I'm curious. Did the media get a statement from any of the heterosexual couples as to their thoughts on equality and same sex marriage? I wonder if they truly understand their heterosexual privilege and if so, do they care?

There was a video along with the story that I didn't have time to watch, so there may or may not have been some interaction between "us and them".

In answer to your question, which may have just been rhetorical.....I believe personally that most hetrosexual people have no clue. If they knew what we feel every time they easily do something we are forbidden; (marry, adopt, housing, employment) I would like to think they would think twice about throwing the privilege in our faces.

But then again not even I really believe that, and I think the best of everyone.:seeingstars:

Protests in san diego
 

What Does Obama Really Think About Gay Marriage? A Telling Timeline.

James Downie

In the gay marriage debate, President Obama says that he supports civil unions for same-sex couples. But has this always been his view? A look back at his statements on gay marriage, from his days as a state senate candidate until his time in the White House, suggests that Obama's public stance has shifted notably:

1996: In response to a questionnaire from Outlines newspaper (now part of Windy City Times), Obama, a candidate for the Illinois state senate seat representing the wealthy Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, writes, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." Eight years later, in a letter to Windy City Times, Obama would say that he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, calling it “an effort to demonize people for political advantage” that should be repealed.

1998: Responding to an Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test: “Q: Do you believe that the Illinois government should recognize same-sex marriages? A: Undecided.”

2004: In an interview with Windy City Times, Obama mentions the religious dimension of the gay marriage debate, says he supports civil unions, and indicates that his stance is dictated in large part by political strategy:

Obama: I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, 'should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, 'absolutely.' And then if you talk about, 'should they get married?', then suddenly…

WCT: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.

Obama: Since I'm a product of an interracial marriage, I'm very keenly aware of ...

WCT: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn't going to happen so you won't support it at this time?

Obama: What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 [which would add “sexual orientation” to Illinois’s non-discrimination laws] passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name.”

2006: In his bestseller, The Audacity of Hope, Obama, now a U.S. senator, explains his support for civil unions, again mentioning religion and noting the strategic problems that the push for gay marriage poses:

For many practicing Christians, the inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount. …The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians. (pp. 222-3)

July 2007: At the CNN/YouTube Democratic primary debate in Charleston, South Carolina, Obama discusses interracial versus gay marriage and says that it should be up to individual religions whether they recognize civil unions as marriages:

Anderson Cooper: Senator Obama, the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?

Obama: Well, I think that it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis [Kucinich] and by Bill [Richardson], and that is that we've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

August 2007: At the Human Rights Campaign/Logo gay issues debate, also during the Democratic primaries, Obama emphasizes the religious importance of the term “marriage” and explains why civil unions aren’t discriminatory:

Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?

A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word “marriage,” which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would’ve come up. I would’ve supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.

Q: On the grounds of civil marriage, can you see to our community where [your stance of separating gay rights from the word “marriage”] comes across as sounding like “separate but equal”?

A: Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it’s something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it’s less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it’s not for me to suggest that you shouldn’t be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country.

2008: In an interview with MTV, Obama says he opposes Prop 8, but also gay marriage. Civil unions, the candidate says, are sufficient:

I have stated my opposition to [Prop 8]. I think it is unnecessary. I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about. Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them. What I believe is that if we have strong civil unions out there that provide legal rights to same-sex couples that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, that they can transfer property to each other. If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners. I think that is the direction we need to go.

2010: After the Perry decision, which struck down Prop 8, the White House releases this statement: “The president has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans." Meanwhile, White House senior adviser David Axelrod tells MSNBC that Obama "does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples. … He supports civil unions. That’s been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."

Barack Obama and Meg Whitman ... Two Religious Peas in a Pod?
 

