Thursday, August 28, 2008

Poll: California voters oppose ban on gay marriage

The Associated Press: Poll: California voters oppose ban on gay marriage

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, though they are evenly split on the practice itself, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex marriage, which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court.

The discrepancy between voters' general attitudes against gay marriage and their position on banning it could be explained by a hesitancy to remove a constitutional right, said Mark Baldassare, president and chief executive of the Public Policy Institute of California, which conducted the poll.

A majority of likely voters, 54 percent, oppose ending gay marriage, compared with 40 percent who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51 percent of likely California voters opposed ending gay marriage, while 42 percent said they supported it.

But when it comes to general attitudes about gay marriage, voters in the Public Policy Institute poll are evenly split, at 47 percent for and against — as they have been for the past three years.

"It's early in the campaign season, and in the end the vote on this measure ... could be hard to predict," Baldassare said. "Overall views on gay marriage have not budged."

The Public Policy Institute began asking voters how they feel about gay marriage in 2000, the year voters approved an initiative to ban same-sex marriage but did not enshrine it in the Constitution. That year, the poll found 55 percent opposed to gay marriage and 38 percent in favor.

In May, the state Supreme Court ruled the 2000 initiative unconstitutional, opening the door to same-sex weddings throughout the state.

The new poll indicates that those opposed to gay marriage will have to mobilize voters if they are to be successful in November, Baldassare said.

"The burden is always on the yes side to convince people there is good reason to vote for the measure," he said.

The institute surveyed 2,001 California residents, including 1,047 likely voters, in English and Spanish from Aug. 12 to 19. The poll has a margin of sampling of error of 2 percentage points for all residents and 3 percentage points for likely voters.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Lesbian activist Del Martin dies at 87 -- Queer Lesbian Gay News -- Gay.com

Such sad news. What a tribute to Gay activism! At least Phyllis and Del were legally able to marry. Now let us make sure her efforts are not wasted. LET's defeat Prop 8 in California and make sure her marriage is not annulled after her death.


Lesbian activist Del Martin dies at 87 -- Queer Lesbian Gay News -- Gay.com

World-renowned lesbian activist Dorothy L. (Del) Martin died Wednesday at UCSF Hospice in San Francisco.
An eloquent organizer for civil rights, civil liberties and human dignity, Del Martin created and helped shape the modern LGBT and feminist movements. She was a woman of extraordinary courage, persistence, intelligence, humor and fundamental decency who refused to be silenced by fear and never stopped fighting for equality.

Her last public political act, on June 16, 2008, was to marry Phyllis Lyon, her partner of 55 years. They were the first couple to wed in San Francisco after the California Supreme Court recognized that marriage for same-sex couples is a fundamental right in a case brought by plaintiffs including Martin and Lyon.

A broken arm two weeks ago exacerbated Martin's existing health problems, said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Martin is survived by her spouse, Lyon; daughter Kendra Mon, son-in-law Eugene Lane, granddaughter Lorraine Mon, grandson Kevin Mon, sister-in-law Patricia Lyon and a vast, loving and grateful LGBT family.

Born in San Francisco on May 5, 1921, Dorothy L. Taliaferro, or Del, as she would come to be known, was salutatorian of the first graduating class of George Washington High School and went on to study journalism at the University of California at Berkeley.

Gay pairs like boros, raising kids in Bronx

Gay pairs like boros, raising kids in Bronx

BY STEPHANIE GASKELL
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, August 27th 2008, 2:01 AM

A new report finds most gay couples in the city don't live in Manhattan - and that more same-sex partners are raising kids in the Bronx than any other borough.

There are nearly 26,000 gay couples in the city and 62% of them live outside Manhattan, a study released by UCLA's Williams Institute found.

"We need to look beyond 'Will & Grace' to understand the lives of gay and lesbian New Yorkers," said study co-author Gary Gates, referring to the NBC comedy that was almost entirely set in Manhattan.

Of all gay couples in the city, 38.2% live in Manhattan, 27% live in Brooklyn, 20% live in Queens, 11.3% live in the Bronx and 3.5% live on Staten Island.

Many of those couples are raising children - and the highest number of gay parents is in the Bronx. The study, which was culled from 2000 census data, found that 32.3% of gay couples with kids are raising them in the Bronx, 31.5% in Brooklyn, 22% in Queens, 8.5% in Manhattan and 5.7% on Staten Island.

There are more same-sex male couples than female couples in Manhattan, but that trend is reversed in the Bronx.

Gay couples without kids are also making more than their married counterparts with an average income of $116,540 compared with $79,230. But for those with children, the median household income is 26% lower than for straight parents

Marriage Equality Foes Peddling Lies

The California Majority Report // Marriage Equality Foes Peddling Lies

The AP put out a story today on the efforts of marriage equality foes to pass Proposition 8, which would remove the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry in California:

"An estimated 15,000 backers of the measure, most of them members of Mormon, Catholic and evangelical Christian churches, knocked on doors and distributed campaign literature to registered voters throughout the state this weekend and last, according to Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Yes on 8 campaign."

They've also ordered 1 million yard signs and 1 million bumper stickers. Clearly, the fight is on. Unfortunately, they're already playing dirty:

"Bumgarner distributed handouts listing "Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails" that volunteers were encouraged to use as talking points. They included warnings that ministers who preach against same-sex marriage could be sued for hate speech, churches would be sued for refusing to host wedding ceremonies for gays, and that "children in schools will be taught that same-sex marriage is OK.""

Liar liar homophobic pants on fire! Churches have the right to refuse to wed any couple for any reason in this country. The California Supreme Court specifically exempted churches from having to participate, in fact. Moreover, the law has absolutely no impact on hate speech statutes, and there's absolutely no requirement for teachers to address marriage at all.

But while we're on the subject, here are six actual, fact-based consequences of marriage equality:

It would provide $684 million to California's wedding and tourism industry over the next three years;
It would create hundreds of jobs for our state;
It would generate $64 million in additional tax revenue for the state and $9 million in marriage-license fees for counties over the next three years;
It would allow churches that favor marriage equality to practice their religion freely, while having no impact on the churches that are opposed;
It would help ensure that all committed gay and lesbian couples in our state will one day have access to the 1,049 tax, health care, and retirement incentives currently only available to married opposite-sex couples; and
It would help through acclimation alter the hostile climate that permeates in our society, providing hope to LGBT youth who are disproportionately prone to suicide due to the intolerance and hatred they regularly experience.
One last parting thought: a person in opposition to marriage equality in this story said that his grandmother would "turn over in her grave" if she knew that gays and lesbians had access to the same marriage rights she did. You know, I suspect my great-grandmother would turn over in her grave if she knew that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law. Nevertheless, societies are not static; values change; the American dream broadens to incorporate more segments of our diverse society; and if her rotting corpse has a problem with that, I'm content with letting her roll. It's called progress, and if marriage equality foes seem desperate, it's because they know they're in a race against time.

Gay Activists Target Businesses - WSJ.com

Gay Activists Target Businesses - WSJ.com


By TAMARA AUDI
August 27, 2008; Page A3

When William Bolthouse, a California philanthropist, donated $100,000 in March to support a proposition to ban gay marriage in California, calls and emails poured in -- not to Mr. Bolthouse, but to the corporate offices of a company that bears his name -- even though he sold it three years earlier.


"It wasn't us, it's not our fault," says Jeffrey Dunn, now the chief executive of Bolthouse Farms, whose juice bottles are sold at upscale markets such as Whole Foods.

Bolthouse Farms is the latest target in what has become an increasingly bitter political fight in California. As gay-rights activists attempt to defeat the upcoming ballot initiative, called Proposition 8, they are going after not just individuals, but also companies to which they are connected, however tenuously.

"Mr. Bolthouse has said, 'I'm not connected to Bolthouse Farms at all.' But we don't accept that," says Fred Karger, who runs Californians Against Hate, a new gay-rights group that is leading the charge to identify and publicize corporate connections to significant donors. He notes that Mr. Bolthouse's son-in-law is chairman of the company and that Bolthouse Farms markets itself as a fourth-generation company.

Next week, Californians Against Hate is planning to push its tactic further by publishing a "Dishonor Roll," a list of individual and corporate donors who give $5,000 or more to groups campaigning on behalf of Proposition 8. The list will include the donor's name, employer and the corporate logo of that employer -- even if the company itself didn't donate to the Proposition 8 fight.

