Marriage

Sex in the voting booth

Elizabeth — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:31:06 -0700

There is a reason they only allow one person in at a time!

We are suddenly less than a week away from Election Day in the United States an there is sex on the ballot all over the place. I'm especially interested in the following ballot questions that deal with

Good news in Connecticut!

Elizabeth — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:11:09 -0700

Good news from Connecticut this morning: The CT Supreme Court ruled that the state's marriage laws apply to same-sex couples making it the third state to allow same-sex marriage. Even better news: The governor, Jodi Rell, though she does not agree with the decision, will not challenge it. Of course challenges may come from elsewhere. There is a question on the November ballot asking whether direct initiatives should be allowed in CT, as they are in CA, where voters in November will be able to decide directly whether the state's constitution should be amended to expressly limit marriage to couples who fit the one man and one woman formula.

Here's a link to the Connecticut decision (PDF). Click here to read more.

Why the Mormons (and other churches) are wrong about their support of the CA ballot initiative to restrict

Elizabeth — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:20:00 -0700

The Mormon church has asked its members to support the California ballot initiative that would amend the state's constitution to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. Specifically, according to the Associated Press:

"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to ensure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman," church leaders say in the letter. "Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."

They should rethink that strategy and their own writings explain why: The LDS church claims, in a letter signed by the LDS president, that:

forgetting long time bonds

tracya — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:36:38 -0800

I saw this article and it may have recieved more press in the states but I was really touched that a retired supreme court judge (and I can't imagine a man doing this) has come out to say that her husband who has been suffering with alzheimer's has begun a "relationship" with another woman in a care home where he now resides.

read more

Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan Seal First Same Sex Marriage In Iowa

JanieBelle — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:41:59 -0700

Not wasting any time and taking advantage of a $5 waiver of the waiting period in Iowa, Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan sealed the deal on the front lawn of Unitarian minister Rev. Mark Stringer.

A few hours later, Judge Robert B. Hanson formally stayed yesterday's ruling that the law declaring that valid marriages were only between a man and a woman was unconstitutional, and that the state had no valid interest in arbitrarily discriminating against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry.

Iowa Court Rules Same Sex Couples Cannot Be Denied Marriage Equality

JanieBelle — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:07:12 -0700

Caught this rockin' news just before heading to bed and had to share!

(CNN) -- An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment, court documents show.

The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution.

The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.

Ruby Tells All

Ruby — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:25:33 -0700

Sex advice and commentary from a wildly orgasmic slut.

Report from the Massachusetts State House -- Marriage is Safe!

TomJ — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:39:48 -0700

I'm proud that Massachusetts took the lead in recognizing the right to marry for same sex couples. The Massachusetts Supreme Court recognized that right on May 17, 2004. Despite dire predictions, the sky has stayed right where it is, and I’m not aware of any heterosexuals filing for divorce on the grounds that their marriage has been devalued. And now I’m proud again; yesterday, June 14, 2007, the Massachusetts legislature rejected a proposal that would have subjected the fundamental right to marry to a public vote.

Massachusetts Defeats Anti-Marriage-Equality Amendment

JanieBelle — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:35:37 -0700

On the AP wire: Lawmakers in the Bay State have tossed out a Constitutional amendment that would have allowed voters to decide whether to bring back the days of state sponsored discrimination against same-sex Americans.

BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts lawmakers threw out a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it.

The vote - which came amid heavy pressure to kill the measure from Gov. Deval Patrick and legislative leaders - was a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a historic 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

"Today's vote is not just a victory for marriage equality. It was a victory for equality itself," said Patrick, who had lobbied lawmakers up until the final hours to kill the measure.
read more