Governor Spitzer stated in his election campaign that he wishes to see gay marriage become law in New York. Don't know if that will happen soon, but if the historically Republican Senate goes Democrat in the next election this fall I can see some sort of civil union/marriage law going into effect here.

NY Times Magazine cover article from last week: Young Gay Rites about young gay couples (twentysomethings) eager to get married.

I guess they're trying to promote our entire community as true upwardly-mobile guppies:

...Either that or the guy on the left looks like he's 'bout to break out in song in some gay musical.

...That pix is now saved on my computer...Be on the lookout for its future debut appearance as one of my many avatars.

Yes,don't we all wear a suit when we vacuum?! Of course it also looks like he's wearing slippers

That reminds me. I probably should dig out my "everyday" ascots to lounge around the house in this Summer.

Lol HornFan. I thought about the ascots too!

Good heavens, don't you guys know anything? Any self-respecting gay man knows you wear PEARLS when vacuuming!

Pearls & one's black cocktail dress & pumps!

...& don't forget the fishnet stockings!

...& blonde wig...don't forget the wig...or should it be a red wig?!

New York court upholds gay marriage victory:

http://ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=1601&a...amp;Category=26

Victories such as this one will be fleeting with a Supreme Court stacked with Bush and McCain justices.

Well, score one in the nagative category- not only is gay marriage "or any other union as such" illegal in the state of Michigan.... but the Supreme Court in Michigan just ruled in support of the AG in Michigan here- stating that this law voted in 2004 also bans the universities and some cities that included civil union partner benefits to their workers from providing those benefits to their employees..... Great to know that I am now provided less equality than prisoners and other convicted felons. f**kERS!

Did MIB move to Michigan?

Well I'm cautiously optimistic about this. I'd like to know where CA residents stand on this issue today. I'll have to do some research & see if I can find some current data...'til then!

Arnold says he's not on board with a constitutional amendment. So it's looking good! For now.

Smile victories, dearest fruit, small victories. Although this is pretty huge. I'm in Los Angeles, but I can only live in the moment so today I feel pretty great and my friends who've I texted across the country, particularly in/from my home state of Ohio which passed a Super DOMA in '04 banning marriage, domestic partnerships, and even health benefits for unwed mothers. I said then that it was intense to feel legislated against because of who I am, kind of sad. So today is a day to take a moment and celebrate.

P.S. - Does this mean that Cyd will rush his return to LA so that he can put on his white gown????

Well yeah! Woo hoo!

OK, I'm done celebrating.

This is horrible timing right in the middle of an election year. It's just the tonic to get all the evangelicals and right-wingers stirred up into a frenzy of hate and ready to do BATTLE. Put that constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage back on the front burner....anything to deflect from this awful war, economy and gas prices to get the sheeple focused on the really "important" issue of "saving" marriage.



Fanning the embers of hate for political gain.....again.

Mr. Cornyn is up for re-election this year and is only polling 47% to 43% currently against his Dem challenger in a RED State which is quite telling. Looks like he's already adding some ammo to up those numbers in his favor.

I don't like the timing of this ruling one bit.

Ok boys and girls!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvbwOvLV_0s

TURN UP THE VOLUME!!!

TRL
San Diego & Joshua Tree, CALIFORNIA

Which is at it should be. I realize I'm one of the few Democrats who believes this, but this issue ought to be up to the people of California, who may have the final say in November with the state constitutional amendment on the ballot.

I'm also vehemently opposed to what Senator Cornyn is doing when he talks about some kind of amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There is no need for one right now, and to put such a social-based amendment onto the U.S. Constitution is both stupid and wrong. This is an issue that belongs to the states and not to the judges or those beholden to the federal Constitution.

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I've grown increasingly troubled by things being taken away from the states, and conservatives, who always talk about being states' rights advocates, seem to conveniently forget about this when they run around trying to get things added to the U.S. Constitution.

WOW

This is awesome! I'm married to my partner (here in Canada) and a family friend of his just sent me the news. Hopefully, I will live to see the day when this happens in my homeland (Puerto Rico).

Congrats to the brothers and sisters in California!

ohmygwd, what a rip off scam, waste of my time. I sat through that whole damn thing waiting for something about gay marriage. It was nothing but a boring het wedding. WTF???

I think the difference between now and 2004 is that the economy is worse, gas is higher, and people are scared about jobs. The last time gay marriage came up it was kind of a red herring for many, but I think the handwriting is on the wall to put it biblically. But if people decide to vote against their class interest because of gay marriage or because Obama is black or Clinton is a woman, there is nothing you can do about it. It's why we live in a "democracy". Meanwhile, I need to find a boyfriend. Should I ask for a pre-nup???