Mr. Karger said the tactic isn't intended to keep individuals or companies from donating, but is meant to educate the public so consumers can make informed choices. He said including corporate logos of businesses whose employees donate is fair game, since that information is publicly available on government Web sites that track donors. "Our larger message is to other business people," Mr. Karger says. "It's a free country, you can give as much money to this campaign, but we are going to publicize that and people can make a decision on whether or not they want to support those businesses."

Some Proposition 8 supporters see the effort as crossing a line. "To tell a business owner that they can't express their beliefs on an issue is a really stupid thing," said Terry Caster, the owner of A-1 Storage, a self-storage company based in San Diego.Californians Against Hate says Mr. Caster and his family gave about $300,000 to support Proposition 8, prompting the group to make him the focus of a call-in campaign. Mr. Caster said he received a few phone calls a day that petered out after several weeks, and his business wasn't affected.

Mr. Dunn said Bolthouse Farms's bottom line wasn't affected by the publicity and that his company has made an effort to correct wrong information on blogs that said Mr. Bolthouse still owned a large portion of the company.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in California in June after the State Supreme Court ruled a ban was unconstitutional. That set the stage for a ballot proposal to outlaw gay marriage. Both sides see California as the crucial battleground state that could determine how far same-sex marriage rights can be extended. Fund raising has poured in from across the country.

From January to the end of June, the largest campaign to ban gay marriage had raised $2.6 million, according to the California secretary of state's Web site.

The largest campaign to protect gay marriage raised $2.5 million during that period. Both sides said they had raised considerably more since then.

Some large corporations have waded into the fray. San Francisco-based Pacific Gas & Electric, the state's largest utility by revenue, donated $250,000 to defeat Proposition 8. A spokeswoman said the company received some complaints from its 20,000 employees and six million customers, and it was able to handle the protests internally.

Other companies haven't had it so easy. San Diego's Manchester Grand Hyatt is now the target of a boycott that was kicked off after its owner, Doug Manchester, donated $125,000 to the campaign to support Proposition 8. With the help of a local union, gay-rights activists managed to convince two professional associations to cut back on some events they planned to host at the hotel. A hotel official said both groups are keeping the rooms they have blocked off for their events but moved some meetings and other events to other venues.

In an email responding to a reporter's question, Mr. Manchester said, "We have received support from those that are in favor of Prop 8 which has made up for some of what is being lost as a result of the boycott. Nonetheless, we are saddened by all the divisive nature of the movement."

A spokeswoman for Hyatt Corp. in Chicago said it doesn't require its hotel owners to follow any particular policy. "We absolutely don't have a position on the proposition itself but we have a really strong, long track record of inclusiveness in terms of the way we welcome our guests and the way we treat our employees. Doug Manchester...in no way speaks for Hyatt," said the spokeswoman.

That distinction may be harder to make as gay-rights groups offer fuller public profiles of private donors. Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage.com, the largest fund-raiser for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, says she expects it will become more difficult to entice corporations to contribute to her cause.

"The moment [Mr. Manchester] wrote the check, he found himself to be the target of numerous boycotts and protests," she said. "Our side has a significant challenge in that." Ms. Kerns noted that the greater chunk of her group's funding will likely come from individuals and religious groups, such as the national Catholic organization Knights of Columbus, which recently contributed $1 million to the campaign.

Write to Tamara Audi at tammy.audi@wsj.com

Anti-gay marriage group stays out of latest petition drive

Well its nice to see some opponents are accepting the inevitable. Give it up it is a losing battle


SouthCoastToday.com: Anti-gay marriage group stays out of latest petition drive

BOSTON — The group that has led opposition to gay marriage says it will not participate in a petition drive to block out-of-state, same-sex couples from being married in Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts Family Institute said "there is no winning on this issue" because thousands of marriages will have taken place before the proposed ballot question could go to voters in November 2010.

A group called MassResistance is organizing the petition drive to reinstate a 1913 law that bars the state from marrying a couple if the marriage is illegal in their home state.

First, organizers must collect 33,297 signatures from registered voters by Oct. 29 to put it on the ballot.

The Legislature repealed the 1913 law this summer, and later attached an emergency preamble that made it effective immediately.

"By the time the measure reaches the ballot in 2010, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of out-of-state, same-sex couples already will have married in Massachusetts," said Kris Mineau, the president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. "More importantly, even if the referendum effort were successful at the ballot in 2010, this governor and this Legislature — bent on exporting the same-sex marriage experiment — could easily pass another repeal in 2011."

By making the law go into effect immediately, instead of the standard 90-day wait, the Legislature took away the ability of the petition organizers to delay the repeal until it could go to voters.

— David Kibbe

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Current ENDA Draft Co-Signs Defense of Marriage Act

GayCityNews - Current ENDA Draft Co-Signs Defense of Marriage Act

A little-discussed provision of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would allow employers to give health insurance coverage and other benefits to married opposite-sex couples and deny those same benefits to the partners of their gay and lesbian employees who are legally married in Massachusetts and California.

"It was unanimously agreed by all of us... that we had to put this language in there to protect this from being turned into a marriage bill which we would have lost," said Barney Frank, the openly-gay Massachusetts congressman who is ENDA's champion in the House, in a phone message to Gay City News.

A similar provision has been in the bill since 1994, when ENDA was first introduced on Capitol Hill, but the earlier language said employers did not have to provide benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.

ENDA, which bans job discrimination based on sexual orientation, now says an employer cannot be required "to treat a couple who are not married in the same manner as the covered entity treats a married couple for purposes of employee benefits."


To define "married" and "marry," ENDA cites the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to not honor them. Because the new bill, to an extent, mirrored the earlier language, gay and lesbian groups agreed to it, though not necessarily happily.

Brian Moulton, associate counsel at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's leading gay lobbying group, said there was discussion about getting rid of that text when the domestic partner language was revisited in 2007 at the start of the 110th Congress.

"I think everyone acknowledged that wasn't something that we could do," Moulton said.

The new language comes as the gay and lesbian community won the right to marry in Massachusetts in 2004 and, this year, in California. Groups in other states, such as New York and New Jersey, are pressing for the right to marry for same sex couples. ENDA would appear to undercut what activists call winning "marriage equality."

Prior to the 2006 midterm elections, House Democrats had promised a vote on ENDA if they became the majority party in that body. Democrats and HRC clearly wanted that vote to happen.

To cool some opposition, Democrats added exceptions to ENDA for religious groups and the military as well as the marriage clause. Those changes drew complaints from some gay activists.

In the fall, when Democrats removed language from ENDA that is seen as protecting transgendered people from job discrimination, it sparked an outright revolt and, ultimately, more than 350 civil rights groups across the country opposed the bill and a few progressive Democrats voted against it.

ENDA passed the House by a vote of 235 to 184 in November of last year. The Senate version is given little chance of getting a vote this year, meaning the legislation will have to be reintroduced in the next Congress.

The marriage clause came earlier in 2007 and in response to opposition from business lobbying groups and some Democrats who worried about supporting a bill that might implicate marriage.

In an earlier ENDA version, Democrats added a paragraph after the marriage clause that said that states and cities could create ways to provide "employee benefits to an individual for the benefit of the domestic partner of such individual."

That was seen as conflicting with the federal law that governs employee benefits and potentially setting up employers for lawsuits. Democrats, with HRC's help, removed that language and added the reference to DOMA.

"Certainly, in helping to construct this language, we're not conceding that not providing equal benefits is not discrimination," Moulton said.

The American Benefits Council, which represents Fortune 500 companies, the US Chamber of Commerce, which has three million businesses as members, and the National Association of Manufacturers all took a neutral position on ENDA, rather than opposing it, as the result of that change.

"A lot of the bills that we see today don't address benefits separately," said Lynn Dudley, senior vice president for policy at the American Benefits Council. "It would be fair to say that we were neutral because it didn't affect us."

Randel K. Johnson, a vice president at the US Chamber of Commerce, said, "We were actively engaged in negotiating on the bill."

The Society for Human Resource Management was neutral on ENDA in 2007, but switched its position to supporting ENDA in June of this year.

The Business Roundtable, an association of chief executives of US companies, did not respond to emails and calls about its position on ENDA nor did its lobbyist, the Duberstein Group.

A spokesperson for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents more than 400 retail companies, said the senior staff who lobbied on ENDA could not be reached for comment.

In his message to Gay City News, Frank said he did not add the marriage clause and that it was required to pass ENDA.

"It was the decision of the committee and of everybody else, myself, Tammy, was that we couldn't pass anything without this and, in fact, even with this we had a somewhat closer vote," he said. "We had to make it clear that non-discrimination in employment had no effect on marriage one way or another. It was added not by me, but, I believe, in committee."

