Love Wins

March 5, 2010 at 11:10 am 126 comments

by Brian Leubitz

In Washington, DC, marriage equality is now the law of the District, with couples having applied for, and received their marriage licenses.  As Donald Marron says at the Christian Science Monitor: Love Wins!

The photos on the front page of the Washington Post are usually depressing. War, natural disasters, and other tragedies provide a seemingly endless stream of sad or horrifying images.

Not so this morning. When I picked up my paper, the images were joyful, depicting happy same-sex couples who were finally able to apply for marriage licenses in our nation’s capital. I went to the WaPo’s web site and discovered that it has a whole slide show of photos of happy couples. (

But, progress is not limited to Washington this week. In Minnesota, the Legislature is now taking up a series of bills to expand same-sex marriage rights.

On Monday, the Minnesota House held its first ever hearings into legalizing gay marriage in Minnesota. There are three bills that the House is considering but there will be no votes.

Still, the hearing for the Civil Justice Committee is stirring up a lot of emotion. The bills would recognize gay marriages in Minnesota and from other states.  The bill would eliminate the word marriage in state law and replace it will civil union contract. Gay and lesbian couples told the committee they lead normal lives but opponents called it immoral.

“With tippy cups and car seats and visits to pediatricians and bedtime stories. For people who are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with gay and lesbian families, what we have found over our many years of being parents, that folks hang out with us and find that we’re pretty much like everybody else that they know,” said same-sex marriage supporter Deborah Talen.(WCCO)

Progress may seem slow, but it’s happening. Every time somebody sees the full facts, they slowly understand what this issue is about. And every time that happens, we take a tiny step forward. There is no issue of justice remaining, the anti-equality camp has only fear left.

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

Trial Reenactment: Day 4 Parts I and II The Minnesota Hearings

126 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:16 am

    “the anti-equality camp has only fear left.”

    says a lot about them as people to respect yeah?…..<3…Ronnie

    • 2. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:19 am

      The band Rush said it well in the song “Witch Hunt:”

      Quick to judge,
      Quick to anger,
      Slow to understand
      Ignorance and prejudice
      And fear walk hand in hand…

      • 3. John  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:27 pm

        And the first verse of “Nobody’s Hero,” on a somewhat related note. One of my favorite songs of theirs overall, too.

        I knew he was different in his sexuality
        I went to his parties as a straight minority
        Never seemed a threat to my masculinity
        He only introduced me to a wider reality

    • 4. Ed-M  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:45 pm

      Ronnie, all they ever HAD was fear. Back in the ’40s and ’50s, anti-gay campaigns were referred to as “scares.”

    • 5. Felyx  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:50 pm

      They have only fear left…..that is why they scream all the louder….every new (gay) marriage that goes unpunished by “God” is like acid on their faces!!! It burns!! It burns!!

      That is why I tell you my friends, listen to the desparate cried of MG and AP and Brian Brownbugger and all those who sing “God” Hates the World and revel in their death throws!!

      Go beyond being offended and see what is really going on….religion, bad religion that offers nothing beneficial to the world, is dying. The real ‘God’ of us all is one of joy and freedom and happiness….we are meant to be this way. The extremists are fighting their last great battle and losing and it is teh Gayz that are the soldiers in this one.

      There will be other battles, the right to life AND death (for those who are forced to suffer), freedom from poverty etc. But this fight will break the back of the redikalous repugsive religulous Reich and their wiley worthless ways!!

      I want to celebrate and cheer! We will keep on fighting and when we win we will turn towards other even more subtle humanitarian causes!!

      I love you all! Felyx

  • 6. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:20 am

    I’m so glad that Congress and the Supreme Court refused to step in – I guess they decided to follow actual conservative principles for a change! ;-D

    Congratulations, all! Now, about what’s going on in Virginia….

    • 7. David Kimble  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:26 am

      I dunno, Virginia is so right-wing, it makes me gag! I have an aunt (mother’s sister) who lives there and appears content in her ignorance. <3 David

      • 8. Paul N  |  March 5, 2010 at 3:17 pm

        The saying goes that “ignorance is bliss”.

        But it isn’t.

        It is fear, distrust and hatred.

    • 9. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:09 pm

      Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but the battle isn’t entirely over in DC. We won this round, because none of the appeals courts (including the USSC) were willing to issue a stay, pending appeal.

      However, the legal question that was raised in DC has yet to be decided by the DC Court of Appeals.