Marriage equality: students can lead the way
 

joemygod
 

WYOMING: Gay Couple Challenges Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

A young gay couple has filed a federal court challenge to the constitutionality of Wyoming's ban on same-sex marriage. So far, they are representing themselves.
The lawsuit, filed Aug. 13 by David Shupe-Roderick, 25, and Ryan W. Dupree, 21, is the first legal challenge in recent memory to Wyoming’s law defining marriage as being a contract solely “between a male and a female person.” The couple, who are representing themselves, filed the lawsuit after the Laramie County Clerk's Office refused three times to issue them a marriage license. That's unequal treatment, they said, and they're asking U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson to stop the state from enforcing any laws that block gays and lesbians from access to civil marriage. “We determined that a lawsuit was the only possible way for them to get to recognize us as people,” Shupe-Roderick said. “I think it’s time that Wyoming lives up to its title. You know they call themselves the Equality State? Well, they’re not so equal.”
The plaintiffs say they cannot afford an attorney and can't find one to take their case for free. They add that so far they are relying on knowledge one of them acquired while interning for the ACLU

Interesting wording: "man and a female person"

Wonder why it isnt male person and female person?

an advocate in the GOP?
 

we are supposed to be happy because a rat bastard decided to come out and probably wants to get legally married?????

If you want to be happy, then do so. It is just a news tidbit that was out there and I thought it worth sharing.

Ya know, for me (and this is obviously different for you), I try not to rush to judgement about folks. I don't see it on my to-do list to judge how/when someone comes out. Its not my story nor my life and I think we all know that some folks "get to the party later than others".

For me, it certainly doesn't hurt to have someone with his political connections on the side of equality. I get a kick out of thinking about how his good ole' boys in the RNC will have to think about their views of gays since Mehlman is reported to be the most powerful Republican to have come out. I'd also like to see his energies utilized in repealing DOMA, DADT moreso than I would for him to continue to have to explain ad nauseam why it took him so long to come out.

Perhaps it seems trite to some, but I'd rather have our numbers increasing. The more the merrier - and it would seem that someone such as Mehlman would have a better chance of their voice being heard - of having the capacity to effect change - moreso than average jo schmoe me.

I'm sure that Toughy has a different opinion on this and I don't want this to become a debate about our different views. I think that Mehlman's coming out and open support of marriage equality is a good thing.

joemygod
 

FLASHBACK: Mehlman Supports 2005 Federal Marriage Amendment

In January 2005, GOP Sen. Wayne Allard (CO) introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (a verbatim restating of the earlier failed Federal Management Amendment) with 21 Senate GOP co-sponsors. Later that year the bill was approved for review by the full Senate Judiciary Committee. Newly appointed RNC chair Ken Mehlman gave the bill his full support to reporters at an Ohio GOP fundraiser that March.
During his Akron remarks, Mehlman put forth political and policy statements often viewed as anti-gay. “Republicans are for government that stands on the side of marriage,” he said, “and on the side of strong families.” After the dinner, he was asked by a reporter about the GOP’s support for the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, introduced in the House last week by Rep. Dan Lundgren of California. Mehlman made it clear that he supports the amendment. “I don’t think it’s anti-gay,” said Mehlman. “I don’t think the intent is to be anti-anything.”
Members of the Cleveland Log Cabin Republicans attending the dinner expressed disappointment that Mehlman evaded questions about his sexuality. "He almost said it," one pouted. The above-linked story notes no such LCR regret about Mehlman's support for permanently enshrining anti-gay legislation in the motherfucking federal Constitution.

joemygod
 

Repulsive Anti-Gay Quisling Homophobic Scumbag Asshat Closeted Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman Has Come Out

Maybe the $4M loft he bought in gay gay gay Chelsea this summer did (or more likely, brought) the trick, as Mike Rogers reports today that repulsive 2004 Dubya campaign manager and former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman is about to come out. [UPDATE: It's official. See update at the bottom of this post.]