A spokesperson for Tammy Baldwin, a congresswoman who represents parts of Wisconsin, said she was not available for comment until after the Democratic Convention, which begins on August 25 in Denver.

Some gay and transgender activists who led the opposition to ENDA said the bill had too many flaws.

"The bill just had a lot of poison pills in it for me," said Jeremy Bishop, executive director of Pride At Work, an LGBT labor group that is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, the union umbrella group. "For myself and Pride at Work, I think we would like to see a bill with fewer loopholes."

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), while expressing support for a version of ENDA that includes transgender protections, said a comprehensive bill that had protections in public accommodations, credit, housing, and employment would also be welcome.

"I'd love to see a real aspirational civil rights bill," Keisling said. "We shouldn't be asking for crumbs. We should be saying this is what LGBT people need. We do face discrimination in all those areas."

RNC puts marriage and abortion ban on platform

Guess this is no surprise! NO self respecting LGBT person should be voting for McCain. I don't think the Log cabin rebulicans will ever wake up and stand up for their rights. LOG Cabin republican is an oxymoron.


The Associated Press: GOP puts platform on crash diet

By CALVIN WOODWARD – 9 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are debating an election platform that differs in at least one striking way from the past — it's purged of the dear-leader tributes that turned statements of party principles into an incessant hailing of the chief.

In fact, a draft of the document going to the GOP platform committee Tuesday mentions 2008 presidential candidate John McCain and President Bush not at all. They'll be worked in later, in a section or two to be added.

It's nothing personal, party officials hasten to say. Rather, they've put the platform on a crash diet.

The 2004 platform ran over 40,000 words, many of them turgid. It found 80 things to "applaud," 17 to "hail," a dozen to "commend" and several hundred opportunities to say what a great job Bush was doing and would continue to do. It was more than twice the length of the Democratic platform.

Now it's been cut roughly in half.

The GOP platform co-chairmen, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy and North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, told AP on Monday they wanted the party principles to be about the actual party. And in the past, Burr said, "there was a lot of Washington-speak."

Despite the stylistic change, familiar divisions are back as Republicans debate the principles over two days and strive for a united front behind McCain. That means bridging some differences, detouring around others.

The platform draft calls for constitutional bans on abortion and gay marriage, two steps McCain does not support.

It would put the party on record as accepting that economic activity contributes to global warming, in line with McCain's views.

But the platform is loaded with caveats about the uncertainty of science and the need to "resist no-growth radicalism" in taking on climate change.

It warns that empowering Washington on the matter would have painful consequences, a less-than-rousing endorsement of McCain's ambitious plan for mandatory federal emission cuts in a cap and trade program.

Sharp divisions still exist in the party on social issues, but there appeared to be little taste for complicating McCain's chances by mounting a symbolic platform fight as the document is hashed out in Minneapolis.

"This isn't a hill we're going to die on," said Scott Tucker, a spokesman for the gay rights group Log Cabin Republicans.

"Unlike previous years," said Gary Bauer, a social-conservative veteran of platform struggles, "I just don't see deep divisions within the party."

Bauer, an evangelical Christian who is advising McCain, said the focus is on emphasizing Republican unity on the issues.

Ann Stone, national chairwoman of Republicans for Choice, said her abortion-rights group won't go to the wall this time trying to overhaul the anti-abortion plank. The platform takes a typically hard line against abortion rights and calls again for a constitutional ban on abortion as well as on gay marriage.

"This is not going to be the year that we make big changes," she said. "We know that we can't get major things done."

The 112-delegate platform committee meets as the Democratic National Convention unfolds in Denver. The platform will be adopted during next week's GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn.

Democrats adopted their platform Monday, mostly following candidate Barack Obama's prescriptions but going beyond his proposals in calling for guaranteed health care for all, in a compromise both with Hillary Rodham Clinton's supporters and with activists who wanted government-run health care.

Party platforms are not binding on candidates or the next president and tend to be largely forgotten once they're in place.

Even so, candidates want to make sure the document doesn't drift too far from their own agenda and the GOP in particular has seen platform fights over a variety of social issues in the past.

Tucker said his group is "more interested in substance than symbolism" and believes McCain to be an "inclusive candidate who understands that our party needs to reach out to all Americans to win this election."

McCain opposes gay marriage but also a constitutional amendment against it and has expressed limited support for the rights accorded couples in same-sex civil unions. Apart from opposing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, he is against most abortion rights and says he would favor overturning the Supreme Court decision affirming those rights.

A.G. OKs question to reinstate gay-marriage ban - BostonHerald.com

A.G. OKs question to reinstate gay-marriage ban - BostonHerald.com

BOSTON - Attorney General Martha Coakley today authorized a ballot question proposing to reinstate a nearly century old law barring out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts.

The so-called 1913 law was repealed by the Legislature in late June.

In her ruling, Coakley said the question’s supporters, MassResistance, had met the necessary technical requirement for filing a ballot question. The group must now gather 33,000 signatures by the end of October to appear on the November 2010 ballot.

Coakley differentiated between her official duties and any personal feeling she may have on the issue.

"Our decision that this referendum meets the constitutional requirements as to subject matter does not mean that it has our support, but simply that the constitutional requirements are met for the proponents of the referendum to obtain further signatures," Coakley said in a statement.

Her predecessor, former Attorney General Tom Reilly, issued a similar statement in 2005 when he authorized a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage among Massachusetts residents.

Gay couples have been allowed to legally wed since May 2004, six months after the Supreme Judicial Court said same-sex couples had the same right as heterosexual couples to marry.

In the aftermath of that ruling, then-Gov. Mitt Romney used the 1913 law to bar city and town clerks from issuing marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. The law declared it illegal for couples to get married in Massachusetts if their unions would be illegal in their home states.

The House and Senate voted in June to repeal the law. Gov. Deval Patrick signed the repeal, saying it eliminated a law once used to ban interracial marriage.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1115053

California churches plan a big push against same-sex marriage - Los Angeles Times

California churches plan a big push against same-sex marriage - Los Angeles Times

By Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 24, 2008
Early on a late September morning, if all goes according to plan, 1 million Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, evangelical Christians, Sikhs and Hindus will open their doors, march down their front walks and plant "Yes on Proposition 8" signs in their yards to show they support repealing same-sex marriage in California.

It is a bold idea, one that may be difficult to pull off. But whether or not 1 million lawn signs are planted in unison, the plan underscores what some observers say is one of the most ambitious interfaith political organizing efforts ever attempted in the state. Moreover, political analysts say, the alliances across religious boundaries could herald new ways of building coalitions around political issues in California.



School boards are prodded to take a... TV ad backing gay marriage doesn't...Funding for California ballot initiatives flows in from out of state
Opponents of gay marriage say they'll sue over changed wording in Proposition 8

"Pan-religious, faith-based political action strategies . . . I think we are going to see a lot more of [this] in the future," said Gaston Espinosa, a professor of religious studies at Claremont McKenna College.

The greatest involvement in the campaign has come from Mormons, Catholics and evangelical Christians, who say they are working together much more closely than they did eight years ago when a similar measure, Proposition 22, was on the ballot.

Mark Jansson, a Mormon who is a member of the Protect Marriage Coalition, said members of his group are also reaching out to Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.


Organizers say the groups turned to each other because of the California Supreme Court's ruling in May allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the state. Thousands of gay couples have wed in the state since June 17, the first day same-sex marriages became legal.

"This is a rising up over a 5,000-year-old institution that is being hammered right now," said Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church, an evangelical congregation in La Mesa. Garlow said that, while he supported Proposition 22, he was not nearly as involved as this time around, when he has helped organize 3,400-person conference calls across denominations to coordinate campaign support for the proposed constitutional amendment.

"What binds us together is one common obsession: . . . marriage," Garlow said.

He added that many people of faith, regardless of their religion, believe that "if Proposition 8 fails, there is an inevitable loss of religious freedom."

Other religious leaders vehemently disagree with Garlow and are working just as furiously to defeat Proposition 8. But their efforts have not been as carefully orchestrated as those of the initiative's religious supporters.

Susan Russell, a priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, a liberal congregation that has long supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, said "fair-minded Californians" should be concerned about some of the tactics and arguments of faith leaders on the other side.

"I will defend to my last breath the right of any of those folks to exercise their religion as they believe they are called to do it," she added. "But I'll resist to my last breath, vote, e-mail and blog their right to inflict their religious beliefs on the Constitution of the state of California."