I am with you in general. The ultimate goal is for gay marriage to get passed by our elected representatives in statehouses (and then in Congress) and signed by the relevant executives. That's the ideal way to go.

The California situation is a little different--if the legislature passed a gay marriage bill unprovoked (as it has done twice already) and the governor signed it (as the next governor certainly would), there would still be a constitutional amendment referendum. So we are in the same place with a slightly different method. "The people" (or the mob) still get the final say. Waiting a couple more years probably would have decreased the chances of an amendment passing--but wringing our hands over that doesn't accomplish much at this point.

Like I said, I completely understand the squeamishness around the installation of government-sanctioned gay unions by judicial fiat. Then again, Brown v. Board wasn't exactly a judicially restrained ruling.

Excellent news! Also, isn't it the case that New York State will recognize gay marriages in other states? So people could conceivably marry in California and Massachusetts, and then have those marriages recognized in New York State as well. Perhaps the New York legislature will bring gay marriage to a vote, and Governor Paterson would, I imagine, sign it. That would make three states, two very large ones, on board, and others would follow suit sooner rather than later.

No surprise about Cornyn and Republicans like him. They're fighting a losing battle.

I'm sure I'll catch hell for saying this, but IMHO, Brown v. Board was the correct decision but the justification for it was completely wrong. The legal basis used by the Justices was the wrong one based on my knowledge of constitutional law. They should have used a different constitutional argument to arrive at their decision. No, I'm not a lawyer, judge, politician, or anything like that. I teach Political Science and brought this up in class--had an interesting discussion. Just my 2c.

Today, let's just celebrate. The victories are too far and few between to do otherwise.

Ellen & Portia have announced that they're gonna get hitched.

Edited for the following:

Here are some pix.

Crowds celebrate in the Castro yesterday. There was a funny quote on the news here when someone in that crowd in San Francisco said, "God wanted us to celebrate. Why else would we get gay marriage and a 90-degree day all at once?"

90 degrees in San Francisco during the month of May is about as rare as getting marriage equality!

I was concerned about this as well, but there are a few factors that make me a little more comfortable:

1. There are far fewer states where any amendments could be passed compared to 2004
2. There are only 6 months, not a year like with the MA decision, to get any amendments on the ballot, which probably means only those states with current amedment processes coudl be affected
3. The expected heavy turnout of Dems and Dem-leaning Independents could swamp any "firing" up of the fundie base
4. The news media is not covering this decision with the same breatheless "the world is changing" coverage the MA decision got.

At the very least we will be competitive getting any CA amendment squashed, and at least those people who got married before November should still have their marriages count.

The Right Wing American Taliban, aka The California Family Counsel will mount a vigorous campaign to over-rule the court in November, by ballot measure. Eight years ago, a poll indicated that 65% of Californians disapproved of same-sex marriage. A more recent poll is running 50%-50%, for and against.

The Right Wing argument is that same-sex marriage will crush and destroy the institution of opposite-sex marriage. And of course that's true, because since yesterday's ruling, every heterosexual married couple in the state went instantly insane, tore up theirs marriage licenses on their front lawns, and ran in opposite directions. It's been utter mass schizophrenia for the last 24 hours. I'm sure you have seen it on CNN and Bill Riley.

The real damage, is that they left all of their children alone in their homes, to be preyed upon by 'the homosexual agenda', which wants to convert two year olds to the 'gay lifestyle'. But you knew that already.

So you see, we have a complete social and moral collapse in California now. What a tragedy. All of this portends Richter Scale busting earthquakes up and down the coast through the end of the century. Just like in the Bible.

I'm moving back to Ohio.

TRL

Lol TRL! But if I remember correctly when the same polls asked CA residents if they would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage the majority said no. It was only a majority when they asked if they believed marriage should be defined as between a man & woman. If it goes to the voters in November, we would need to remind them that the constitution is there to protect people from discrimination & not to take their rights. I think that if we stick to that message LOUD & CLEAR, it will be defeated! <Fingers crossed, fingers crossed.>:

Here's some vital info that we must all know about, if you don't already. I'm tired of hearing that the notion of same sex couples is only a modern trend.

Yes, out of state(and country) same sex marriages are recognized in New York.

A pro same sex marriage bill did pass the State Assembly not too long ago, but won't go any further until the Senate becomes a Democratic majority(it's very close right now, just a couple of seats).

Spitzer would have signed it had he still been governor. From what little I know of Patterson, he's very liberal so I'd hope that he'd do likewise.

Watch Ellen's announcement.