In 2004 Steve Schmidt (then the Republican National Convention spokesman and later the McCain campaign's senior strategist) lied to me when I asked him point blank about Mehlman. "Ken Mehlman is not gay," he proclaimed. In 2006, Mehlman told the New York Daily News, "I am not gay, but those stories did a number on my dating life for six months." It's so nice to be proven right, me that is, not Ken. If this move doesn't call for a Roy Cohn Award, I don't know what does. Ken Mehlman is horridly homophobic and no matter how orchestrated his coming out is, our community should hold him accountable for his past.

As we saw with Jim McGreevy, many gay leaders will attempt to elbow themselves to the front of the line to say on cable TV how wonderful it is that Ken is now being honest with the American people. Someone will be quoted in the New York Times saying something like, "After so many years of working for the Republicans, it's wonderful to see Ken be true to himself." Or perhaps you'll read a quote in the Washington Post about how "every gay person is on their own personal journey and we are happy Ken has decided to be so open about his personal struggle." Next up will come the book, then the TV shows, and of course the speaking tour. I'll only buy it if he is really sorry.

Mehlman's crimes against his own people are motherfucking LEGION. Mike Rogers continues:
So, how can Ken Mehlman redeem himself? I want to hear from Ken that he is sorry for being the architect of the 2004 Bush reelection campaign. I want to hear from Ken that he is sorry for his role in developing strategy that resulted in George W. Bush threatening to veto ENDA or any bill containing hate crimes laws. I want to hear from Ken that he is sorry for the pressing of two Federal Marriage Amendments as political tools. I want to hear from Ken that he is sorry for developing the 72-hour strategy, using homophobic churches to become political arms of the GOP before Election Day.
We can be sure that GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans are positively drooling over the prospect of welcoming Mehlman onto their boards of directors. VOMIT.

UPDATE: It's official. Here's Mehlman's statement.

"It's taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life. Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I've told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they've been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago. I wish I was where I am today 20 years ago. The process of not being able to say who I am in public life was very difficult. No one else knew this except me. My family didn't know. My friends didn't know. Anyone who watched me knew I was a guy who was clearly uncomfortable with the topic."
Read the entire story on the Atlantic. Andy Towle is reporting that Mehlman has already agreed to chair a "major anti-Prop 8 fundraiser" for Americans For Equal Rights, Ted Olson and David Boies' outfit. Gee thanks, shitbag. That's like offering to help rebuild a house when YOU were the fucker that helped BURN IT DOWN.

Biggest asshat to come out yet
 

From joemygod

Wednesday, August 25, 2010
FLASHBACK: 21 States Banned Same-Sex Marriage During Mehlman's Reign

During Ken Mehlman's reign as Dubya's campaign manager and afterwards during his tenure as chairman of the Republican National Committee, 21 states passed laws that banned same-sex marriage. Some of these laws made same-sex marriage unconstitutional, some made both civil unions and same-sex marriages unconstitutional. All of these anti-gay referenda took place from 2004-2006 and all of them were pushed by the GOP under Ken Mehlman (and with Karl Rove's strategic advice) as a ploy to ensure conservative turnout at the polls. If you live in any of the 21 states listed below, you can credit your second class citizenship, in part, to fellow homosexual Ken Mehlman.


Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Orgeon
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin


Are you feeling very forgiving right now? ARE YOU?

Mehlman should be shunned. This is of course only my opinion, but I have to tell you most queer people are not going to welcome him as a peer.

I personally felt like vomiting when I saw his "coming out".

It says "male and female person" (as I read it), did I miss something? (f)

I mis-read. And I read it twice! That's what late night/end of the day will getcha! LOL - Thanks for clarifying.

BTW - I get your opinion on Mehlman and respect how you feel. My knee-jerk reaction is similar; however, I am choosing to take the position of how I wouldn't want others judging me.

I think we all have things in out pasts that we are not proud of - of doing harm/injustice to others. I would hope that we can believe that people are capable of change and that every day is an opportunity to live a worthy life.

I can't imagine how he can sleep at night, but, for me and me only, I sleep better not in wrapping up in the "he shoulda, coulda, woulda" and hope that he shall, can and will.