Russell said that the idea that the court's decision infringed on religious liberty was a "red herring." Divorce is legal in California, she said, but that doesn't mean that Roman Catholic priests have to perform marriages for people who have been divorced.

As the campaign intensifies this fall, both sides in the fight over Proposition 8 say they expect religious leaders and their congregations to continue to play a big role.

To demonstrate that there is significant clergy support for same-sex marriage, the group California Faith for Equality has produced a video of priests, reverends and rabbis talking about why they support gay marriage.

In one, as Pachelbel's Canon plays in the background, the Rev. Neil Thomas, a minister at Metropolitan Community Church in Los Angeles, looks at the camera and declares: "I absolutely think that Jesus would support the freedom to marry, and because of that, as a follower of Jesus, it is absolutely incumbent upon me to support the freedom to marry as well."

Adds Rabbi Zach Shapiro of Temple Akiba in Culver City: "My faith supports the freedom to marry because, as a Jew, I have a responsibility to fight for what is right . . . and to help bring goodness into the world."

There are plans in the works to make another video that includes Muslim leaders as well as Spanish-speaking religious leaders.

Kerry Chaplin, interfaith organizing director of California Faith for Equality, also said her group plans to work with churches to encourage parishioners to talk to their friends and neighbors about why they should oppose Proposition 8.

On the other side, Garlow said pastors are planning a 40-day fast leading up to the election. He is also planning several rallies, including one that he hopes will include 300,000 youths.

Catholics and Mormons, meanwhile, are organizing their own congregations to try to sway voters, make contributions and get out the vote.

The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group, recently donated $1 million to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Catholic Church, said it was too early to say whether the coalitions being built around Proposition 8 would carry over into other issues.

But, he added: "It's an interesting time to get to know each other in different ways."

jessica.garrison @latimes.com

When Same-Gender Marriage Was a Christian Rite - Colfax

When Same-Gender Marriage Was a Christian Rite - Colfax

Posted by: ThosPayne

SS. Sergius & Bacchus (7th cent.)
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man) overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died under torture. Sergius survived but was later beheaded.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led scholars to believe they were lovers. The most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrdom describes them in New Testament Greek as "erastai,” or lovers. In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by early Christian church historians.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the former Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the same ritual symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiated in the taking of the eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE), and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some of the ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel, and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal under Roman civil law from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same-sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the eucharist, in the name of, and in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Monday, August 25, 2008

An opportunity for Prop. 8 backers: Latino voters against gay marriage - San Jose Mercury News

An opportunity for Prop. 8 backers: Latino voters against gay marriage - San Jose Mercury News

By Mike Swift
Mercury News
Article Launched: 08/23/2008 01:30:31 AM PDT



As he strolled with his girlfriend in downtown San Jose, David Palacios looked like the type of voter who will oppose the November ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage in California - young urbanite, well-educated, a resident of a Bay Area metropolis.

Except that Palacios is Latino.

"I'm for civil unions - not gay marriage," said Palacios, 20, who grew up on the East Side of San Jose and says he is likely to vote in favor of Proposition 8.

In a way, Palacios feels marriage is above civil rights.

Across California, a majority of whites appear poised to vote against Proposition 8 in November, according to a Field Poll in July. But that same poll found that Latinos, with their social conservatism and strong Catholicism, are in favor of a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage.

As a rapidly growing political bloc that could represent nearly one in five voters in November, Latinos represent a major opportunity for the campaign working to pass Proposition 8. The Field Poll found the same-sex marriage measure was leading among Latinos 49 percent to 38 percent.

CLICK LINK ABOVE FOR FULL STORY

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Native Americans accept gay marriage - from Pink News - all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

Native Americans accept gay marriage - from Pink News - all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

The Coquille Indian Tribe on the southern Oregon coast, who are a federally recognised sovereign nation, are not bound by Oregon's constitution, and so allow gay marriage amongst its members.

The Coquilles (which tribal leaders prefer to pronounce KO-kwell) are probably the first tribe in the nation to legalise same-sex marriage, says Brian Gilley, a University of Vermont anthropology professor and author of the book, Becoming Two-Spirit: Gay Identity and Social Acceptance in Indian Country.

Many Native American tribes historically accepted same-sex relationships, Gilley says.

But after a lesbian couple married under an ambiguous Cherokee law in Oklahoma three years ago, that tribe's council adopted a law banning same-sex marriage.

Other tribes across the nation, including the Navajos, the nation's largest tribe, passed similar bans, he says.

Because the Coquilles have federal status, a marriage within the tribe would be federally recognised.

That would violate the Defence of Marriage Act, a law that says the federal government "may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose."

The federal government could challenge the Coquille law as a way of testing the limits of tribal independence.

The tribe concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act may bar the tribe from conferring federal benefits or money on same-sex spouses, said Melissa Cribbins, assistant tribal attorney.

Ken Tanner, chief of the Coquilles said: "Native Americans are sensitive to discrimination of any kind.

"For our tribe, we want people to walk in the shoes of other people and learn to respect differences.

"Through that, we think we build a stronger community."

The new law establishes tribal rules for recognizing marriage, whether for gay or heterosexual couples.

It will not take effect until the tribe also creates laws for divorce and child custody, tribal attorney Brett Kenney says.

The seven-member tribal council expects to adopt such laws next year.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

: Now on the Hallmark aisle: Gay marriage cards

The Associated Press: Now on the Hallmark aisle: Gay marriage cards

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Most states don't recognize gay marriage — but now Hallmark does.

The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards — featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says.

Hallmark added the cards after California joined Massachusetts as the only U.S. states with legal gay marriage. A handful of other states have recognized same-sex civil unions.

The language inside the cards is neutral, with no mention of wedding or marriage, making them also suitable for a commitment ceremony. Hallmark says the move is a response to consumer demand, not any political pressure.

"It's our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can," Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.

Hallmark's largest competitor, American Greetings Corp., has no plans to enter the market, saying its current offerings are general enough to speak to a lot of different relationships.

Hallmark started offering "coming out" cards last year, and the four designs of same-sex marriage cards are being gradually released this summer and will be widely available by next year. No sales figures were available yet.

"When I have shopped for situations like babies or weddings for gay friends I have good luck in quirky stores," said Kathryn Hamm, president of the Web site gayweddings.com.

"But if you are just in a generic store ... the bride and groom symbol or words are in most cards," she said. "It becomes difficult to find some that are neutral but have some style."

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates that more than 85,000 same-sex couples in the United States have entered into a legal relationship since 1997, when Hawaii started offering some legal benefits to same-sex partners.

It estimates nearly 120,000 more couples will marry in California during the next three years — and that means millions of potential dollars for all sorts of wedding-industry businesses.

Hallmark, known more for its Midwest mores than progressive greetings, has added a wider variety lately. It now offers cards for difficulty getting pregnant or going through rehab.

It pulled a controversial card that featured the word "queer" in the punch line after it was criticized by some customers and gay magazine The Advocate last year. At any given time, Hallmark has 200 different wedding cards on the market, including some catering to interracial or inter-religious marriages and blended families.

The Greeting Card Association, a trade group, says it does not track how many companies provide same-sex cards but believes the number is expanding.

"The fact that you have someone like Hallmark going into that niche shows it's growing and signals a trend," said Barbara Miller, a spokeswoman for the association.

Rob Fortier, an independent card maker who runs his company, Paper Words, out of New York, added same-sex wedding cards to his mix after thinking about what he would want to receive.

"A lot of people think a gay greeting card needs a rainbow on it," Fortier said. "I don't want that."

But for some time, it was difficult to even find the words for what anyone wanted to say, he said.

His first card poked fun at the challenge. On the outside it featured lines that had been scratched out: "Congratulations on being committed!", "Congratulations on being unionized!" and, finally, "Congratulations on being domestically partnered!" The inside wished the couple congratulations on choosing to be together forever.

"It really comes down to language," he said.

John Stark, one of the three founders of Three Way Design in Boston, which makes gay-themed cards for occasions from adoption to weddings, has several new designs sketched out and ready.

But he has hesitated adding more wedding cards to his mix until after the November election, when California voters will decide a constitutional amendment that would again limit marriage to a man and a woman in the state.

"What is scary is to produce a marriage line and then November comes and it's recalled, then we have thousands of dollars of inventory waiting," he said.

The gay-friendly business can be challenging, companies said.

Hamm said although she has found many vendors willing to work with her company, some have asked to be removed from the Web site because of hate mail or some other backlash.