      To reiterate earlier posts: As far as I can tell, the opponents are claiming that the DC Council’s passage of a law which limited the right of DC citizens to bring referenda and initiatives directly to the voters was an improper law. That is, opponents are saying that the right for direct voter action guaranteed by the DC Charter trumps the law the DC Council passed which said no such voter action is allowed if the the referendum or initiative would violate the District’s Human Rights Act.

      Justice Roberts’ order issued earlier this week, denying a request to stay the Marriage Equality Act, was very clear that he was not speaking to the merits of their claim, only that given all the circumstance, he didn’t think a stay was appropriate.

      It also appears that while the DC Court of Appeals likewise refused a petition for a stay, they have not yet ruled on the merits of the case. That ruling is still pending, meaning that if opponents ultimately win on the merits of their claim, an initiative could still be brought to the voters. And if such an initiative were successful, we could wind up with a situation similar to that in California where there are a group of ss couples who are married, and then the right to marry disappears.

      It appears that the DC Court of Appeals will likely hear this case in May. And, if opponents lose that appeal, they’ll likely appeal to the USSC. For anyone who wants to read about all the legal wrangling that’s gone one in this case, there’s a good summary here:

      It’s important to note that the legal challenges being brought by opponents in DC are very different than the questions being raising in the Prop 8 case. In DC, the lawsuit is a question about whether the DC Council had a right to amend its Charter in the way it did. So even if this case went all the way to the US Supreme Court and was decided in opponents’ favor, it would not answer the questions raised in the Perry case.

    • 10. JonT  |  March 5, 2010 at 8:38 pm

      Yeah, that is a little spooky. But you have to expect the haters to push wherever they can, just as we should. I assume you are speaking about: ?

      I wonder if he can actually do that – if so, then why the public ‘broadcast’? Why not just send the order on down the chain and be done with it? I think (hope) there is some legal/legislative room here for the universities to just ignore him.

      • 11. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2010 at 7:28 am

        This what i find insulting, JonT…..the universities told him STFU(not in so many words)…..again LGBTQQI Americans pay taxes like everybody else….since he is public official who works for the tax payers ALL OF THE TAXY PAYERS……his @$$ is ours…..and with this fu<ko of discrimination he is saying not only should young gay teens have a proper education but again shows that the Hateros want to re-criminalize LGBTQQI people…..Can somebody who lives in Vag!na(I mean Virginia) please hit him in the face with a paintball……<3…Ronnie

      • 12. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2010 at 7:31 am

        correction….he is saying that young gay teens cannot have a proper education….(echos of Black people should go to college and women should not have jobs)…..why can’t the hateros see that they are repeating history to the “T”…..unless they really do not know one fu<king thing about American history…..<3…Ronnie

      • 13. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2010 at 7:45 am

        geeze another typo…I have not had my coffee yet so bare with me…..(echos of Black people should not go to college and women should not have jobs)….and as in african/american/irish/dutch/canadian/french Gay man….I am PI$$ED and insulted by this fu<ko Hatero bigot swatzy…..<3….Ronnie

  • 14. tim  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:30 am

    It should be noted that Minnesota Supreme Court was the first court to rule against same-sex marriage (1971).

    There is a group called Project 515 that has been pushing a legislative agenda. The 515 refers to the number of laws that discriminate against same-sex couples. However – until Pawlenty is out of office – its doubtful anything will get done this year.

  • 15. M_A,B,Cx2,J,L,ox3 gggpis  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Congratulations to everyone concerns at last people who love each very much can now get married. If felons who are in can get married why same-sex couples who are paying taxes and not breaking any laws can not get married. It is a begoted and hateful policy when two couple who are in love ca not marry. I applaud the people in Washington, DC and the Supreme Court for passing the bill that same sex couple can get married. Thanx…

  • 16. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:42 am

    “The bill would eliminate the word marriage in state law and replace it will civil union contract.”

    Now, that’s a bit of an overreaction, but at least it is true — civil marriage recognized by the government is nothing but a civil union contract, we’ve been talking about that for like ever. It’s not really about the word “marriage,” it’s about the walls between gays and straights. Say “No!” to “Separate but Equal”! If straights’ civil union contract can be called marriage, then ours too! No walls! No fences! We’re in it together!

    –Kirill, Russia

    • 17. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:51 am

      I have friends who think the gay community is being silly for insisting on the word “marriage”; they say why not just call them civil unions, get all the same rights and be done with it. I point out the basic inequality in the “separate but equal” argument (and how we, as a country) have rejected that arguments in the past.

      I then suggest that ALL civil marriages be called Civil Unions and let the churches perform Marriages. It’s interesting watching the reaction of those who got married outside of church, when they realize their own union wouldn’t be called a marriage. All of a sudden they “get” it.

