This is just a matter of time because the majority of younger people simply do not care!!!

I cannot believe that our country, founded on freedom and independence and equality continues to permit the opportunity to vote against the rights of minority groups.

The Supreme Court will eventually have to rule on this.. because there are too many Federal Rights equated with marriage.

That's why I still think that staying in the closet should no longer be a positive option. The more we come out to family, friends, coworkers, & the general public the more people in this country will realize that we are part of "them".

Yeah, but the fact that young people don't care (in general) means that they don't bother to vote. The only thing that might motivate them to vote is a hip politicaL leader like Obama, but he is against gay marriage. Like in the civil rights movement, until some brave, straight, hip political figure (like Bobby Kennedy in civil rights) takes up the cause with passion, and motivates young people to get involved, nothing is going to change.

You are spot on, SCTrojan! We cannot afford to stay in the closet anymore!
No, Buccoman! We cannot rely on a straight man or woman to take up our cause! We need to look to our own.

Because of this election, Obama is going to pull back on some of his promises. Conservative Democrats will think twice about some of his initiatives. And guess what? Gay issues will be the first ones thrown under the bus. There is no reason that DADT cannot be ended today.

The HRC is toothless. We need to mobilize to fight back the arguments made against us. I agree with Joe in Philly that marches are more symbolic than anything else. But that march was just as large as the Tea Party march. We need to adopt their strategies, and the HRC has to be more than mere window-dressing!

I am disgusted that issues like marriage are left to referendums of the popular vote. What if we had left desegregation and other Civil Rights' issues affecting people of color and women from the 50s through the 70s to such votes? Would the tyranny of the majority have changed much progress? I shudder at the thought!

I still agree with this guy:

http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2008/12/05...of-the-rainbow/

I just don't get why marriage is so much better than a domestic partnership where you have all the rights and duties of a marriage. Our efforts would be better spent fighting for real legal protections, rather than symbolic names applied to our relationships.

But if the gay community still wants to fight for a further small measure of assimilation, it might do well to work on it's p.r. problems. Refraining from calling people with sincerely held religious beliefs "bigots" would be a good start in that direction.

I just don't get why marriage is so much better than a domestic partnership where you have all the rights and duties of a marriage. Our efforts would be better spent fighting for real legal protections, rather than symbolic names applied to our relationships.

But if the gay community still wants to fight for a further small measure of assimilation, it might do well to work on it's p.r. problems. Refraining from calling people with sincerely held religious beliefs "bigots" would be a good start in that direction.

I'm sorry, but we HAVE to call a spade a spade (and I mean the garden implement in that analogy). That's exactly what they are - bigots. If you believe that straight is better than gay, you are a bigot, because you are judging me not based on my individual skills, qualifications and contributions, but on an arbitrary aspect of my existence. That is the essence of bigotry - just as it was when it was expressed through Jim Crow, through "Irish Need Not Apply" signs, and through restricted clubs and neighborhoods closed to Jews.

I say, make them enforce DOMA. Make the breeders go through invasive physical and genetic tests - just like they did with the South African runner who is reportedly intersex - to prove that they meet the criteria for marriage. The institution has to be protected you know.

As for the word "marriage" - as long as John McCain can squire his mistress/homewrecker Cindy around as a "wife," even though they are adulterers according to the same God they claim hates the gays, as long as Christians are forced to accept the immoral sexual relationships of the Joey Smith cult (aka Mormons) as equivalent to Christian "marriage," and as long as murdering scum like the Menendez brothers are allowed to "marry" in prison, I will not give up the word. My life, my existence is just as valuable as some whore on her 7th husband.

This is why civil rights should never be put to public votes.

Interesting chart canmark. Who did the study & what year?

...Not surprising about which states are the lower 25%. And especially that the last 5 have zilch 4 pro-gay policies.

Except that in California, as we have seen, the state Constitution expressly provides for its amendment by popular vote, necessarily involving "civil rights." Interestingly, I don't think the term "civil rights" has a clear legal meaning, since it technically means any right that is granted outside of criminal law. The right to marry would probably be characterized by the courts as a "fundamental right." Unfortunately, even that won't and can't stop popular voting on such rights, requiring resort to the courts in most situations. It comes with having a democracy.

The problem with that is that in the US you allow these ballot measures to over ride court decisions. Maybe some one should start an initiative to ban divorce since it is the basic challenge to the holy sacriment of marriage and see how the str8 crowd like that one. Oddly enough some right wing conservatives might even support that on the ballot.

In this country same sex marriage came about through rulings from provincial human rights commissions which were challenged by governments in the courts where they lost. As provincial court after court ruled in favor of same sex marriages governments stopped challenging and ultimately Parliament decided not to challenge or use the "not withstanding" clause in the constitution. Never once was it put to public vote which is not in our tradition. Today same sex marriage is just an accepted fact that only a very small minority can get worked up about in letters to the editor.