Hallmark says all of its stores can choose whether they want to add the latest offerings

Conn. marriage foes seek initiative rights -- Queer Lesbian Gay News -- Gay.com

Conn. marriage foes seek initiative rights -- Queer Lesbian Gay News -- Gay.com

published Wednesday, August 20, 2008
A coalition of same-sex marriage opponents and taxpayer groups is trying to persuade voters to approve a state constitutional convention in the hopes of bringing the initiative petition process to Connecticut.
Connecticut voters will be asked Nov. 4 whether to hold a constitutional convention. Under the state constitution, the question goes on the ballot only every 20 years.

The Family Institute of Connecticut wants a system of direct initiative -- in which people can petition to get issues onto the ballot -- because it hopes voters will eventually pass a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Other groups involved in the campaign have other concerns, such as eminent domain and taxes.

So far, though, the Connecticut Constitution Convention Campaign has raised only $1,110.

Meanwhile, the state's largest teachers union, the Connecticut Education Association, has contributed $40,000 to the group "Vote No: Protect Our Constitution." Planned Parenthood of Connecticut has given $5,000 to the same cause, according to filings with the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

Matthew Daly, of Glastonbury, who is heading the convention campaign, said he's not worried yet about being grossly outspent.

"Our fundraising has been slow, which kind of goes hand in hand for this time of year," he said. "I'm not surprised. If we're where we are by the end of September, then I will be concerned."

If a majority vote yes in November, a convention will be held consisting of people appointed by the General Assembly. There, advocates can recommend that the state change its constitution to allow citizens to petition issues onto the ballot, such as a tougher three-strikes-and-you're out law for violent felony offenders.

Twenty-four states have the initiative petition processes allowing citizens to place proposed new laws or constitutional amendments on the ballot, according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California.

Daly's coalition hopes to raise enough money to buy newspaper, radio and television ads, explaining the importance of including direct initiative in the state constitution. He believes it's an issue people will support.

"I think we have a winning issue," he said. "The question is reaching as many people as we can."

Anne Stanback, president of the group Love Makes A Family, said her group -- which supports same-sex marriage -- is urging people to vote no, and plans to contribute money to the effort.

She fears voters will be misled into thinking a constitutional amendment will lead to real change.

"It's the legislators who will be deciding who the delegates are," Stanback said. "They will be the ones who decide what questions get raised in the convention and if anything happens at all."

Kathy Frega, a spokeswoman for the Connecticut Education Association, said the Legislature should be focusing on educational improvement instead of a convention.

"The state constitution works, and there's already a procedure in place to amend it without holding a taxpayer-funded convention," she said.

Groups that already have influence at the state Capitol, such as the education association, are among those most worried about a constitutional convention, Daly said.

"There's no question this is an insider-versus-outsider campaign," he said. "I'm not surprised by those who are opposing us. They want to control our legislature." (Susan Haigh, AP)

outinburlington.com - Human Rights Campaign Foundation Guide Advises Employers on Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses

outinburlington.com - Human Rights Campaign Foundation Guide Advises Employers on Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses




"Marriage for Same-Sex Couples: Considerations for Employers" Aims to Assist Fair-Minded Employers in Providing Equal Benefits to Workers

WASHINGTON–The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nation's largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights group, today released a guide advising employers on how to address marriage for same-sex couples in their spousal and partner benefits packages. Among the topics covered in "Marriage for Same-Sex Couples: Considerations for Employers" are taxation of health benefits, complications due to varied degrees of legal recognition of same-sex couples, and the impact of marriage equality in California and Massachusetts.

"There's never been a more crucial time to educate employers on the far-reaching implications of increased legal recognition of same-sex couples," said HRC Foundation Workplace Project Director Daryl Herrschaft. "Inconsistent federal and state laws concerning marriage for same-sex couples are a significant challenge to employers seeking to ensure that all workers receive equal benefits. This year, we have created guidelines for these employers in states with and without marriage equality."

As of July 31, 2008, both California and Massachusetts offer full marriage rights to same-sex couples, and neither state requires to be permanent residents in order to marry there. New York, which does not have a statewide law or constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, has taken steps to recognize same-sex spouses married in other states. As a result, employers across the country must assess their employee benefits with respect to same-sex spouses.

"This report is a must-read for benefits administrators, human resource professionals, managers and business leaders," said Samir Luther, senior manager of the HRC Foundation Workplace Project. "In coming years, the most successful businesses will be those that do the right thing by offering equal benefits to all their employees."

The guide can be accessed here: http://www.hrc.org/issues/10982.htm.

The Human Rights Campaign is America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all. [8/19/08]

Knights of Columbus tip the balance with big anti-gay marriage donation | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times

Knights of Columbus tip the balance with big anti-gay marriage donation | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times

:49 PM, August 20, 2008
It's official -- opponents of gay marriage have raised more cash in support of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative, than gay marriage supporters, who have vowed to defeat the Nov. 4 ballot measure.

A contribution by the Connecticut-based Knights of Columbus of $1.25 million on Aug. 14 put Proposition 8 supporters within striking distance of opponents. Yesterday, another infusion of cash from groups and individuals who oppose same-sex marriage put them ahead in the money race.

Our own Maloy Moore is following the money in a pair of data bases she helped create, which she updates daily. On Aug. 14, when the Knights of Columbus made their contribution, the totals were $7,599,137 for opponents and $7,165,565 for supporters, Maloy said. (Through Aug. 13 it was $7.574,637 to $5,944,790.) As of 4 p.m. yesterday, supporters passed opponents, she said.

You can look at total contributions within the state, broken down by county, or you can search the nationwide data base (use abbreviations for the states) for an illuminating look at money flowing to both sides of the issue.

We'll keep you apprised of major changes in the flow of cash. As for the photo, that's George Bush, a fierce gay marriage opponent, speaking to the 122nd annual Knights of Columbus convention in Dallas in August 2004.

--Veronique de Turenne

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Kogarah pushes marriage plan - starobserver.com.au

Kogarah pushes marriage plan - starobserver.com.au

Kogarah Council, which takes in the seat of Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland, has moved to recognise same-sex marriages and unions in deciding benefits for council employees and residents.

In an even bigger slap against the Rudd Government’s opposition to same-sex marriage, the move was introduced by someone from its own party, Labor councillor John Mikelsons.

“Kogarah is not exactly the most progressive area in Sydney — it certainly isn’t like Marrickville or the City of Sydney in terms of demography, but we are happy to show a bit of leadership and remove discrimination against our residents and employees where we can,” Mikelsons said.

He said Kogarah was already a diverse community in many ways.

“Our people deserve to be respected and have their relationships respected, and that is what we are doing,” Mikelsons said.

Mikelsons said he would write to Australian Marriage Equality seeking to be listed on its register of employers who recognise same-sex marriage.

Like other NSW councils, Kogarah residents will go to the polls on 13 September. Mikelsons will not be seeking reelection.

He said once the new council is elected, all current policies would be reviewed within 12 months and discrimination on marital status, sexual orientation or transgender identity removed.

Marrickville and Sydney councils already have policies not to discriminate against same-sex partners of employees or residents, but have not specifically resolved to recognise gay marriages conducted overseas.

Poll: N.J. voters back marriage equality | Politicker NJ

Poll: N.J. voters back marriage equality | Politicker NJ

Poll: N.J. voters back marriage equalityBy Editor
Category: LocalTags: Zogby, same sex marriage, poll, marriage equality, Garden State Equality
Most New Jerseyans support same sex marriage and an even greater percentage have no problem if the state joins Massachusetts and California in passing a same sex marriage law, according to a Zogby International poll conducted by Garden State Equality, a civil rights organization that advocates marriage equality and other gay rights issues.

By a 50%-42% margin, likely New Jersey voters support allowing same sex couples to marry. 59% say they would be fine with a same sex marriage law, and 57% say New Jersey should recognize same sex marriages that took place outside New Jersey.

Asked if allowing same sex marriage would “hurt the institution of marriage for heterosexual couples,” 67% of voters said it would make no difference; 30% said same sex marriage would hurt the institution of marriage.

State legislators who vote in favor of same sex marriage would get re-elected, according to 71% of the likely voters surveyed.

“No one should doubt the meaning of these numbers,” said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality. “New Jersey wants to end discrimination in marriage, and is ready for our public officials to do it right now. The civil union law is one the greatest civil rights failures of our time. New Jersey sees that, and understands that justice delayed is justice denied.”