      Of course, in a practical sense, Minnesota’s solution won’t deny people the use of the name marriage – people can refer to their union in any way they choose — and there ARE churches who will happily and joyfully perform ss marriages.

      • 18. Felyx  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:59 pm

        I had mentioned that about England but Kirill had said it was otherwise….now that you say it I wonder…maybe Kirill and I were thinking of different things.


      • 19. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:52 pm

        My Scottish friend told me that their prominent gay rights organization Stonewall (yeah, I know, I know) is fighting for marriage equality… I think Joe is confused… Wikipedia clearly states that the UK does not recognize same-sex marriage, but they still have marriage, and Conservative Party makes promises to legalize SSM after elections if they are in majority.


      • 20. Felyx  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:57 pm

        I thought you had mentioned that.

        Joe’s first point is still a good one. Maybe one day THE WORLD will figure this out.


      • 21. Bob  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:13 pm

        this is a very interesting point, considering the legal team behind you, and the amount of exposure regarding religious resistance, it would be cool if they could take that fight all the way, to say no religion owns the word marriage, there is a defining line here, most of us have settled for civil unions and been happy we got that, but it’s definetly not equal. on the other hand maybe the right to the word marriage could be another fight, after we already all are.
        As I said before your particular fight over prop8 goes more to the heart of the matter than I’ve seen anywhere else.
        At the very least re-education and a middle ground of tolerance of civil unions helped settle the religious flap for us in Canada.

    • 22. Joe  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:26 pm

      I think you nail it right on the head there. This is very important that this is about civil marriage, completely separate from religious marriage.

      In England, they did much the same where they replaced marriage with civil unions for all couples, gay or straight. And then it can be solomized in a church, which they call it marriage. Everyone gets the same.

    • 23. Ed-M  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:55 pm

      Over on the conservative side of the fence, there is an increasingly number of people, led by Ron Paul, who believe government should get out of the marriage business and simply recognise any and all private marriage contracts (i.e., drawn up by a lawyer).

      • 24. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:21 pm

        Words are important.

        The Church does not, and never did, own the word “marriage”. Why should couples who were united in a civil ceremony not be allowed to use the term “married”?

      • 25. Kevin S.  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:14 pm

        If I understand Paul’s position correctly, he simply feels that instead of issuing marriage licenses, the government should simply recognize and defend private contracts. He feels people should be allowed to call those private contracts whatever they’d like.

      • 26. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 3:36 pm

        It does not matter what individuals call their relationships to each other. The important issue is how society and the government will see it. Marriage has numerous social an legal implications. Unless you have both society and the government recognizing it as a marriage, you have gained nothing.

      • 27. Kevin S.  |  March 5, 2010 at 3:42 pm

        The government’s recognition of the contract and the rights it guarantees would be equal, whether it came from a Catholic church or a secular agreement. The government wouldn’t call it anything – it would leave the nomenclature to the individual parties. I don’t personally feel the need for the government to completely divest itself from the marriage industry, but I do feel that whatever it does, it needs to treat everybody equally, and this solution would do that.

      • 28. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 7:29 pm

        It is not equal if it goes by a different name. People will always see it as different, and therefore will treat it as different.

        Don’t settle for half when victory is in sight.

      • 29. Kevin S.  |  March 5, 2010 at 8:22 pm

        I think there’s still a misunderstanding there. Religious couples get to call themselves married. Secular couples get to call themselves married. The state doesn’t call them anything, but protects their rights equally. I’m not seeing how that’s calling anything by a different name.

        Again, I don’t prefer this. The state’s been issuing marriage licenses for over a century, and I believe they should issue them equally. But if they aren’t going to issue them to everybody, they should issue them to nobody.

      • 30. Urbain  |  March 5, 2010 at 8:58 pm

        I happen to agree with the Libertarian view — all “civil marriages” are just that, civil. Call ’em all civil unions, whether gay or straight. Let churches call their ceremonies marriage. Here’s an analogy.

        * A baby is born. The state issues a birth certificate.
        The church conducts a baptism.

        * A person dies. The state issues a death certificate. The church conducts a funeral.

        * Two people get married. The state issues a civil union certificate. The church, whether it’s the LDS church, the Catholic church, or MCC, conducts the marriage in accordance with its doctrine.

        Mixing religion and government together just doesn’t work, as we are seeing.

      • 31. JonT  |  March 5, 2010 at 10:04 pm

        Oh come on Urbain, now your just using logic. Shame on you!


      • 32. cc  |  March 5, 2010 at 10:16 pm

        I fear if the government got out of the marriage business, a fierce retaliation against the LGBT community would take place. Soon we would hear shouts of “I knew gay marriage would open up another can of worms,” “Gays killed marriage…Are you happy know?” etc, etc. Harassment and violence would surly follow and I certainly don’t want to be there.

