Same sex marriage
 

I wanted to share a link with you of a very wonderfil wedding chappel that does legal same sex marriages. True that it isn't legal and standing in other states when you return..But...It does give the couple the chance to have a real wedding and if one partner wants a name change...to have that done as well.
The packages they have are very affordable as well,

CLICK HERE TO SEE:


http://ctlgbtlaw.files.wordpress.com...x-marriage.jpg



http://ctlgbtlaw.files.wordpress.com...x-marriage.jpg

same sex marriage
 

Sorry I left wrong link here is the right one! For the chappel...It's nice!!!

http://www.iowasamesexweddings.com/

Haha check this out:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gi...0720..1&v=info

The 1,000,000 Gay Men and Allies Against Roy Ashburn Having Sex Ever Again
:superfunny::huhlaugh: :p :thumbsup: :giggle: :spit:

GLAD- Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders are collecting DOMA Stories, if anyone is interested in reading them or contributing their story:

http://www.glad.org/doma/stories

Yays
 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSKcq5U_MLs"]YouTube- First Same-Sex Marriage in DC[/ame]

Remarkably brave women:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...xid=yahoo-feat

TOO 'Effin CUTE!
 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjPgnDT-2Sg&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- HUSBANDS AND HUSBANDS[/ame]

ACLU OF PA PRAISES SENATE COMMITTEE FOR VOTING DOWN MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 16, 2010

HARRISBURG- The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee today voted against legislation to amend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania hailed the vote as a victory for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community in the commonwealth.

"The efforts to embed discrimination against LGBT people into our constitution have failed for a third time," said Andy Hoover, legislative director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, citing failed attempts to pass similar legislation in 2006 and 2008. "This committee today recognized that LGBT people are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends, and our family members and that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect."

Senate Bill 707, introduced by Senator John Eichelberger of Blair County, was tabled by an 8-6, bipartisan vote of the committee. Although Senate rules allow the bill to be considered again at any time, Hoover noted that it is unlikely that the bill will be brought up before the end of the 2010 legislative session.

"This vote today spoke loud and clear," Hoover said. "Members want to move on and address truly pressing issues for the people of Pennsylvania."

Committee members who voted for the motion to table SB 707 included Republicans Pat Browne, Jane Earll, and Mary Jo White and Democrats Daylin Leach, Lisa Boscola, Wayne Fontana, Michael Stack, and Jay Costa.

Repeal: FAIL
 

From Joe.My.God.-

Marriage Repeal Fails In New Hampshire

The attempt to place a marriage equality repeal resolution before every town council in New Hampshire has been judged a failure after an overwhelming majority of the state's municipalities refused to take part or voted the resolution down. Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) exults via press release:

New Hampshire citizens this month said no to an anti-equality campaign to create pressure for a statewide vote on marriage equality through non-binding resolutions at town meetings. Of the 139 communities that have considered these resolutions, a clear majority of 80 towns (57.6%) have rejected it. Another 86 communities did not discuss the anti-marriage petition at their town meetings. Nine more towns will take up the issue in the coming months. “We are thrilled that legislators and New Hampshire’s citizens have not wavered in their support for the equality of all families,” said GLAD staff attorney Janson Wu. “Finally, New Hampshire can move on to more pressing issues, like jobs and the economy.”
:LGBTQFlag:

This is the big one!
 

GLAD’s DOMA Challenge Heads to Court May 6


April 08, 2010
On Thursday, May 6, 2010, the Federal District Court in Boston will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, brought by GLAD in March 2009.

The hearing will address the central issue of the case – is DOMA constitutional? –six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, the result of GLAD’s groundbreaking marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

Arguing before U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers will be Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. Bonauto was the lead attorney in Goodridge.

As a result of DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, plaintiffs in GLAD’s lawsuit have been harmed in various ways, including denial of survivor benefits on a deceased spouse’s pension; denial of health insurance coverage for a spouse on a federal family plan; denial of Social Security death and widower benefits; and the payment of extra federal income taxes due to the inability to file jointly as married.

In opposing the government’s Motion to Dismiss and arguing in favor of the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, GLAD will assert that DOMA Section 3 violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection as applied to federal income taxation, Social Security benefits, and federal employee and retiree benefits.

The Washington Post has called Gill “at once restrained and daring… potentially revolutionary.” The National Law Journal says Gill “could be the gay marriage test with the greatest national impact.”

Information about the case, the plaintiffs, and the attorneys representing them can be found at www.glad.org/doma.

Hearing Details

Gill et a.l v. Office of Personnel Management et al.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
10:30 a.m. EST
John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse

For more information, or for interviews with plaintiffs or attorneys, contact Carisa Cunningham at (617) 426-1350 or ccunningham@glad.org.

From GLAD
http://www.glad.org/doma

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/e...eedom-to-marry



http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/e...eedom-to-marry

Rock for Equality
 

From the LosAngelesTimes:

By Ruben Vives
April 12, 2010

State and local officials joined hundreds of people outside the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center in Hollywood on Sunday morning to kick off a national grass-roots campaign demanding equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.