I have been pretty impressed that this thread has maintained a positive note even when sometimes we have faced set backs in this struggle.

I don't think taking help from a" late comer" is a bad thing. I recall a time when queer folk "shunned" late comers ( like women who had lived as a married heterosexual with kids and the picket fence). I think a part of our practicing a greater understanding an acceptance of one another needs to extend to this guy. MANY MANY queers led lives quite similar to this guy. Where do we end the hate and blaming? When do we stop being suspect of anyone who makes such a change in their lives?

Yep. I totally get the frustration, but I would much rather spend my energy fighting the Evangelical Churches ( of every religion) than fighting someone who has come out and now supports us. It isn't just old tired white Christians.
All of the Evangelical zealots would have us banned.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-mnf4Ti-Yk&feature=related"]YouTube- Gay Marriage Must Be Stopped!!..Rabbi Levin & Hispanic Evangelicals.[/nomedia]

Hi Keri,
I usually try to keep updated from the Prop8 Trial Tracker. They seem to be the most up to the minute source for what is happening in Cali.

Here is todays update:

http://prop8trialtracker.com/

Hope that link proves helpful to you!

In a nutshell....9th Circut court of appeals has continued the stay (no same-sex marriages) until the court can rule on standing, which it will do the week of 12/6. The info IS in the Prop 8 rial Tracker, but it is so far back it might take you days to find it. (f)

For iamkeri1
 

Share |
View All News
9th Circuit Ruling on Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
AUGUST 16, 2010
“Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.
The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.”

NYC CLERK NOW REQUIRED TO INFORM GAY COUPLES OF STATES WHERE THEY CAN BE LEGALLY MARRIED (UNLIKE NY)
 

Over Time, a Gay Marriage Groundswell
 

From earlier this week....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/we...e_sex_marriage

Tasmanian LGBT activists welcome recognition of Interstate and overseas same-sex unions
 

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/31...me-sex-unions/


Tasmanian LGBT activists welcome recognition of Interstate and overseas same-sex unions
By Christopher Brocklebank • August 31, 2010 - 15:52


Same-sex civil unions made overseas will now be automatically recognised in Tasmania

No Comments Yet on Tasmanian LGBT activists welcome recognition of Interstate and overseas same-sex unions

236
Share Legislation has been passed by the State Lower House in Tasmania which will allow same-sex couples in interstate or overseas unions to be automatically recognised under Tasmanian law without the need to re-register their status.

Tasmanian LGBT activists have welcomed the move. Couples in Tasmanian Deeds of Relationship (a form of civil partnership) are already recognised in other states of the Australian Commonwealth and in some overseas countries, and reciprocal recognition of couples will bring significant benefits to those travelling in, or relocating to, Tasmania.

Rodney Croome, spokesperson for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group said: "Couples in Tasmanian Deeds of Relationship have benefited in a range of areas from being recognised in places like the UK and New Zealand, and couples coming to Tasmania will benefit in similar ways when their unions are recognised here.

"For example, if a same-sex couple in an interstate or overseas union is travelling in Tasmania and one partner is taken ill, the other can rest assure they will automatically be considered next-of-kin.

"A couple in an existing union relocating to Tasmania can also rest assured their relationship will be respected without the need for a long and costly re-registration process."

An amendment banning the recognition of overseas same-sex marriages as Tasmanian Deeds of Relationship, as proposed by State Liberal Michael Ferguson, has been voted down. Had it been passed, only civil partnerships made overseas would have been recognised in Tasmania. Mr Croome labelled the now-defeated proposition "inconsistent".

He added: "Overseas same-sex marriages are already recognised in Australia by Federal Government agencies like the Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Immigration, and by numerous large corporations from Telstra, through QANTAS to the Commonwealth Bank, so it extreme and inconsistent to say they should not be recognised as Deeds of Relationship in Tasmania.