I still say the rights of the minority should never be subject the the votes of the majority.

Canadian and U.S. systems are different in that Americans are more used to directly voting for people in office, whereas Canadians are more accepting of people being appointed (or indirectly voted for).

For example, Americans vote for their president. Canadians do not vote for their prime minister. Americans vote for their senators. Canadian senators are appointed by the ruling gov't (technically by the Governor General, but under the advice of the prime minister). Americans vote for judges (I think). Canadians do not.

So, it may seem more 'natural' to Americans to vote on something like same-sex marriage than Canadians. Canadians would more accept judicial interpretation of the Constitution or Charter of Rights and Freedoms or "Human Rights Commissions", than a referendum (which are uncommon). Americans might construe this as "judicial activism" and would prefer to vote, I would think.

Voting = equality seems to make sense in theory, and I think this is part of the American ethos--that every man is equal and entitled to a vote.

You are spot on, SCTrojan! We cannot afford to stay in the closet anymore!
No, Buccoman! We cannot rely on a straight man or woman to take up our cause! We need to look to our own.

Because of this election, Obama is going to pull back on some of his promises. Conservative Democrats will think twice about some of his initiatives. And guess what? Gay issues will be the first ones thrown under the bus. There is no reason that DADT cannot be ended today.

The HRC is toothless. We need to mobilize to fight back the arguments made against us. I agree with Joe in Philly that marches are more symbolic than anything else. But that march was just as large as the Tea Party march. We need to adopt their strategies, and the HRC has to be more than mere window-dressing!

I am disgusted that issues like marriage are left to referendums of the popular vote. What if we had left desegregation and other Civil Rights' issues affecting people of color and women from the 50s through the 70s to such votes? Would the tyranny of the majority have changed much progress? I shudder at the thought!

I understand the instinct to be self-reliant, but the reality is that minority groups need members of the majority to embrace their causes in order to achieve political success.

I understand the instinct to be self-reliant, but the reality is that minority groups need members of the majority to embrace their causes in order to achieve political success. The problem with gay marriage is that there is not unified agreement among progressives in favor of it. It would certainly be easier for poiliticians to get behind "civil unions with all the same legal protections as gay marriage." I understand the powerful symbolism of the word "marriage" but I certainly wouldn't let semantics get in the way of achieving basic rights. I really think it might be best for the LBGT community to embrace the idea of civil unions that are essentially marriages in all but name. If that were the case, they might attract political support from politicians as far ranging as Dick Cheney and Barack Obama.

What next? Will Cuba and Venezuela have gay marriage before we do?

Crowds have gathered in Australian cities calling for marriage equality after a bill to endorse gay unions was rejected by the Senate.

A Senate inquiry into same-sex marriage on Friday dismissed the Greens' marriage equality bill, while the ACT government this week struck a deal with the federal government to accept a civil union scheme.

Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Alex Greenwich said strong attendances by more than 2,000 people at rallies in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, ACT, Adelaide and Lismore on Saturday to launch a national year of action showed positive community support.

"I think the bill's rejection has re-energised people's commitment to marriage equality," he told AAP.

He said same-sex marriage could become a key issue in the lead-up to the next federal election.

Latin America's first same-sex marriage, set to be held in Argentina on Tuesday, appeared derailed after a judge filed an injunction to stop the union until the issue can be reviewed further.

Judge Marta Gomez Alsina's ruling blocks an earlier holding by another judge that found city laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional, the court said in a statement.

Alex Freyre and Jose Maria di Bello had planned to make their marriage official at a civil ceremony and chose December 1 because it is World AIDS Day.
* * *
The original ruling was made on November 10 by another trial-level judge, Gabriela Seijas, who responded to a petition made by Freyre and di Bello.

Seijas ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was illegal and ordered the proper authorities to grant the couple a marriage license if they applied for one.

The court's decision applied only to Buenos Aires. Same-sex unions in most of Argentina remain illegal.
* * *
In September Uruguay became the first Latin American country to allow same-sex adoption.

Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador are also addressing the issue of same-sex civil unions.

By JUDY LIN, Associated Press Writer Judy Lin, Associated Press Writer – Tue Dec 1, 8:10 am ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.

In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.

The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.

"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.

Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures, including one from his wife of seven years. The initiative's Facebook fans have swelled to more than 11,000. Volunteers that include gay activists and members of a local comedy troupe have signed on to help.

Marcotte is looking into whether he can gather signatures online, as proponents are doing for another proposed 2010 initiative to repeal the gay marriage ban. But the odds are stacked against a campaign funded primarily by the sale of $12 T-shirts featuring bride and groom stick figures chained at the wrists.

Marcotte needs 694,354 valid signatures by March 22, a high hurdle in a state where the typical petition drive costs millions of dollars. Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.