The rally and march -- dubbed Rock for Equality -- was put together by the center and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in conjunction with the Aids Community Action Foundation, said Jim Key, a spokesman for the center.

At the rally, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Lakewood), who is a member of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, announced that she would sponsor legislation to provide equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.

"I don't think it's right that Americans should be treated differently by the country they love because of who they love," she said, triggering thunderous applause and cheers from the crowd.

"Right now, same-sex marriage couples pay equally into a system that they don't receive equal benefits from in return," Sanchez told the crowd. "Shame on this country for allowing that to happen."

As of now, people in same-sex relationships are denied Social Security survivor benefits from their deceased partners because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships as valid relationships.

Sanchez's bill calls for the Social Security Administration to recognize those civil unions or domestic partnerships as valid relationships for the purpose of disbursing survivor benefits that heterosexual couples with a marriage certificate now receive.

"I'm saying to the Social Security Administration, this must stop," Sanchez said.

Rep. Judy Chu (D-El Monte), who also attended the event, offered to coauthor the bill.

"In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act as a law to protect the elderly from poverty. It was a great moment, but the act wasn't perfect," Chu told the crowd.

"In 1966, members of the armed services were added. In 1983, federal employees were added. And, in the year 2010, that will be the year people from the LGBT community will be added," she said.

About 700 people -- young, middle age and old -- attended the rally, including Maria Garcia, 44, of North Hollywood, who had arrived an hour early with her 23-year-old son, Philip Garrelts, who is gay.

"Every mother should do this for her children," she said. "There should be equal rights for everyone."

Holding a cup of coffee in one hand and a dog leash in the other, Diem Tran, 29, of West Hollywood brought her dog, Mochi, to the rally.

"Same-sex couples should get Social Security benefits," Tran said. "It's different from the marriage argument -- this is more about a need for economic equality."

Shortly after the rally, supporters holding up signs and rainbow and American flags marched down Hollywood Boulevard, past tattoo and souvenir shops, and then down Vine Street to the Social Security Administration office chanting, "Equal rights, now."

ruben.vives@latimes.com

Times staff writer Corina Knoll contributed to this report.

Everyone is excited about Obama's directive granting lgbtq couples hospital/medical rights, and of course it's a very good thing, but I'm not so sure it signals any real support for legitimizing queer couples or same-sex marriage in the long run.

NYT article link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/us...7hospitals.htm

Same sex partners decide medical!!!
 

Why only marriage will protect us...
 

Cross posting this on same " Obama sets regs for gays to "visit" in hospitals".... I think it is very important for us to realize that until we really are treated "equally", this sort of thing can and will continue to happen.

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sono...couple_and.php

Here's an interesting twist
 

Maybe people will eventually realize that "equal" means equal. Nothing less. Nothing more.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5255991,00.html

Very interesting. I remember years ago when Vermont was the first U.S. state to grant civil unions, some straight couples tried to apply and were turned away. Civil Marriages were then adopted before the issue could play out and civil unions were discontinued. Should be interesting to see how this works out ultimately in places where heterosexuals sue for civil union equality. Thank you for posting!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8376937.stm

Presbyterian Church charges Northern California minister over gay weddings


Associated Press

Posted: 03/29/2010 01:43:55 PM PDT
Updated: 03/29/2010 01:43:56 PM PDT


SANTA ROSA — A retired Presbyterian minister in Northern California is again facing charges she violated church law when she officiated at the weddings of gay couples.

The Rev. Jane Spahr, 67, was acquitted two years ago of similar charges when the church's top court found that she did not violate denominational law because the ceremonies she performed were not real marriages.
But this time, the same-sex marriages at issue were legal in California. The 16 weddings were performed in 2008 before voters banned the unions with the passage of Proposition 8.

Spahr's lawyer, Scott Clark, said it's unprecedented that the church is trying to sanction a minister for performing legal marriages.

The prosecution counters, however, that while the marriages may have been legal under state law, they were "expressly prohibited" by the church.
The case hinges on "a narrow issue of church law," said prosecutor JoAn Blackstone, who added that the local presbytery committee that investigated the Spahr case found it didn't have "any wiggle room" in deciding to press charges.

"This isn't about her character," she said. "It's only about church law."
The constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. The church's Supreme Judicial Council has ruled that ministers can bless same-sex unions as long as the ceremonies are not called a marriage and don't mimic traditional
weddings.

The charges, formalized earlier this month, say Spahr "publicly, intentionally and repeatedly" violated church laws and "failed to further the peace, unity and purity of the church."

Spahr acknowledges the allegations and said she performed the weddings as a "matter of conscience."

"It's a real faith issue for me," she said. "I think I would be in jeopardy if I didn't do it."

Spahr, a lesbian who lives in San Francisco, used to lead a ministry for gay Presbyterians until she retired in 2007.

She faces sanctions ranging from public censure to a prohibition against performining ministerial duties, including marriages, Clark said. A trial on the new charges will likely take place in August or September.