"It would also be inconsistent and overly-harsh to recognise couples who made civil unions vows in Auckland or London, but then to tell same-sex couples married in, say, Vancouver or Madrid, that their solemn vows mean nothing in Tasmanian law."

From Sam Stein- Huffpo
 

Steve Schmidt, Former McCain Campaign Chief, On Mehlman Fundraiser: Same-Sex Marriage Becoming Conservative Cause

A major same-sex marriage fundraiser hosted by former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman and other Republicans provides one of the sharpest illustrations of how gay rights is becoming a cause among more elite, establishment members of the GOP.

In addition to Mehlman, who recently announced that he was gay, the list of attendees includes several surprises, such as Ben Ginsburg, one of the Republican Party's top lawyers, and Henry Kravis and Paul Singer, two of the biggest donors to the GOP. According to one gay-rights activist involved in similar efforts, the fundraising pool goes even deeper.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/197367/INVITATION.jpg

"There is a strong conservative case to be made in favor of gay marriage," former McCain campaign manager and fellow same-sex marriage fundraiser Steve Schmidt told the Huffington Post on Tuesday. "Marriage is an institution that strengthens and stabilizes society. It is an institution that has the capacity to bring profound joy and happiness to people and it is a matter of equality and keeping faith of one of the charters of the nation, the right to live your life.

"More and more conservatives are saying that opposition to gay marriage would not be a litmus test for membership in the GOP," Schmidt added. "And more conservatives are making the case that no more do you want big government conservatives in the bedroom than big government liberals telling you how to live your life."

To be sure, the Mehlman fundraiser is not entirely a Republican-driven affair. Some of the big names on the ticket are Democrats, including former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta.

But reading through the list of attendees, it's remarkable to see how many prominent conservatives are not just comfortable associating with the gay-rights cause but are eager to fundraise for it. Pair that with rumblings from elsewhere in the party (most notably from Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels) that conservatives should have a "truce" on social issues for the time being and the frictions within the GOP tent become even more apparent.

If anything, the hostility between the social conservative element of the party and those less adherent to that doctrine is already palpable. As one prominent Republican who supports gay rights put it:

"I think there is a growing mass of people in Republican politics who are fundamentally sick and tired about being lectured to about morality and how to live your life by a bunch of people who have been married three or four times and are more likely to be seen outside a brothel on a Thursday night than being at home with their kids... There is a fundamental indecency to the vitriol and the hatred directed against decent people because of their sexuality. People have reached a critical mass with this."

Ironic that a church is filing suit, overlooking separation of church and state?
 

Legal group seeks to compel state to defend Proposition 8

By Lisa Leff
Associated Press
Posted: 08/31/2010 05:27:31 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO -- A conservative legal group is trying to force Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend California's gay marriage ban in court.

The Pacific Justice Institute petitioned the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento on Monday for an emergency order that would require the two officials to appeal a ruling that overturned Proposition 8.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the voter-approved measure as unconstitutional last month.

Its sponsors have appealed. But doubts have been raised about whether they have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.

The state has until Sept. 11 to challenge Walker's ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Both Brown and Schwarzenegger, who also refused to support Proposition 8 in Walker's court, have said they do not plan to.

The institute is arguing that as the state's chief law enforcement officer, Brown does not have discretion to defend only laws with which he personally agrees.

And because the California Constitution gives the governor final say when he and the attorney general disagree on legal matters, Schwarzenegger must be compelled to file an appeal to preserve Proposition 8 as well, the group's lawsuit states.

"To allow an elected official to trump the will of the people by mere inaction and the lack of fulfillment of their duty to do their job would be an egregious violation of public trust," Brad Dacus of the Pacific Legal Institute said Tuesday.

The institute brought its motion on behalf of Joshua Beckley, pastor of Ecclesia Christian Fellowship church in San Bernardino.

Brown has said both in legal filings and public statements that he has sworn to uphold the state and federal constitutions and therefore can not defend Proposition 8 because he thinks it is an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians' civil rights.