Monday, August 18, 2008

Ellen and Portia get married

TheImproper.com | Arts | Entertainment | Culture

Ellen DeGeneres made history of sorts in a low-key, understated ceremony as she became the most visible celebrity yet to marry her same-sex lover, the stunning Portia de Rossi,35. Only close friends and family attended the ceremony Saturday (Aug. 16), according to reports.

DeGeneres, 50, was taking advantage of a recent court decision that overturned California's ban on same-sex marriage. So, what did the bride and groom (groomette?) wear?

"I can't wait to be married. I feel like it is long overdue. And I think someday people will look back on this like women not having the right to vote and segregation and anything else that seems ridiculous like we all don't have the same rights," DeGeneres said recently in anticipation of the wedding.

The event took place at the couple’s $29 million Beverly Hills home, People and Us magazine reported.

The California Supreme Court paved the way for the ceremony with a ruling in May that same-sex marriages were permissible. DeGeneres immediately announced on television that she and de Rossi would wed. The audience, which included her smiling Australian-born partner that day, responded with a standing ovation. They have been a couple for four years.

Reports varied but about 20 to 30 guests, including DeGeneres's mom Betty and de Rossi's mother Margaret Rogers, who flew in from Australia. DeGeneres has promised to show some of the ceremony on her show. "It was all close friends and family," a source told E! Entertainment, adding that no celeb guests were spotted entering all day.

Meanwhile, the debate over same-sex marriage continues. Opponents in California have gathered signatures to put a measure on the November ballot. They are seeking a state Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Hollywood is throwing it support behind the newlyweds. Many observers believe the ban is likely to pass, which would cast doubt on the DeGeneres-de Rossi union.

DeGeneres and de Rossi have been an item since December 2004. De Rossi has worn a Neil Lane marquise-cut pink diamond ring on her wedding finger since June.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Gay marriage opponents seek to reverse new law | DailyComet.com | The Thibodaux Daily Comet | Thibodaux, LA

Gay marriage opponents seek to reverse new law | DailyComet.com | The Thibodaux Daily Comet | Thibodaux, LA

BOSTON - The gay marriage fight in Massachusetts may not be over after all.


Opponents of same-sex marriages are seeking a ballot question that would repeal a new law nullifying a 1913 statute that prevented gay and lesbian couples from getting married here if their union wouldn't be legal in their home state.

Brian Camenker of the group Mass Resistance said Friday lawmakers and Gov. Deval Patrick bowed to the will of the "gay lobby" by approving the repeal of the 1913 law last month. Patrick, the state's first black governor and the father of a daughter who recently announced she's a lesbian, said the 1913 law had racial undertones from a period when interracial marriage was discouraged.

"The Legislature and the governor changed our marriage laws to please the well-connected minority and force a social experiment into other states that's very offensive to a majority of the people, at least the way the votes have been going," Camenker said, referring to recent votes in favor of gay marriage bans in other states.

He was particularly critical of an emergency preamble attached to the repeal. It bypassed a normal 90-day waiting period and made the law effective immediately. During the usual 90-day period, opponents have the right to present signatures and stay a new law until it can be put to a ballot vote.

Now, the group will need fewer signatures, about 32,000 in all, to get their question on the ballot, but for logistical reasons, not likely before the state's 2010 elections. The new law will remain in effect during that period.

"The fact that this happened the way it happened just adds to the sense of sleaziness and underhandedness of the whole process," Camenker said.

Gay marriage advocates who had celebrate the repeal said they were disappointed but not surprised by the petition.

"I've learned that when it comes to equality for gay and lesbian people, the struggle is never over because there are certain people that are just strongly opposed to any rights for gay people. It's never shocking; it is disappointing," said Marc Solomon of MassEquality.

Gay Massachusetts residents have been allowed to legally marry since 2004. Opponents such as former Gov. Mitt Romney said the 1913 law prevented Massachusetts from becoming the "Las Vegas of same-sex marriage." California also permits same-sex marriage and has no restriction on out-of-state couples.

Mass Resistance filed paperwork with the secretary of state's office on Wednesday. The measure has been forwarded to the attorney general's office for review.

The state constitution prohibits referendum questions on subjects that relate to religion, judges, the courts, particular localities of the commonwealth, state appropriations and certain provisions of the constitution's Declaration of Rights. Attorney General Martha Coakley has 14 days to review the proposed question

PrideSource: Minter: Calif. ruling changed more than marriage law

PrideSource: Minter: Calif. ruling changed more than marriage law

by Rex Wockner
Originally printed 08/14/2008


The California Supreme Court's May ruling legalizing same-sex marriage did much more than that, says Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and lead lawyer for the successful gay side in the California marriage case.

In an Aug. 2 interview with Los Angeles journalist Karen Ocamb, Minter said: "The fundamental-right-to-marry part of the holding was extremely significant, but the court's holding that sexual orientation is a suspect classification was stunning -- completely unprecedented. I think it will forever change the legal landscape for LGBT people in the country; it's going to have a huge impact on courts in other states and, ultimately, on the federal courts. We are now living in a different legal world because of what the court did."

The court's determination means that any discrimination based on sexual orientation is constitutionally subject to the strictest level of scrutiny by California courts, which makes it dramatically harder for any level of government to defend itself in any arena where gays, lesbians and bisexuals are not treated the same as heterosexuals.

A government now has to prove it has a specific "compelling interest" - rather than a mere "rational basis" - when it treats GLB people differently in any way.

In another interview with the Palm Springs gay magazine The BottomLine on Aug. 1, Minter said that if the California ballot measure to amend the state constitution to re-ban same-sex marriage fails in November, it will be a "crushing defeat" for gays' opponents.

"If we defeat this proposition, as I believe we will, that victory will resonate across the country," he said. "Not only will marriage in California be secure, but we will have demonstrated that efforts to politically exploit anti-gay bias no longer work. We have a chance here in California to deal a crushing defeat to the anti-gay forces that have caused incalculable damage to our community for years. This is our opportunity to make a difference that will go down in history books as a critical turning point."

Minter also talked with The BottomLine about his 1996 sex-change operation.

"I have been struck by how much more immediate 'unearned' credibility and respect I get as a completely average-looking man than I did as a visibly masculine-appearing woman," Minter said. "The difference is stark - whether it is service in a restaurant or on a plane, or appearing in court."

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Married with children: an option for more gay men - International Herald Tribune

Married with children: an option for more gay men - International Herald Tribune


NEW YORK: The cost remains high, and a good lawyer is essential. Yet despite complications, the idea of becoming a biological dad with help from a surrogate mother is gaining allure among gay men as the status of "married with children" grows ever more possible.

With same-sex marriage now legal in California even to nonresidents, and Massachusetts extending its 4-year-old gay-marriage policy to out-of-staters, in-wedlock parenting is suddenly a realistic option for gays and lesbians nationwide, even if their home state won't recognize the union.

Fertility clinics and surrogacy programs report increased interest from gay men, while couples who already have children are getting married — or considering it — to provide more security for those kids.

"We wanted our daughter to know her parents were married — that was the big thing for us," said Tommy Starling of Pawley's Island, S.C., who wed his partner of 12 years, Jeff Littlefield, on July 11 in Hollywood.

Among those at the ceremony was their daughter, Carrigan, who was born in California two years ago.

CLICK LINK ABOVE FOR FULL STORY

Friday, August 15, 2008

Queers United: The Heterosexual Questionnaire

Queers United: The Heterosexual Questionnaire


Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Heterosexual Questionnaire

The Heterosexual Questionnaire was created back in 1972 to put heterosexual people in the shoes of a gay person for just a moment. Questions and assumptions made of Gays and Lesbians that are unfair, are reversed and this time asked to the straight people.

This is a fun survey, but also an activist survey. Please repost this to your email list, myspace bulletin, use it in a group setting, have fun with it but also let the point be made.

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When and where did you decide you were a heterosexual?

3. Is it possible this is just a phase and you will out grow it?

4. Is it possible that your sexual orientation has stemmed from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?

5. Do your parents know you are straight? Do your friends know- how did they react?

6. If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, is it just possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

7. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality... can’t you just be who you are and keep it quiet?

8. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

9. Why do heterosexuals try to recruit others into this lifestyle?

10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual... Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers?

11. Just what do men and women do in bed together? How can they truly know how to please each other, being so anatomically different?

12. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?

13. How can you become a whole person if you limit yourself to compulsive, exclusive heterosexuality?

14. Considering the menace of overpopulation how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?

15. Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don't you feel that he or she might be inclined to influence you in the direction of his orher leanings?