      • 33. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 10:29 pm

        What you want is a legal document in your hands which says that you are married. If you do not have such a document, people will still claim that you are not married.

        It is not just the state which needs to recognize your marriage: It is you family, your neighbors, your employer, your children’s schools, and your children. Many of them don’t give shit about a “civil union” or “domestic partnership”.

        Why should you settle for anything less than the state’s full recognition that you are married in name as well as fact?

        P.S. If you want a civil union, join the AFL-CIO. If you want a partnership, become a lawyer.

      • 34. Kevin S.  |  March 5, 2010 at 10:52 pm

        Who said the contract wouldn’t be a marriage contract? As I understand it, the only difference is the state wouldn’t be issuing the license – it would still be protecting the rights of the contract, and included in those rights is naming it marriage. It’s a question of whether the state’s job is simply to recognize or to regulate.

        cc, while I understand logic isn’t the anti-gay crowd’s strong point, if SSM was specifically the reason government got out of the marriage business (as opposed to a Paulian belief that the government shouldn’t do, well, anything), it would mean they took their ball and went home. If they put the kibosh on civil marriage because they didn’t want to share it, that’s hardly the LGBT movement’s fault, right?

      • 35. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:05 pm

        I don’t know what it’s like these day in England, but when I was married there in 1970, the government stayed out of church weddings all together, though they recognized them.

        To get married in the Church of England, you went to your local church, spoke to the Vicar, there was a “publication of the banns” (an announcement in the church on several sundays) and then after the wedding took place, the marriage was registered in the individual church’s own registry. We were given a copy of the registration for our own records; it was never required to get a license from the government, nor was the marriage listed with the government. The original record I was given served as proof of marriage, both in England, and in the USA when we returned here.

        It’s possible that this has changed and I read somewhere that now all of the marriages records that were once in the individual churches has now been gathered into a central location. But the point was, if you wanted a church wedding, it was completely separate from what the government offered, and the civil government had nothing to do with it.

      • 36. JonT  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:10 pm

        @cc: I fear if the government got out of the marriage business, a fierce retaliation against the LGBT community would take place.

        Yes, that’s probably true. But that’s happening even now.

        I think a majority of Americans would not really give a crap. Let the government operate without prejudice, let religious organizations operate *with* prejudice, if that is what they desire. I am not forced to abide their beliefs, am I? Oh wait, I guess I am :(

        The pattern of hatred always seems to follow a common progression throughout history. I really believe we will prevail.

        Frak em.

        I’m willing to deal with the turbulence that’s on it’s way.

  • 37. James  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    I’m all for removing the word “marriage” from civil law. If everyone can get a civil union or whatever, it is more fair. Leave “marriage” to the individual conscience.

    • 38. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:31 pm

      As long as you cannot say that you are legally married, the bigots will hold that against you.

      There are millions of people in this country who do not want to get married in a church, but they still want to use the designation “married”. Don’t take it from them.

  • 39. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    I think we need a song….yeah?…..<3…Ronnie:

    • 40. Felyx  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:13 pm

      Кирилл, я думаю о тебе, когда я слышу эту песню.

      Это заставляет меня плакать.

      Я хотел ты посвятить там эту песню в частном порядке.

      С любовью Феликс

      • 41. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:20 pm

        Thank you, Felyx!
        I WILL keep on dreaming and believing in a brand new life!
        With a brother like you, it’s all possible!
        And the sun will SHINE!
        Because LOVE always WINS!

      • 42. JonT  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:48 pm

        Kir: Оставаться сильным братом!

        Neat :)

  • 43. Richard W. Fitch  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    “Love Wins” 3/5/10

  • 44. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Ummmmmm…..I half to admit this maybe a little mean but….ummm…I’m interested in where it goes:,_Mormon_Church/

    Posted on March 05, 2010
    Roseanne Attacks Osmond, Mormon Church
    By Editors

    “In her blog entry titled “Marie Osmond’s Poor Gay Son Killed Himself,” comedian Roseanne Barr suggests the son of the popular entertainer committed suicide due to depression caused by the Mormon church over being a closeted gay man.”


    “Please don’t talk about how your faith in your church has helped you get through this one! ”


    • 45. Dave T  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:27 pm

      Seems a little harsh, but she’s absolutely right.

      • 46. Alan E.  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:04 pm

        When has Roseanne never said what’s on her mind?

    • 47. Ed-M  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm

      He said that he was feeling as if he had no friends and could never fit in.