"The attorney general does not believe that he can be forced to prosecute an appeal of a decision with which he agrees," Brown spokeswoman Christine Gasparac said Tuesday.

Court says gay couples can’t divorce in Texas

By The Associated Press
09.01.2010 9:00am EDT

(Dallas) A Texas appeals court says gay couples legally married in other states cannot divorce in Texas, where same-sex marriages are banned.

The 5th Texas Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that a Dallas judge didn’t have jurisdiction to grant a divorce to two Dallas men who wed in Massachusetts. The court also says Texas’ same-sex marriage ban is constitutional.

The state attorney general had appealed the district judge’s October ruling that granted the men a divorce and found the ban violates equal rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The Dallas men married in 2006 in Massachusetts and separated two years later. They’re referred to only as J.B. and H.B. in court filings.
An attorney for J.B. says they haven’t decided whether to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

Uh oh: Wyoming gay marriage case a con?

By Jennifer Vanasco, editor in chief, 365gay.com
08.30.2010 6:00pm EDT

The Billings Gazette is reporting that the two men who are suing for gay marriage in Wyoming have troubling backgrounds.

The couple, who are representing themselves, may not have actually applied for a marriage license; LezGetReal says they may not, in fact be gay, though it’s not clear what benefit they’d get from pretending to be, or from filing this suit.

From the Gazette:

For one thing, there’s a dispute over the basic facts of the case.
In the suit, Shupe-Roderick and Dupree allege that they went to the Laramie County Clerk’s office on Aug. 9 to apply for a marriage license, only to be turned down because they were a same-sex couple. In a subsequent media interview, Shupe-Roderick said they went to the clerk’s office two additional times and spoke with Laramie County Clerk Debbie Lathrop.

However, Lathrop, a defendant in the lawsuit, said neither she nor any of her staff has any recollection of the couple applying for a marriage license from her office.

Then there is the shady background of David Shupe-Roderick:

Gay-rights proponents are also concerned that the plaintiffs aren’t exactly a poster couple for their cause – especially David Shupe-Roderick, a convicted felon with a history of mental illness.
Shupe-Roderick, 25, served 4 years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary after he, his brother, and their two girlfriends left Cheyenne in a rental car in January 2004. When they didn’t return the rental car on time, the rental company contacted police. Two days later, Shupe-Roderick – then known as Gerald Shupe — was arrested in Arkansas after being pulled over for an illegal lane change.

After being sentenced, Shupe-Roderick unsuccessfully requested a reduction in his prison sentence on the grounds that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and wasn’t taking his prescribed medication when he took the rental car.

Shupe-Roderick is currently being prosecuted for falsifying state documents. Last October, he applied to become a notary public, and he allegedly certified on his application form that he wasn’t a convicted felon. The lawsuit also alleges Shupe-Roderick used a fake same-sex union certificate from Massachusetts to obtain a Wyoming driver’s license.

Shupe-Roderick has also been a plaintiff in court as frequently as he has been a defendant. Besides the gay marriage case, he’s filed five other lawsuits in the past three years. In one, he accused prison guards of sexual misconduct, and in another, he accused a would-be business client of assault and breach of contract. He has also sought $16,398 in loans and debts from his former employers/roommates and asserted that Bank of America unlawfully refused to release $5,107 from his bank account. All of those cases were eventually dropped or dismissed.

The Gazette says that Shupe-Roderick expected this to be a quiet lawsuit and has been surprised at the attention it has received.

Do you live in Wyoming? Do you have more information on the couple? Let us know in the comments…

NOM's ugly ad:



A point by point takedown of NOM's ad:

APPLE INC. owner supports equal marriage
 

This just in...
 

(f)SuperFemme, I'm not criticizing you for posting this - it is interesting info to have, this is just my take on the situation. (f)

The only thing that would disturb me about the background of either of these men would be if their case was dismissed because of their being frequent law suit filers. One way or another, filing the case brings attention to the inequity of the situation in Wyoming.