16. There seem to very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to.

17. Have you considered trying aversion therapy?

- Martin Rochlin, Ph.D., 1972

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

More gay men 'married with children'-Health/Sci-The Times of India

More gay men 'married with children'-Health/Sci-The Times of India

NEW YORK: The cost remains high, and a good lawyer is essential. Yet despite complications, the idea of becoming a biological dad with help from a surrogate mother is gaining allure among gay men as the status of "married with children" grows ever more possible.

With same-sex marriage now legal in California even to non-residents, and Massachusetts extending its 4-year-old gay-marriage policy to out-of-staters, in-wedlock parenting is suddenly a realistic option for gays and lesbians nationwide, even if their home state won't recognize the union.

Fertility clinics and surrogacy programs report increased interest from gay men, while couples who already have children are getting married — or considering it — to provide more security for those kids.

"We wanted our daughter to know her parents were married — that was the big thing for us," said Tommy Starling of Pawley's Island, South Carolina, who wed his partner of 12 years, Jeff Littlefield, on July 11 in Hollywood.

Among those at the ceremony was their daughter, Carrigan, who was born in California two years ago.

Starling said he and Littlefield had tried previously to adopt a child in South Carolina, but encountered anti-gay hostility and instead opted to become parents through a surrogacy program run by Los Angeles-based Growing Generations. Since 1996, it has matched hundreds of gay men with surrogate mothers who are paid to carry an implanted embryo produced from a donor egg fertilized with the client's sperm.

"Our journey to parenthood was not easy, cheap or fun," Starling and Littlefield wrote in an account of their family. "The result, however, has been the most amazing experience in the world; being called Daddy and Dad by our loving daughter."

For lesbian couples, biological parenthood is usually a far simpler proposition than for gay men, since there's no need for surrogacy and there are various options for becoming pregnant. A lesbian couple faces neither the cost of surrogacy, which can run as high as $150,000, nor the legal complications which call for a carefully negotiated contract with the surrogate mother.

"All the realms involved with men are much more complex," said Gail Taylor, president and founder of Growing Generations. But Taylor believes the option of marriage will, over time, lead to more biological gay dads. "For future generations, knowing they can fall in love, get married, have a child — absolutely, that will become a way of life more than it is," she said.

Starling, 36, and Littlefield, 52, face the likelihood that their marriage will not be recognized anytime soon in South Carolina. In contrast, Joe and Brent Taravella, who are raising three children in South Orange, New Jersey, already have a civil union and are optimistic that New Jersey will soon legalize same-sex marriages.

Prop. 8 backers drop challenge on wording

Prop. 8 backers drop challenge on wording

08-11) 13:15 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The state's official description of Proposition 8 on the November ballot will remain as is, a statement that the measure would eliminate same-sex couples' right to marry in California.

Sponsors of the measure argued that the title and summary drafted by Attorney General Jerry Brown were argumentative and designed to encourage voters to oppose Prop. 8. But after two defeats in court last week, the Yes on 8 campaign said Monday that it would not appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"We intend to leave the final outcome to the voters," said campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns.

The initiative would amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Brown titled it "Limit on Marriage" when the measure was circulated for signatures.

But after the state's high court ruled in May that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry under the state Constitution, the Democratic attorney general changed the title, saying Prop. 8 would now eliminate rights that the court had established. The new title states the measure "eliminates (the) right of same-sex couples to marry."

Sponsors of Prop. 8 filed suit, claiming Brown's title was one-sided. They argued that the measure should bear no title at all except for its brief text: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

But a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled Friday that Brown's reference to an elimination of rights was an accurate description of the purpose and effect of Prop. 8, and a state appeals court in Sacramento turned down an emergency appeal by the Yes on 8 campaign late Friday.

Monday was the deadline for court action on the wording of ballot summaries and arguments in the voter pamphlet, which are due at the state printer's office after the close of business this afternoon.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

Gay marriage: Not if, but when - NJ.com

Gay marriage: Not if, but when - NJ.com

Gay marriage: Not if, but when
Monday, August 11, 2008
Backers of same-sex marriage in New Jersey believe they have the wind at their backs. They are confident the state will replace civil unions for gay couples with full civil-marriage rights.

They also believe it will be done not by court order, which is the way gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts and California, but by legislative action.

Their only uncertainty is when the change will come.

"Late this year or sometime next year," predicts Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay-rights group that has been at the forefront of the lobbying campaign.

That may be too optimistic, says Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Princeton Borough, the sponsor of a bill to authorize civil marriage for same-sex couples. New Jersey is "a progressive state" and the bill will pass "sooner rather than later," he says, but its backers first will have to persuade hesitant lawmakers that the change is not only right but politically safe.

Driving their efforts is the fact that civil unions, which are supposed to provide participants with all the rights of marriage except the name, have "failed miserably to provide equality," in Goldstein's words. A review commission reported last February that civil unions are "not clear to the general public" and confer "second-class status" on the partners.

"The law has wreaked havoc on same-sex couples' lives because too many employers, hospitals and others throughout the state do not recognize a civil union as marriage," said Goldstein, who is vice chairman of the review commission. "They don't believe the Legislature intended it to be equal."

The Legislature created civil unions after the state Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the state and federal constitutions entitle same-sex couples to all the rights of marriage but not necessarily the institution of marriage itself. (In a dissent that argued for full marriage rights, then-Chief Justice Deborah Poritz wrote prophetically: "What we name things matters.")

Most distressing, Goldstein said, has been the testimony of gay couples that their children are teased by schoolmates because their parents aren't married.

"Kids are pretty smart, and they hurt easily," he said. "When they are taunted or asked in a hostile way why their parents have something inferior, why they aren't equal, that's psychologically damaging.

"The irony is that New Jersey was the national leader in letting gay couples adopt. Why would the state then turn around and send a signal to those children that their parents can't marry? It's been our biggest heartbreak."

The opponents' principal argument is that allowing people of the same sex to marry will "damage the institution of marriage." But they are unable to explain how.

"It's not going to affect Britney Spears' ability to continuously get married," said Gusciora. "[Republican leader] Newt Gingrich has been married three times, and it wasn't because of same-sex marriage."

"There are threats to the institution of marriage," Goldstein said. "The threats are unemployment, a bad economy, financial pressures, emotional pressures. But marriage is not a threat to marriage! I've asked opponents to show me one straight couple, just one, whose marriage would fall apart because a gay couple got married. They can't.

"Interestingly, the state with the lowest divorce rate in the country is Massachusetts, the first state that allowed same-sex couples to marry. Canada, which allows same-sex marriage [and where Goldstein and his partner were married] has a divorce rate one-half the U.S. rate."

His belief that change in New Jersey will come within a year stems from a growing consensus for it. He points out that this is the only state in which the governor and the leaders of both houses of the Legislature endorse marriage equality. And his head count of legislators shows that the bill would win a majority in the Assembly and is one or two votes shy of the 21 votes needed in the Senate.

He believes an additional push will come from a follow-up report by the Civil Union Review Commission that is expected later this year. It could have the same kind of effect as the powerful report from the Death Penalty Study Commission that led New Jersey to pioneer on another front by becoming the first state to abolish capital punishment by legislative action.

In a Zogby poll a year ago, respondents said, 63 percent to 31 percent, that they would be "fine" with gay marriage if officials decided it was needed to fix the civil-union system. "New Jerseyans care about the economy, which affects them personally," Goldstein said. "They care about gas prices. They care about property taxes. They care about government corruption. Do they care about depriving me and my partner of equality? No -- they don't. The state is much fairer than that."

Gov. Jon Corzine, who has promised to sign the bill if it reaches his desk, would prefer that it happen after the November presidential election. Corzine and other Democrats well remember 2004, when Republicans in Ohio and 10 other states organized anti-gay-marriage referendums to bring out the conservative vote for President Bush.

Waiting until after November could help in another way, Goldstein suggested. Although opposition is centered in the Republican Party, he said "several" GOP senators have indicated that they would vote yes later, but would be reluctant to do so now because it would undercut the anti-gay-marriage position of their party's presidential candidate, John McCain.

A related complaint by advocates is that gay couples that have been legally married elsewhere aren't recognized as such when they move to New Jersey, thanks to a ruling by then-Attorney General Stuart Rabner, now chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Instead, their marriages automatically turn into civil unions.

Corzine could change that by an executive order, just as New York Gov. David Paterson decreed earlier this year that his state would recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. So far, Corzine hasn't chosen to take that route.

"It would help if he did," Goldstein said. "It would be another nail in the coffin of the idea that marriage by gay people would hurt straight marriage."



