional ban on gay marriage. Since they were never legally married under Ohio law, Fairchild claims, Leach does not have the rights of a former spouse. Leach’s attorney argues that the amendment doesn’t apply to parent-child relationships. “I’m using a piece of legislation that will deny me rights later in life,” Fairchild says. “But before I am a lesbian and a member of the gay community, I am his mother.”



Last November Ohio passed one of the nation’s most far-reaching gay-marriage bans. It prohibits not only gay marriage but also any relationship that “intends to approximate” marriage. Now that broad language is being used in an array of unlikely legal cases. Dozens of Ohio men charged with domestic abuse, for example, are prepared to argue in court that domestic-violence laws, which carry stiffer penalties than standard assault charges, no longer apply to them, since they are not married to the women they’re accused of beating. Legal experts fear they may be right. “It’s very clear that this amendment applies to unmarried heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples,” says Lewis Katz, a criminal-law professor at Case Western Reserve University. “These defense lawyers will try anything to win,” counters Phil Burress, president of the conservative Citizens for Community Values and sponsor of the amendment. But just in case they are successful, Burress is working with lawmakers to draft new domestic-violence laws.

---

Ben



"We are strong now/Put down the ammunition/For what we know is right/Is gonna breakdown this division"

--Erasure, "It Doesn't Have To Be"

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

“I’m using a piece of legislation that will deny me rights later in life,” Fairchild says. “But before I am a lesbian and a member of the gay community, I am his mother.”

---

A bad mother, evidently (for a gay person to use anti-gay legislation, is self-hating. And I don't see how a person can be both self-hating, and a good parent)

Quote:

---

Dozens of Ohio men charged with domestic abuse, for example, are prepared to argue in court that domestic-violence laws, which carry stiffer penalties than standard assault charges, no longer apply to them, since they are not married to the women they’re accused of beating.

---

Scumbags (allegedly), looking for a way to avoid the consequences of their scumbag-ness: there's a shocker.

Quote:

---

Legal experts fear they may be right. “It’s very clear that this amendment applies to unmarried heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples,” says Lewis Katz, a criminal-law professor at Case Western Reserve University. “These defense lawyers will try anything to win,” counters Phil Burress, president of the conservative Citizens for Community Values and sponsor of the amendment. But just in case they are successful, Burress is working with lawmakers to draft new domestic-violence laws.

---

It's a lawyer's job to "try anything to win", shite-for brains! Of course, you could just repeal the whole f*cked-up law, but oh no: we love the fag-/dyke-penalizing part Just Too Much.



GG Fantasizing thoughts, vis-a-vis Mr. Burress, which the consequences of enacting would require a try-anything-to-win lawyer Out

[vmpIrslAr]

in Canada folks. I say just come on up to our lovely country!

It is really depressing reading all the anti-gay marriage news in the States.

Gay marriage will be available in the entire country as long as the Conservatives don't force a summer election.

cheers

[Gatito Grande]

Spitzer Stays Course On Gay Marriage
by Beth Shapiro 365Gay.com New York Bureau

Posted: May 23, 2005 12:01 am ET
(Rochester, New York) The man considered the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for New York governor has reaffirmed his support for same-sex marriage. But, Eliot Spitzer would not say if elected if he would make it a first term priority.

Instead, Spitzer told a Rochester LGBT audience that the gay community must take the lead in fighting for marriage equality.

"Politicians move very slowly," he told the annual spring dinner of Empire State Pride Agenda, New York's biggest LGBT civil rights organization.. "Only when you lead and block for us do we move in behind you."

The brief speech was greeted with raucous applause and cheers.

Last year, when the mayor of New Paltz performed nearly 30 same-sex weddings even though the couples did not have marriage licenses, Spitzer in a legal opinion said that even though New York does not permit same-sex marriage he believed the legislation would be struck down in court. (story)

Three separate challenges are working their way through the state court system and will eventually wind up in the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court. (story)

Polls show that Spitzer is well ahead of incumbent Republican Gov. George Pataki, although Pataki has not said if he will seek a fourth term.

©365Gay.com 2005

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/05/052305spitzer.htm

GG It would be so great to have New York on board . . . especially by way of legislation (better than the courts) Out

[WebWarlock]

Planning a wedding? Read this.

Article from MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7969694/ and the company that does custom, including same sex wedding toppers.
http://www.weddingate.com/

See this is what I don't get in the why there is no same-sex weddings. The money. How much money do these people stand to make once same sex unions are legal? Tons. Weddings are damn expensive.

Sure there is that arguement of human decency and love. But WHEN has that ever gotten anything done???

Warlock

[Warduke]

Great news from my home province...

N.B. judge clears way for gay marriage

CBC NEWS – A judge in Moncton handed down a decision Thursday afternoon that will open the door to same-sex marriages in New Brunswick.

Judge Judy Clendenning ruled in favour of four gay couples, who argued that the province's current definition of marriage violated their rights.

In a written decision, she said the definition of civil marriage would have to be changed from a lawful union between a man and a woman, to a lawful union "between two persons."

Alison Menard, the lawyer who represented the four couples, says the ruling means there's nothing to stop same-sex marriages from being carried out in New Brunswick.

"What it means is that anybody that meets the definition of capacity to marry is able to go and get a marriage licence," Menard said. "So in this particular circumstance, couples of same gender will be able to obtain marriage licences and celebrate marriages."

The ruling gives the province a 10-day grace period to get the new marriage definition into place.

New Brunswick has been one of three provinces that only recognize marriages between men and women. Alberta and P.E.I. are the others.

Premier Bernard Lord said he personally believed in the traditional view of marriage, but said the province wouldn't put up a fight if the courts or Parliament ordered it to make a change.

Several church-based groups wanted to participate in the case, so the court would hear their point of view against same-sex unions. But the judge turned down their request for intervener standing, saying that her ruling, whatever it may be, would not prevent them from making their own choices about whom to marry.

Now that Judge Clendenning's decision is out, gay organizations are calling it a huge step foward. Eldon Hay, who runs a support group for parents and families of gay people, said it was long overdue that New Brunswick recognized the rights of all citizens.

"Homosexuals in our province are going to be less looked down upon," he said. "Since the legislation will be changed, it means that gays and lesbians will be on an equal playing field – that's the big change."

[WebWarlock]

New news from the north!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/ ... ostpopular

Canada set to OK same-sex marriage

OTTAWA, Ontario (Reuters) -- Canada's Parliament was set Tuesday to approve legislation that will allow same-sex marriages across the country, despite fierce opposition from conservative legislators and religious groups.

A majority of parliamentarians support the legislation, which would make Canada only the third country after Belgium and the Netherlands to allow gay marriages.

Officials said Parliament would vote at around 8 p.m. EDT (midnight GMT) Tuesday.

Canada's minority Liberal government said it had to produce legislation permitting gay marriage after courts in eight of the country's 10 provinces ruled that a ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional because it violated Canada's charter on rights and freedoms.

Church groups and the main opposition Conservative Party say the law is an attack on organized religion, and some have suggested that allowing gay marriage could lead to the legalization of polygamy.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has ordered his Cabinet to vote for the legislation, but around 35 Liberal legislators will oppose the bill.

Canada's stance stands in contrast to that in the United States, where President Bush wants Congress to back a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages.

The gay marriage legislation is the last item on Parliament's agenda before it breaks for the summer. Legislators are due to resume work September 19.

Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

ETA: And another one.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8391828/


Click here to learn Canada's national anthem!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Canada

Warlock