      Could never fit in! Wow!! Sounds like a closeted gay Mormon to me. I wish he could have come out to his mom and found acceptance, if that was the case. having been in a cult-like fundamentalist church mtself, I know that when the hateros inveigh against homosexuality in church, it’s usually against gay male sex and sexuality! It’s as if they almost completely overlook lesbian sex and sexuality. And transgenderism does not even compute in their tiny two-divorced-cell brains!

      Now if he had come out to her and she couldn’t accept him being gay, all I have to say is WOW!!! The blindness on her part must have been phenomenal!!! For how can anyone who knows being lesbian is perfectly fine, natural and normal always, or at least should always, see the same thing about being gay!

    • 48. Ed-M  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:09 pm

      I have to fix the last sentence there. CC, can we have a preview function added to this website?

      For how can anyone who knows being lesbian is perfectly fine, natural and normal always, or at least should always, see ever fail to acknowledge the same thing about being gay!

      There. Fixed.

    • 49. JonT  |  March 5, 2010 at 9:00 pm

      Yeah – if your read her *whole* statement – it’s pretty damn good. I was like “Right On! – Tell it sister”. A shame that yet another (perhaps) gay dude killed himself because he couldn’t l deal with the haters :(

      I think that is very sad.

  • 50. Ben  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    I may actually have reason to be proud of my state! After producing such politicians as Bachmann, I had started to lose hope. Really, the replacement of marriage with a variation of civil union makes a great deal of sense to me, and I’ve advocated for the idea since I began formulating an opinion. What worries me, though, is the large number of out-state districts; while here in the Cities, it’s fairly liberal, one hits the suburbs and exurbs, and everything becomes conservative. That might be the largest conflict with achieving marriage equality.

    • 51. JQ  |  March 6, 2010 at 8:21 am

      I lived in the Cities last year and have since moved out near St. Cloud. The difference in opinion is palpable and a little frightening. It is shocking to see how far we have yet to go to change the minds and hearts of those ‘in the heartland’.

      PS. Bachmann is now my representative! Yikes.

  • 52. Alan E.  |  March 5, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    folks hang out with us and find that we’re pretty much like everybody else that they know

    Understatement of the year!

  • 53. Ray Harwick  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    Yesterday was also the first day in which gays and lesbians in Mexico City could get marriage licenses. That makes three North American capital cities where marriage equal is in effect (Ottowa, DC, Mexico City).

    Congratulations DC!!!!!

  • 54. Alan E.  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Ok you have to read the rest of the article. There is a priest that has a comment at the end (emphasis mine)

    “Same sex unions are not based on complimentarity between a man and a woman,” said Catholic priest Father Michael Becker. “They do not cooperate with God and plan for new life. They do not actually achieve a conjugal union. b>There’s no way for one in a homosexual act to give themselves completely and be received simultaneously.”

    • 55. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:42 pm

      He is entitled to his religious opinion. It’s no sillier than some other religious beliefs.

      The only problem is when somebody like him tries to force their beliefs on others. That violates freedom of religion.

    • 56. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:57 pm

      Daily Bible Passage Exodus 33:20-23

      But he added, “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live.” The LORD said, “Here is a place by me; you will station yourself on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and will cover you with my hand while I pass by. Then I will take away my hand, and you will see my back, but my face must not be seen.”

      God was speaking to Moses.
      The passage is proof that God must have a body. Otherwisew, what did Moses see?

      • 57. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:00 pm

        The Holy Ghost……..BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!…..<3…Ronnie

      • 58. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 7:33 pm

        The Holy Ghost has a face and body?

      • 59. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 7:40 pm

        He did in the movie “Ghost”….wait…no that was Patrick Swayze(RIP)


    • 60. Felyx  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:08 pm

      All y’alls got it wrong…here is what dat priest iz really sayin’…

      “Listen up y’all, it’s like dis, Man on top, woman on da bottom like God said to. And even if I ain’t NEVER HAD NO SEX alus dat I knowd iz dat teh gayz iz doin’ it all wrong!! Besides, I don’t need to have no sex to be an expert in what it means to ‘give completely and receive simultaneaously’. That part was jus’ ta gib y’all a reason to shut up and sit back down….not there, there’s a place in back for y’all!!!”

      Felyx….Who sholly don’t know ‘NUTHIN ’bout GIBBIN’ and RECEBBIN”!!!! (Although…I have done it simultaneoulsy!!! Chew on that Father Michael Pecker!!)

      • 61. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 3:47 pm

        “Man on top, woman on da bottom”!