Ok, so I was debating to post this, but after some thought I decided that some people here might appreciate it. The last couple of days I've been following the thread on Gay Marriage on SC's board. I didn't chime in until yesterday because I wanted to get a feel how the thread was gonna unfold. It's pretty balanced w/ liberals, conservatives & everything in between so it got heated & passionate, but I decided to finally come out to my peers anyway. A few people knew about me via pm, but that's about it. What I was surprised about was how many of the straight guys support our community on the site. They are pretty awesome. The thread obviously has a different take & flavor than say the one here, cuz generally speaking here it's pretty one sided. But what was cool towards the end a few of the admitted conservatives on the board became more open to the idea of gay marriage because of what I said. If you find conservative rantings upsetting, either scroll really fast through those parts or don't read it all. Here's the thread. Btw, I'm known as Ray4Troy on the site. Also, you'll discover that I'm the 1st person who has officially come out to the site--an honor indeed.

I forgot to mention, I started posting on page 16.

I also got this pm last night from one of my friends from the site:

Great stuff, SCTrojan...

Has there been any polling on the amendment referendum? I am starting to get a bad feeling about that, assuming it qualifies for the ballot in November.

I was talking to a friend of mine who, although is not a lawyer, is a Poli Sci buff & he basically said the following:

The CA Supreme Court has set a precedence by--for the 1st time--legally acknowledging that gays are a "Suspect Class" & that because of that even if the conservatives were to get something on the Nov ballot & it won, the CA Supreme Court has already defined us a suspect class & the court will simply strike down the vote yet again. Thus, conservatives will be wasting their time & $$ trying to do so (Plus, Ahnold said that he will campaign against it). Also, he said that the case cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court & therefore it is a done deal. He said the same thing pretty much happened in Mass when their law passed. After about 2 months when the conservatives realized what the courts had decided they concluded they'd be wasting their $$ & efforts trying to get it on the ballot it so eventually fizzled out. In a nut shell, he says that the fight is basically over. Now, I'm sure there are many law experts here, so I certainly would love for you guys to chime in & verify what my friend is saying because if he is right then:

Click here.

Edited for the following. My friend also said that we should check out the language of the decision.

I love this quote:



The last sentence is key I believe.

This is also cool:

Just to play devil's advocate, four words could be a sticking point, if one really wanted to quibble:For me whether or not it is an orientation rather than a preference is obvious. But others can, and have, differed - even on this board if memory serves - some have referred to sexuality as a preference, when only sexual expression or behavior should be considered a preference.

Psychology seems to have come to a general concensus, but the physical science is less conclusive as far as I know - to use that horrible phrase now made infamous by a certain candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

Should the issue ever come before the current Supreme Court, that may have to be settled as well.

Here's an interesting article about the judge who wrote the majority opinion. Only 1 of the 4 judges who ruled in favor of the ruling was a Democrat. This is important since people keep saying that it was expected because it was "the liberal justices" who decided the way they did.

The anti-gay forces in Massachusetts tried desperately to amend the state constitution, but the referendum process here is a lot more stringent than it is in California. They only gave up, after three years and repeated legal battles, when the legislature finally denied the question a place on the ballot. It's unbelievable to me that Californians can actually amend their constitution with the one-time approval of a simple majority of voters, but I guess that's the way it is.

In the California court's decision, it's my understanding that it's the "right to marry", itself, that "may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate". The ruling addressed whether that right applies to same-sex couples, and that part, unfortunately, appears to be subject to the whim of the electorate.

Hey Guys,

Affair proof your marriage : http://dating.personals.yahoo.com/singles/...f-your-marriage

Also my friend is a lawyer. He sent an email about the case and I'm posting it below. There is a part of the case that can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. I put his words in bold. Enjoy!

I read the opinion in its entirety. OK, here's my first-glance legal analysis.

As I interpret the decision, the overall theme parallels the logic set forth in Brown v. Board of Education. The California Supreme Court court essentially proclaims, upfront, that any distinction drawn between heterosexual "marriage" and same-sex "domestic partnerships", even if by name only, violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, and the fundamental right to marry:

"One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of 'marriage' exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple's constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

"Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause.and the fundamental right to marry."

Here, the Court is essentially reasoning that separately schemed marriage laws (based on sexual orientation) are inherently unequal and thus unconstitutional. The Court actually goes one step further, reasoning that even if the separate statutory schemes for heterosexual and gay couples are "comparable" the separating naming of the unions will have a disparate effect on same-same marriage that is prohibited under the equal protection clause:

"Even when the state affords substantive legal rights and benefits to a couple's family relationship that are comparable to the rights and benefits afforded to other couples, the state's assignment of a different name to the couple's relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple's relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled."

This is pretty amazing!