Jane Roe, the un-named plaintiff in Roe vs Wade (the case that made abortion legal in the United States,), later became a right-to-lifer and worked to get Roe vs Wade rescinded. I'm sorry if she later came to regret her choice, but in my very pragmatic viewpoint, she served her purpose in that case. What she decided to do later did not matter.

Whether these guys are gay or not, I don't care. I also don't care whether they lied about applying for and being turned down for a license (is the clerk alleging that she WOULD have issued them a license had they applied? - I don't think so.) I also don't care about their mental health status, as long as neither of them have been declared incompent. The point is, same sex marriage is illegal in Wyoming, and they are working to get that changed. They may not be the perfect couple to take on this challenge. I'm sure the state of Wyoming would try to besmirch the reputation of Jesus Christ himself if he was a litigant in this suit. By the way, did he and John the beloved apostle ever file for domestic partnership? - can't seem to remember, LOL)

If we can welcome support from Ken Mehlman, then we should be able to welcome it from a guy with a history of manic depression. Are other folks with manic depression denied marriage licenses? If not, then they should give one to this guy no matter how shady he is, as long as he is single.

As Christian like to say..."we're not perfect, we're just forgiven", I want to be able to say "We're not perfect either, but we do have the right to get married"

That's my take on it any way.
Smooches,
Keri

I dang sure don't want a big fat hypocrite like Ken Mehlman supporting any LGBTQI cause. He is a traitor. I don't welcome anything from him. I know I am not the only one in this community who feels this way.

I could care less about manic depression and marriage licenses. I do care that folks who are not gay are applying for marriage licenses. It just provides fodder for the right wing nuts. It sends a message that this is not about equal rights. In my mind it borders on mockery of equal rights.

From the Prop 8 Trail tracker
 

One of the reasons equal marriage is so necessary....me

Kafka and the National Organization for Marriage
(Over my first few weeks here on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, I’m going to reprint a few — just a few — prior entries from my blog at Waking Up Now. The story of Ron Hanby and Mark Goldberg is one that everybody ought to know. First, because it’s a wrenching story that should open all but the coldest of hearts. Second, because it shows we need full marriage equality on a national scale. And finally, because it demonstrates the nightmare world that NOM wants us to inhabit. — Rob)

by Rob Tisinai

Ron Hanby, struggling with depression, took his own life on October 2, 2008. Mark Goldberg, his partner of 17 years, battled Rhode Island bureaucracy for weeks before the state would release Ron’s body to him. Ron had no living relatives. The couple, however, did have:

wills
living wills
power of attorney documents
and a Connecticut marriage certificate (Rhode Island doesn’t permit same-sex marriage or even civil unions)
None of that mattered in Rhode Island. Mark spent every day of his immediate grief on the phone with state officials, trying to get his husband’s body out of the morgue. Finally, after four weeks, a state bureaucrat took a special interest and helped him get Ron’s body released.

One good thing came out of this: Rhode Island’s state legislators wrote a bill creating funeral rights for domestic partners. They passed it in a bipartisan show of humanity: 63-1 in the House, unanimously in the Senate. And the Republican governor vetoed it.

Now the National Organization for Marriage is urging legislators not to override that veto. Chris Plante (executive director of NOM-RI), has written to them:

[T]he proposed legislation simply is not necessary… The right of any person, without regard to sexual preference or relationship to the decedent, to serve as a designated funeral-planning agent is already expressly guaranteed by Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4. That statute only requires a simple notarized form naming an agent.

Ah, yes, Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4. Of course. And what can we say in return except:

Thank you Mr. Plante!

We keep hearing that same-sex marriage isn’t necessary, that we can secure civil equality by visiting lawyers and drawing up contracts. That’s false, but people don’t always understand that. Luckily for us, Mr. Plante has taken this argument into the realm of satire: Mark and Ron had wills, power of attorney, and an actual marriage license? Simpletons! They should have known to go to a notary and designate each other as funeral planning agents, pursuant to R.I. Law 5-33.1-4!