        That is Paul’s description of the relationship between husband and wife:

        Ephesians 5:22-24
        Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

      • 62. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm

        Oooooo….submit?… Jesus was involved in S&M?…….<3….Ronnie

      • 63. David Kimble  |  March 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm

        Actually, y’all got it wrong, but since I don’t know nuttin’ ’bout birthin no babies, I ain’t gonna say, what I know! ROFLMAO – Love, David

      • 64. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:06 pm

        (per Waxr‘s comment)

        “But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

        Basically, Church is a wife, and “the Bible says” a wife should shut the hell up and listen to her husband, that would be Christ… And what do we see? The Church is the one who cannot shut the hell up, and does it listen to the Christ? Yeah, right! It listens to Moses in his Leviticus… So, what is that? Exactly — adultery! The Church is cheating on Jesus with Moses! These people are so fucked up that they don’t see it themselves!


      • 65. Felyx  |  March 5, 2010 at 8:48 pm

        @ Ronnie,

        If you didn’t know that Jesus was a masochist then you obviously never saw Mel Gibson’s The Passion!!!

      • 66. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2010 at 7:20 am

        Oh yeah I’ve seen that movie, Felyx……Jesus was HOT….but the reich said it didn’t happen that way…as if they were there right?……..hahahahahahaahah…..they are total baldwins….<3…Ronnie

    • 67. PDXAndrew  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:13 pm

      Heh… “There’s no way for one … to give themselves completely and be received simultaneously”
      apparently he hasn’t seen the movie Clue:

      Mrs. White: Oh my! Nobody can get into THAT position.
      Professor Plum: Sure they can. Let me show you.
      Mrs. White: Get off me!

      Love, Andrew

    • 68. Ben  |  March 5, 2010 at 6:58 pm

      Ahem … this will be a little rude.

      Okay. Giving and receiving ? There sure can be a lot of that going on in a homosexual act. Well, honestly, no more than that which is otherwise given/received in a heterosexual act, according to what they believe is the right way …

    • 69. JonT  |  March 5, 2010 at 9:04 pm

      “They do not actually achieve a conjugal union. b>There’s no way for one in a homosexual act to give themselves completely and be received simultaneously.”

      Wow – WTF does that even mean?

      • 70. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 9:28 pm

        :) exactly

  • 71. Alan E.  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Ok you have to read the rest of the article. There is a priest that has a comment at the end (emphasis mine)

    “Same sex unions are not based on complimentarity between a man and a woman,” said Catholic priest Father Michael Becker. “They do not cooperate with God and plan for new life. They do not actually achieve a conjugal union. There’s no way for one in a homosexual act to give themselves completely and be received simultaneously.”

    • 72. Dieter  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm

      Skip to about 2:30 of this video. Craig fergusons opening monologue!!

    • 73. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:10 pm

      Well since I’m not versatile…in the sex department the give and receive may be true…..and umm so there are no same sex couples planning for new life?….what alternate universe is he living in?……and there’s that stupid thing that everybody has to listen to “God”…..WTF….if god didn’t plan for us to have children then why did he create surrogacy?….I mean seriously…..<3…Ronnie

      • 74. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:18 pm

        On second thought…what does he mean by….”There’s no way for one in a homosexual act to give themselves completely and be received simultaneously.”

        1.) I will give my heart completely to the man I choose to be with and hopefully he will receive it and return the gesture simultaneously…..

        2.) Sexually I have given myself to another guy completely (is there a way to only give half?)…and I’m pretty sure I received him simultaneously…I don’t know I’m not Carrie Prejean….so i don’t have it on video…….<3….Ronnie

    • 75. Ed-M  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:23 pm

      Ronnie, IMGO even we who are not versatile (well, I’m kind of versatile…) give ourselves completely and be received simultaneously. It’s in our own individual ways. Has this priest never had any partner to make love with, or an out gay priest who has confided in him??? Has the only sex he has ever had been quickies with tricks or commercial sex with gay male sex workers??? Worse, has he violated or assaulted an unsuspecting or manipulated teen??? And does he ever read or research his bible??? He wouldn’t say such things if he knew what the old, old documents really say about David and Johnathan and about Yeshua ben Yusef of Nazareth and his beloved disciple (St John or St Lazarus). You are right, what kind of alternate universe is he living in????

    • 76. Felyx  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:16 pm

      Perhaps Same Sex Unions are based on complimentarity between persons of like sex?….sounds more in cooperation with god’s plan for me. In fact, when I started doing it based on that form of ‘complimentarity’ (is that even a word?) I certainly felt like I was experiencing “New Life”. As for achieving conjugal (conjugate=to join) union….well let’s just say I am not sure how that would NOT have been achieved!!! And as for giving and receiving (simultaneously or not)….well I consider that rather personal!!!