I think there is at least one "appealable" issue (to the U.S. Supreme Court) that we should keep an eye out for. Most notably, the Court's decision to "cure" the unconstitutionality of the various statutes by refining them to include gay unions in the definition of traditional "marriage." THAT IS HUGE! Opponents of the ruling will likely contend that the Supreme Court failed to use appropriate judicial restraint, and simply rewrote the statutes.

I am very happy about the decision, but I am still deliberating myself about how the Court's chosen remedy will play out over time. By revising the statutes to simply include same-sex couples in the definition of marriage, does it create corks or complications anywhere else in the statutes? I presume that the these statutes will have to be thoroughly revised through to eliminate all subtext relating to domestic partnerships. If my understanding is correct, this case holding essentially proclaims a sexual orientation-blind understanding of marriage in California. How will this play out? Will it play out similarly to the race cases, where we shifted the discussion to color-blindness? Will this decision now close the door to "opportunities" for same-sex couples? Does this ruling put an end to affirmative action toward same-sex marriage opportunity and enjoyment of life?

The Court could have simply declared the statutes unconstitutional left it at that. Or the Court could have repudiated the statutes with specific or general instructions to the local governments to make further laws consistent with the holding (i.e., following in the footsteps of Brown v. Board of Education where the court ordered local governments to end segregation, by appropriate statutory measures, "with all deliberate speed" or "forthwith" (as recommended by the NAACP in the Brown case)

Whatever the future holds, this ruling, in spirit, is a really really good result.

Here is a Q & A article related to this topic. I emailed it to my friend too.

Good news, as a new poll shows California voters favor gay marriage 51%-42%. This is obviously a historic result:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9400728?source=most_emailed

The Field Poll only polls California and knows the state in and out. Even if the proposed amendment makes it to the ballot, which some are arguing it shouldn't, things are looking hopeful.

New York is arriving!

New York to recognize out-of-state gay marriage
[u][i]
By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer 28 minutes ago

Same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere will be recognized in New York in response to a state court ruling this year, Gov. David Paterson's spokeswoman said Wednesday.

State agencies, including those governing insurance and health care, must immediately change policies and regulations to make sure "spouse," "husband" and "wife" are clearly understood to include gay couples, according to a memo sent earlier this month from the governor's counsel.

Gay marriage is not legal in New York, and the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has said it can only be legalized by the Legislature. But the memo, based on a Feb. 1 New York Appellate Division court ruling, would recognize the marriages of New Yorkers who are legally wed elsewhere.

The appellate judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage. The state Legislature "may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad," the ruling said. "Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York."

Paterson spokeswoman Erin Duggan said the May 14 memo is intended to guide the actions of state agencies.

The memo states that failure to include gay marriages in the dispensing of state services such as health care benefits could violate state human rights law. The agencies could face sanctions for any violations, the memo warns.

The agency changes can be instituted through internal memos or changes in regulations and would not require legislative action, Paterson counsel David Nocenti said in the memo, which was first reported by The New York Times.

The February appellate decision involved the case of a woman whose female partner was denied health benefits by her employer even though she had been legally married in Canada.

NYTimes: New York to Back Same-Sex Unions from Elsewhere

LA Times: Gay marriages begin as California ruling takes effect

Meanwhile... NYTimes: Gay couples find marriage is a mixed bag

As an 80-something lesbian couple are married in San Francisco (presided over by the mayor), protestors are carrying signs reading "Homo sex is a threat to national security"

Mr. Sulu gets his marriage licence.

You know, I think the one thing that effected me the most about yesterday, was the elderly lesbian couple, both in their 80's, who after being together for 55 years, finally got married.

The only word I can use to describe it is JUSTICE!!

And to the right wing, the line from Gordon Merricks book fit's perfectly.

"If it's love, the Lord won't mind, cuz there's too much hate in this old world already".

Bravo to California, and to Mr. Sulu. And he looks pretty good for 71! Digressing from topic a little...I was never a big fan of the show and its many spinoffs, but Trekkies may find this you-tube video about Vulcan, Alberta to be interesting. The town is only about an hour from where I live and I've stopped there to see the Enterprise model. They have a Star Trek convention annually, and this year's special guest was the son of the late Gene Rodenberry.

As for gay marriage in Canada, although it has been legal throughout the country for three years and most people accept it now, not surprisingly most churches (and non-Christian faiths) continue to reject it. The only exceptions are still the United Church of Canada as well as the Unitarians. However, there has certainly been some encouraging and lively debate within a few of the other Protestant churches, namely the Anglicans and Lutherans. In fact, a Lutheran church in Newmarket (Ontario) recently ordained a gay pastor.