NEWS OF: 7/19/2006

Marriage: One Man and One Good Looking Woman

The weekly attempt to ban gay marriage via constitutional amendment went down to defeat in the house this week by a 236-187 vote — 47 short of the 2/3 majority required to advance the measure further.

The proposal’s failure may stem from attempts to define marriage as a union between “one man and one good-looking woman” to “kill two birds with one stone” as one representative (who wished to remain anonymous) added with a wink.

The Senate already defeated the measure which will be resubmitted in both House and Senate next Tuesday.

technorati tags, ,

NEWS OF: 7/7/2006

So this Gay Guy from Georgia Marries this New York Dyke…

VIEW ALL: Gay Marriage

d’OH! The New York Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court have ruled that marriage in those states will be defined as between a man and a woman. A born-man and born-woman. None of this sex-change shenanigans, mind you. And no cross-dressing either.

What if two gay people marry of the opposite sex… is that a gay marriage? Damn. Get the lawyers back in here.

Thank God this issue was finally addressed. North Korea testing nuclear weapons? Global warming? War in Iraq? Oh, please. That’s nothing compared to gay marriage. As soon as queer people get married? The bottom will drop out of every other marriage between God-fearing Christians like a wet grocery bag overstuffed with half-gallons of Breyer’s on a hot summer day.

technorati tags

NEWS OF: 6/7/2006

Gay Marriage Ban Fails

VIEW ALL: Gay Marriage

Through a procedural vote, the Senate rejected the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, 49-48. 67 votes, a two-thirds majority, are required to pass a constitutional amendment. See NPR

technorati tags

NEWS OF: 6/6/2006

Married Faggots Burning a Flag

VIEW ALL: Gay Marriage

There’s nothing more upsetting than the nightmarish possibility of ennobling a long-term committed lesbian or gay relationship by calling it a “marriage.” Who cares if two women have lived together for 20 years… bought a house… raised children… shoveled snow in the winter… planted tulips in the fall…paid their taxes and lived next door to you. How dare they aspire to be so… normal?

George Bush, in a desperate attempt to re-court the right-wing base, is pushing both a constitutional amendment to ban marriage to gay people and another to make flag burning a felony. Don’t even get him started on the topic of gay couples burning flags.

Of course, there are plenty of laws on the books already disallowing and disavowing gay marriage at the state level, where discrimination has been customized to reflect greater intolerance (anywhere in the South) or tolerance (West Coast, Northeast.)

Legally, the right to “marry” is defined as a “basic human right to marry a person of one’s choice.'’ Bans on same sex marriages are unconstitutional and violate the separation of church and state.

Loving vs Virginia was the 1967 legal challenge to interracial marriage that broke a ban dating back to the 1600s. Religious activists and politicians argued at the time that God made the races separate for a reason and therefore they were not meant be mixed.

In other words, if you want to ban gay marriage? You should ban interracial marriage… and probably outlaw marriage between different ethnic groups. It’s the same argument.

Maine’s Senators say they oppose the Bush amendment as unnecessary unless the courts strike down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. It appears that the measure is headed toward defeat.

technorati tags

NEWS OF: 6/5/2006

Bush Plays Smear the Queer to Distract Public from Country in Ruins

With approval ratings in the toilet, President Bush is fanning the fires of intolerance, calling for an amendment to ban gay marriage - a popular topic among neoconservatives (as was banning interracial marriage a few years earlier.)

Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said the debate over a constitutional amendment is meant to “divide our society, to pit one against another.” Meanwhile, the Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative gay Republican group, condemned the president’s rhetoric and actions as an effort to ‘insert discrimination’ in the US Constitution.

technorati tags

NEWS OF: 1/20/2006

Gay Ban on Taxes, er, Marriage

VIEW ALL: Gay Marriage

Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Brooke Murdock has ruled that a 1973 statute that defines marriage as between a man and a woman violates the state constitution. There is no ban on gay marriage that is constitutional - not on a state nor federal level. All Americans are entitled to the same rights, period. And that’s in the Declaration of Independence. Denying these rights for any reason is unconstitutional.

That doesn’t mean this country will follow the Constitution. We have a long history of denying rights to women, Blacks, Native Americans. But we could at least be sporting. If we can’t stop ourselves from denying “marriage” to a portion of the tax paying population, thereby violating laws governing “taxation without representation” the very least we can do is give gay and lesbian Americans a refund by including on the 1040 form a small checkbox. If you check off the “I am gay/lesbian” checkbox, you get a complete refund of your Federal Income Taxes.

technorati tags

NEWS OF: 12/1/2005

Lesbian Ladies No. 1 Dectective Agency?

VIEW ALL: Gay Marriage

The highest court of South Africa ruled that the continued exclusion of same-sex couples from legal marriage violate two provisions of the national Constitution when considered in combination: (a.) the requirement of equality before the law and (b.) the ban on sexual orientation discrimination by the government. Which means South Africa is now officially more progressive than the United States. See the Times Record

NEWS OF: 11/10/2005

One Man, One Woman - One Time Only

VIEW ALL: Gay Marriage

“Though we are disappointed in the vote on Question 1, we remain committed to marriage as the beautiful and loving union between a man and a woman,” said Pastor Sandy Williams, chairman of the Coalition for Marriage. To that end, Pastor Williams and others are spreading that loving message by pressuring the Legislature to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

We’d like to suggest that if they truly feel that strongly about it, they make sure that the constitutional amendment defines marriage as “one man, one woman — one time.”

Currently, marriage IS “one man and one woman” which means that any law or constitutional change is unnecessary. But making divorce illegal? That puts a little starch in the law. Or simply define the first marriage between a man and a woman as a “marriage” (for all those biblical reasons) and any subseqent marriages as “civil unions.”

If this effort does not change the nature of heterosexual marriage? It’s nothing more than harassment of gay and lesbian citizens.

Speaking of harassment, as recently as 1964 a Virginia court declared interracial marriage a crime, again invoking the almighty:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangements there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

That’s “inductive reasoning” (or bass-ackwards…) In 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned all state bans on interracial marriage, declaring that the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans. By that legal definition? Gay and lesbian couples qualify.

See Maine Morning Sentinel

NEWS OF: 6/9/2005

Gay Casino Abortions…

Gay marriage is temporarily dead… just like its heterosexual cousin. This latest effort to rewrite the constitution was sponsored by Rep. Brian Duprey, the Hampden republican who also brought us the “gay fetus abortion bill.” Is Duprey working a theme to death? Tune in next session for his “gay turnpike widening” and “gay casino gambling” bills.

Meanwhile, the Christian Civic League supported the constitutional one-man, one-woman marriage bill, though Executive Director Michael Heath could not understand why legislators would “claim” that marriage is important, yet would be unwilling to include Genesis or Leviticus in the Maine constitution. See Press Herald

Find it fast

subscribe to the podcast