      Again Felyx, who likes to hear weird people say weird things for my personal amusement.

    • 77. Adam  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm

      We’ve clearly never heard of body electric, have we? (no spam, just sayin’)

      • 78. JonT  |  March 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm

        I Sing the Body Electric… Oh yes. Nice reference :)

    • 79. Roger  |  March 7, 2010 at 2:22 am

      Unless Father Becker was a widower when he was ordained, the only sex he can have any personal experience of — with women, with men, with children, with his own hand, even looking at or reading pornography in the name of “research” — was mortally sinful under the rules of his Church. And if it was after he was ordained, it was doubly so, as he then broke his vow of chastity.

      He has no legitimate claim to being an expert on sex or sexuality.

  • 80. Ed-M  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Michael Becker… sounds like a gay porn star’s name! HAHAHA

  • 81. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  March 5, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Minnesota gives me hope that soon, we will be able to get married all over this great land, and it will be recognized at the federal level, also. This is great news.

  • 82. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    From ABC News
    LI woman accused of hiring hitman to kill husband
    Friday, March 05, 2010

    GARDEN CITY (WABC) — A Garden City mother of four is being held on one-million dollars bail — accused of hiring a hitman to kill her husband.

    (me) all I can say is….Why do the Hateros want to keep us from doing the same?………Oh and some institution of marriage right there….She makes Britney’s second long marriage look traditional….I’m just saying…..<3…Ronnie

  • 83. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Posted on March 05, 2010
    DADT Panel Promises Fair Study
    By Kenneth Harvey

    “At a House panel meeting, leaders of the study on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell” promised an honest assessment of whether allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly might distract troops in battle.”

    (me) Again they are ignoring the wants, feelings and needs of those who are gay and that of their friends and families…..How the fu<k are you going to do a study of them without breaking the DON"T ASK…..Don't tell garbage rule?…..<3…Ronnie

    • 84. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:20 pm

      Maybe they won’t ask — they’ll just do a survey of everyone in the military, without asking them whether or not they’re gay. Then, when the results show that 90% of the troops don’t care, they’ll have to conclude that 90% of the military must be gay. (evil grin)

      • 85. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 7:57 pm

        In 1948, when President Truman ordered the integration of the armed services, polls showed that seventy-five per cent of servicemen were against integration.

        When I was in the Navy (1961-’65) we were told that the military is a dictatorship, not a democracy. They didn’t care what we thought, we just obeyed orders.

        Has the military changed?

      • 86. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 8:07 pm

        @waxr – I totally agree. In the military, people are just going to follow orders. All this hand writing and worrying about “reaction” from the troops, imo, just creates the anxiety Gates is reporting. Leadership just needs to give the orders and people will deal with it.

        I think everyone will quickly figure out that when you have enemy fire to contend with, the sexual orientation of your fellow soldiers is the last thing on your mind.

      • 87. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 8:08 pm

        That was meant to say “hand wringing” (not hand writing). sigh

    • 88. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 3:54 pm

      If the President of the United States orders U.S. troops to invade a South American country, we would have troops there within a week, and nobody would ask for a “study”.

  • 89. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    Washington D.C. is still governed by Congress. Therefore I wonder how they reconcile ssm with DOMA:

    Defense of Marriage Act:
    Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’

    “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

  • 90. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    Well, Judge Spero has issued his Order on D-Is Motion to Compel (despite earlier reports to the contrary, his Order was just filed today).

    He first defined which communications would be granted First Amendment privilege (which type of communications and between which people), placed some limits to reduce the burden on the non-party subjects of the Order, then ordered all required documents to be produced by March 31.

    As to what D-Is hope to show with the evidence, I haven’t read all of D-Is briefs on the matter, but in Judge Spero’s written order, he says “Proponents assert that they seek the documents to help elucidate voter intent and the purpose of Proposition 8 and because the documents may address the political power of gays and lesbians.”

    I don’t know what the implications are for the Plaintiffs’ case of this discovery order, because I don’t know what’s in the documents.

    • 91. David Kimble  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:07 pm

      Kathleen, do you have a site, where I can go an read the order? I get all confused by the short version, but then I get confused otherwise, so what else is new? <3 David

      • 92. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:13 pm

        David, I don’t know of anywhere on the web it’s available. I can send it to you as an email attachment. Do I send it to the email addy listed on your facebook page? If not, send me a private message through facebook and let me know which addy to send it to.

        Same to anyone else here, if you want a copy, send me a private message through facebook, with the email address you want it sent to.