Franz Kafka wrote this kind of satire. The term “Kafkaesque” describes a world in which “characters lack a clear course of action, the ability to see beyond immediate events, and the possibility of escape. The term’s meaning has transcended the literary realm to apply to real-life occurrences and situations that are incomprehensibly complex, bizarre, or illogical.”

Compare that to Mark’s own description of what his life turned into:

I called the Police to our home where the death occurred and in two hours they performed their investigation, offered their condolences, removed Ron’s body and left our house. No one offered any information on what I was to do next. No phone number to contact the detective in charge, no information on where they were taking Ron’s body, no information on what I as his partner for so many years should do next.

Ron had no next of kin other than me. I shared our Wills, Living Wills, Power of Attorney and Marriage Certificate to the Police Department, Medical Examiner’s Office and the Department of Health, but no one was willing to see these documents. The State Law stated that a two week search for next of kin must be done. The Medical Examiner’s office waited a full week before placing an ad in the Providence Journal. After no one responded they waited another week to send paperwork to the Health and Human Services Department listing Ron as an unclaimed body. During this four week process, I was on the phone every day trying to convince someone, anyone, that I was the person claiming Ron’s body. The same response came back to me every time; “It’s State law, our hands are tied, there’s nothing we can do”.

I attempted to place an obituary in the Providence Journal and again, I was denied because we were not blood relatives, and the Journal had to comply with state rules. GLAD, the Gay and Lesbian Advocacy and Defenders could not help me because our bond was not recognized in the State of RI. After four weeks an employee in the Department of General Public Assistance of Human Services took pity upon me and my plight. She reviewed our documentation and was able to get all parties concerned to release Ron’s body to me.

Mr. Plante and NOM look at this nightmare and say, No problem. Because, after all, Mark and Ron could have avoided it simply by following the instructions in Rhode Island Law 5-13.1-4.

I’ll make a deal with NOM: If they specify every law, every form, and every contract – in every state – that gay couples need to pursue in order to secure their rights as a couple, than I’ll do the same for straights. In fact, I’ll provide a complete and exhaustive list for straight Californians right now:

California Marriage License, Registration and Ceremony Information
Okay, NOM, your turn.

But I doubt NOM will return the favor. They don’t want us to have any rights and benefits of marriage. Mr. Plante is clear about his reasons for opposing the funeral rights law.

[T]he legislation in question is actually an exploitation of Mr. Goldberg’s tragedy by the homosexual-marriage activists in Rhode Island. Despite their claims to the contrary, these bills serve simply as “Trojan Horses” for homosexual-marriage. In California and Connecticut…courts found that when rights of domestic partners, under either that nomenclature or as “civil-unions,” were expanded…that the State must by extension fully recognize homosexual marriage…

As such, NOM – Rhode Island respectfully requests that you vote to sustain the Governor’s veto both to avoid creating unnecessary law and to not move Rhode Island closer to recognizing homosexual-marriage.


NOM doesn’t just oppose marriage equality. They don’t just oppose robust civil unions or watered-down domestic partnerships. They oppose anything that might constitute even the slightest formal recognition of our relationships. They want instead to send us running down a thousand different legal avenues in a labyrinth that they’re lobbying to turn against us.

Franz Kafka won a place in literature by creating a vivid and chilling world of bureaucratic brutality. That’s the world in which NOM wants us to live.

Infuriating.

Ditto on Ken DOMA Mehlman.

Your last paragraph is exactly why I chose to post the article. It makes a mockery out of the thousands of us in honest, real long term relationships/marriages that want only one thing: equal rights under the law.

In this crazy mad world, my mind goes places it normally wouldn't. Like two straight men filing this case in hopes of taking it to court and perhaps settling it in a way that is disparaging to same sex couples? Which puts precedent on the law books.

Wolves in sheeps clothing are not imaginary beings.