Nationwide, about half of all marriages end in divorce.

Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.

No other state bans divorce, and only a few countries, including the Philippines and Malta, do. The Roman Catholic Church also prohibits divorce but allows annulments. The California proposal would amend the state constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced while allowing married couples to seek an annulment.

Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.

"That's where our intention begins and ends," he said.

Jeffrey Taylor, a spokesman for Restore Equality 2010, a coalition of same-sex marriage activists seeking to repeal Proposition 8, said the coalition supports Marcotte's message but has no plans to join forces with him.

"We find it quite hilarious," Taylor said of the initiative.

Marcotte, who runs the comedy site BadMouth.net in his spare time, said he has received support from across the political spectrum. In addition to encouragement from gay marriage advocates, he has been interviewed by American Family Association, a Mississippi-based organization that contributed to last year's Yes on 8 campaign.

He was mentioned by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" during his "World's Best Persons" segment for giving supporters of Proposition 8 their "comeuppance in California."

Marcotte, who is Catholic and voted against Proposition 8, views himself as an accidental activist. A registered Democrat, he led a "ban divorce" rally recently at the state Capitol in Sacramento to launch his effort and was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. About 50 people showed up, some holding signs that read, "You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone."

Marcotte stopped dozens of people during another signature drive in downtown Sacramento. Among them was Ryan Platt, 32, who said he signed the petition in support of his lesbian sister, even though he thinks it would be overturned if voters approved it.

"Even if by some miracle this did pass, it would never stand up to the federal government," Platt said. "And if it did, there's something really wrong with America."

Other petition signers said they were motivated by a sincere interest to preserve marriages. One was Ervin Hulton, a 47-year-old dishwasher who said he believes in making it harder for couples to separate.

"The way I feel, why go out and spend all these tons of money for marriage, the photography and all that? And along down the line, it's going to shatter," said Hulton, who is single.

The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.

California stopped because of budget problems, said Ralph Montano, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health.

While most people would not support banning divorce, it does make sense for couples to be educated about the financial and emotional commitments of marriage, said Dan Couvrette, chief executive and publisher of Toronto-based Divorce Magazine. The publication has a circulation of 140,000, including a regional edition in Southern California.

"It's a worthwhile conversation to have," said Couvrette, who started the magazine in 1996 after going through his own divorce. "I don't think it's just a frivolous thought."

The city council of the District of Columbia has voted to legalize same-sex marriage, putting the nation's capital on the brink of joining Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts in making the practice legal.

Another state, New Hampshire, will begin allowing same-sex marriages on January 1st.

The 11-2 vote is not the final say on the matter. The Washington Post reports that the council will hold a second vote in two weeks. The bill, if it passes, would then go to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, who supports it.

D.C. gets gay marriage, AND just read a story on dailykos.com where it looks like by the end of the week gay marriage will also be legal in New York State!

D.C. gets gay marriage, AND just read a story on dailykos.com where it looks like by the end of the week gay marriage will also be legal in New York State!

Michael-in-Norfolk blog
To block the legislation, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate and President Obama would all have to sign off on a disapproval resolution within 30 legislative days, which advocates say is not likely.

Washington Post
But council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), the bill's sponsor and the other openly gay member on the council, cautioned that Congress also could unravel the measure through budget maneuvers in future years. "There is no question: We are going to have to be defending it and defending it and defending it until the other side realizes they are losing more votes by being tethered to the past," Catania said.

The LA Times editorial on Mexico City's gay marriage (& adoption) passage.

Mexico remains a largely traditional society, and there is strong opposition to the changes from the dominant Roman Catholic Church and President Felipe Calderon's conservative National Action Party, which has threatened to challenge the gay marriage law as unconstitutional in Mexico's Supreme Court.

Portugal's parliament passed a bill Friday that would make the predominantly Catholic nation the sixth in Europe to permit gay marriage.
* * *
(Prime Minister Jose) Socrates said the measure is part of his effort to modernize Portugal where homosexuality was a crime until 1982. Two years ago his government lifted Portugal's ban on abortion, despite church opposition.

Gay marriage is currently permitted in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway. Canada, South Africa and six U.S. states also permit it.

The bill removes a reference in the current law to marriage being between two people of different sexes
* * *
In 2001, a law allowed "civil unions" between same-sex couples which granted them certain legal, tax and property rights. However, it did not allow couples to take their partner's name, inherit their possessions nor their state pension, which is permitted in marriages.

A proposal from the Left Bloc and Green Party allowing gay couples to adopt children was voted down Friday. Gay campaigners said they would continue to fight for gay couples' parental rights.

A law allowing same-sex weddings took effect Thursday in Mexico City, one day after the second same-sex marriage was performed in Argentina.

The Mexican measure also allows same-sex couples to adopt children.