Contact George Amick at

gamick@njtimes.com.

Gay marriage: Not if, but when - NJ.com

Gay marriage: Not if, but when - NJ.com

Gay marriage: Not if, but when
Monday, August 11, 2008
Backers of same-sex marriage in New Jersey believe they have the wind at their backs. They are confident the state will replace civil unions for gay couples with full civil-marriage rights.

They also believe it will be done not by court order, which is the way gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts and California, but by legislative action.

Their only uncertainty is when the change will come.

"Late this year or sometime next year," predicts Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay-rights group that has been at the forefront of the lobbying campaign.

That may be too optimistic, says Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Princeton Borough, the sponsor of a bill to authorize civil marriage for same-sex couples. New Jersey is "a progressive state" and the bill will pass "sooner rather than later," he says, but its backers first will have to persuade hesitant lawmakers that the change is not only right but politically safe.

Driving their efforts is the fact that civil unions, which are supposed to provide participants with all the rights of marriage except the name, have "failed miserably to provide equality," in Goldstein's words. A review commission reported last February that civil unions are "not clear to the general public" and confer "second-class status" on the partners.

"The law has wreaked havoc on same-sex couples' lives because too many employers, hospitals and others throughout the state do not recognize a civil union as marriage," said Goldstein, who is vice chairman of the review commission. "They don't believe the Legislature intended it to be equal."

The Legislature created civil unions after the state Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the state and federal constitutions entitle same-sex couples to all the rights of marriage but not necessarily the institution of marriage itself. (In a dissent that argued for full marriage rights, then-Chief Justice Deborah Poritz wrote prophetically: "What we name things matters.")

Most distressing, Goldstein said, has been the testimony of gay couples that their children are teased by schoolmates because their parents aren't married.

"Kids are pretty smart, and they hurt easily," he said. "When they are taunted or asked in a hostile way why their parents have something inferior, why they aren't equal, that's psychologically damaging.

"The irony is that New Jersey was the national leader in letting gay couples adopt. Why would the state then turn around and send a signal to those children that their parents can't marry? It's been our biggest heartbreak."

The opponents' principal argument is that allowing people of the same sex to marry will "damage the institution of marriage." But they are unable to explain how.

"It's not going to affect Britney Spears' ability to continuously get married," said Gusciora. "[Republican leader] Newt Gingrich has been married three times, and it wasn't because of same-sex marriage."

"There are threats to the institution of marriage," Goldstein said. "The threats are unemployment, a bad economy, financial pressures, emotional pressures. But marriage is not a threat to marriage! I've asked opponents to show me one straight couple, just one, whose marriage would fall apart because a gay couple got married. They can't.

"Interestingly, the state with the lowest divorce rate in the country is Massachusetts, the first state that allowed same-sex couples to marry. Canada, which allows same-sex marriage [and where Goldstein and his partner were married] has a divorce rate one-half the U.S. rate."

His belief that change in New Jersey will come within a year stems from a growing consensus for it. He points out that this is the only state in which the governor and the leaders of both houses of the Legislature endorse marriage equality. And his head count of legislators shows that the bill would win a majority in the Assembly and is one or two votes shy of the 21 votes needed in the Senate.

He believes an additional push will come from a follow-up report by the Civil Union Review Commission that is expected later this year. It could have the same kind of effect as the powerful report from the Death Penalty Study Commission that led New Jersey to pioneer on another front by becoming the first state to abolish capital punishment by legislative action.

In a Zogby poll a year ago, respondents said, 63 percent to 31 percent, that they would be "fine" with gay marriage if officials decided it was needed to fix the civil-union system. "New Jerseyans care about the economy, which affects them personally," Goldstein said. "They care about gas prices. They care about property taxes. They care about government corruption. Do they care about depriving me and my partner of equality? No -- they don't. The state is much fairer than that."

Gov. Jon Corzine, who has promised to sign the bill if it reaches his desk, would prefer that it happen after the November presidential election. Corzine and other Democrats well remember 2004, when Republicans in Ohio and 10 other states organized anti-gay-marriage referendums to bring out the conservative vote for President Bush.

Waiting until after November could help in another way, Goldstein suggested. Although opposition is centered in the Republican Party, he said "several" GOP senators have indicated that they would vote yes later, but would be reluctant to do so now because it would undercut the anti-gay-marriage position of their party's presidential candidate, John McCain.

A related complaint by advocates is that gay couples that have been legally married elsewhere aren't recognized as such when they move to New Jersey, thanks to a ruling by then-Attorney General Stuart Rabner, now chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Instead, their marriages automatically turn into civil unions.

Corzine could change that by an executive order, just as New York Gov. David Paterson decreed earlier this year that his state would recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. So far, Corzine hasn't chosen to take that route.

"It would help if he did," Goldstein said. "It would be another nail in the coffin of the idea that marriage by gay people would hurt straight marriage."



Contact George Amick at

gamick@njtimes.com.

Gay divorce cases complicated by differences in state, federal law - Online Extras - Myrtle Beach Sun News

the gay divorcee may encouter problems. Because of the DOMA in place even getting a divorce leaves gays not having access to the laws for straight couples. Do we need to fight for "divorce equality"



Gay divorce cases complicated by differences in state, federal law - Online Extras - Myrtle Beach Sun News

By Rob Hotakainen - Washington Bureau
1/83/8

BOSTON | Sometimes the joy of same-sex marriage is followed by the pain of divorce, but Peter Zupcofska is there to help.

In Boston, he's become known as "the master of gay divorce." For a $25,000 retainer, he can lead couples through the intricacies of how best to break up. Zupcofska said divorces presented gay couples with a new opportunity "to make things right" when a relationship ended.

"Divorce is a critical part of marriage," he said.

Gay divorces are bringing many new wrinkles to the field of family law, raising questions that are sure to be litigated for years. While no one tracks how many same-sex couples have divorced in Massachusetts, lawyers in the Boston area are competing for cases in the budding cottage industry.

The cases are complicated because of vast differences in state and federal law. In short, federal law trumps state law and can eliminate benefits that a state might want to extend.

Tax issues are a good example.

The Internal Revenue Service Gay doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, which means that spouses can't take advantage of federal tax breaks, including the basic deduction for a dependent.

Gay spouses are eligible for alimony and child support, but such payments can't be deducted from federal taxes. Gay spouses must file federal tax returns as individuals, and only one of them can claim a child as a dependent.

If a couple split and one spouse wants to transfer a house to the other, it can result in a higher federal tax, which wouldn't apply to divorcing heterosexual couples.

Pension issues also get messy.

Because Massachusetts recognizes gay marriages, state workers can get their spouses covered by their pensions. But gay federal employees aren't eligible for Social Security under their partners' plans, as heterosexual couples are. Any other retirement plan governed by federal law doesn't have to recognize a same-sex spouse.

Zupcofska, who's gay and married, doesn't like to leave things to chance: He has a prenuptial agreement, and he advises his clients to do the same.

Zupcofska said the poorer spouse could suffer when a marriage breaks up if the issues aren't ironed out in advance. Without a prenuptial agreement, he said, the primary breadwinner can walk away with more money in his or her pocket, even if it's been a relationship of 20 years or more.

Courts also will have to address the rights of parents and who's responsible for raising children.

For example, if two gays are married and both are recognized as the parents of a child in Massachusetts, that won't necessarily apply in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. Zupcofska said that raised questions regarding who'd be legally liable for child support or what would happen if children inherited money from their grandparents: Can someone be a grandchild in one state and not in another?

Getting divorced also can be tricky.

Two lesbians who married in Massachusetts moved to Rhode Island and tried to divorce there, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court wouldn't allow it because the state defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. One of the women had to move back to Massachusetts to establish residency and qualify for a divorce.

Lisa Cukier, another Boston lawyer who handles divorce cases, said that legal issues stemming from gay divorces were being handled on a case-by-case basis. She predicted that a gay rights group will challenge the federal law against gay marriage at some point and the Supreme Court will be forced to resolve the differences.

However, Joyce Kauffman, a Cambridge lawyer who represents divorcing gays and lesbians, said that most same-sex activists thought that now wasn't the time to try to get a gay marriage case before the nation's highest court. Many activists hope that their chances will improve if Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama wins the presidency and appoints more liberal justices, who might view gay marriage more favorably.

In the meantime, Cukier said, gays and lesbians who marry must be vigilant to protect their rights.

"When people get married now, they are lulled into the belief that the rights that their straight neighbors have are going to carry over to them, as if marriage somehow magically eliminates the discrimination in the law," Cukier said.