        BTW, the Justia website has been updated with docs up to Feb 26. This order isn’t there yet (filed Mar 5).

      • 93. David Kimble  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:24 pm

        Yes, send me a link at – thanx <3 David

      • 94. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:32 pm

        @David, sent it. Let me know if you don’t get it.

    • 95. Alan E.  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:33 pm

      Kathleen, Can you send it to me too please. By the way, thanks for the other files.

      • 96. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm

        Done. And you’re welcome.

    • 97. David Kimble  |  March 5, 2010 at 5:01 pm

      Thanx, Kathleen, for the link to the documents. From what I gathered after reading the entire decision is that our side is compelled to surrender certain documents, yet Judge Spero was specific in his decision, as to which documents would be compelled to surrender. Yes, I agree with you Kathleen, it is difficult to to know what is in the documents either. <3 David

      • 98. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 5:10 pm

        Yes, David, that’s correct.

  • 99. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    So I just heard the Pentagon Shooter, John Patrick Bedell’s (RIP) speech about the government….whoa oh….OH!!!!….In so many words at the end of the video he says that the majority of the gov is forcing a establishment of a single national religion….that is unconstitutional…..Well I could of told you that…..shall I post the video?….<3…Ronnie

    • 100. David Kimble  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:02 pm

      Yeah, post it! <3 David

      • 101. Bob  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:03 pm

        COME ON

    • 102. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:06 pm

      Ok the video and the audio is not synced up…I don’t know why…and its 8mins but I don’t think guy sounds nuts….maybe a little p.o.ed and fed up…..enjoy…<3…Ronnie:

  • 103. Waxr  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    There is no place in the Bible in which a marriage ceremony is described, or the need of marriage vows is stated. There is nothing in the Bible which requires that a marriage be performed by a priest or a church official. There is nothing in the Bible which states that a marriage ceremony requires witnesses.

    Until the sixteenth century, marriages were often performed without witnesses or ceremony. In 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that marriages should be performed in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Protestant churches soon followed.

    • 104. David Kimble  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:23 pm

      I agree, Waxr, so maybe Maggie and company could explain to me again why allowing SSM is so evil? <3 David

    • 105. Felyx  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:27 pm

      Blasphemy Waxr!!!!

      How dare you suggest marriage is an evolving institution!!

      Next you will be saying that there has always existed same sex unions like Adelphopoiesis*!!!

      Shame on you…Felyx.

      *Adelphopoiesis, or adelphopoiia from the Greek Aδελφοποίησις, derived from Aδελφός (adelphos) “brother” and ποιέω (poieō) “I make”, literally “brother-making” is a ceremony practiced at one time by various Christian churches to unite together two people of the same sex (normally men).

      • 106. Felyx  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm

        (FYI, I don’t usually practice this type of ceremony, Makin’ with a Brother, in a church…I find my home to be far more suitable!!! Seriously, Felyx)

      • 107. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:50 pm

        Is that kind of “brother” you’re looking in me, brother? :D

      • 108. Felyx  |  March 5, 2010 at 8:27 pm

        For you Kirill, No doubt I would have to stand in a very long line!! ;`P

  • 109. David Kimble  |  March 5, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    Wow, he sounds very intelligent and makes some very valid points – i.e. Government and religion and Government and schools. <3 David

    • 110. Dieter  |  March 5, 2010 at 5:27 pm

      IN THE NEWS:

      Court: Calif gay groups must share Prop 8 memos
      By The Associated Press

      Friday, March 5, 2010 at 4:57 p.m.

      SAN FRANCISCO — A federal magistrate is ordering several gay rights groups that campaigned against California’s 2008 same-sex marriage ban to furnish some internal memos and e-mails to lawyers for the measure’s sponsors.

      U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero issued the order Friday as part of the first federal trial to examine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing gay marriages.

      Spero says Equality California, Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights, an ACLU campaign committee and an umbrella group that oversaw the campaign against the ban must hand over all documents “that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8,” with the exception private communications between their core leaders.

      Lawyers for the ballot initiative’s backers were required to provide similar documents to lawyers representing two same-sex couples who are suing to overturn Proposition 8.

      • 111. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 5:35 pm

        I have a copy of the Order.

        For anyone who wants a copy, send me a private message through facebook (find “Kathleen Perrin” at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker fb group). Be sure to tell me which email address you want it sent to.

        (Don’t publish your email address here; it’s a pubic forum).

      • 112. David Kimble  |  March 5, 2010 at 5:57 pm

        kathleen, perhaps, you could just publish the link to the document? <3 David

      • 113. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 6:01 pm

        David, as far as I know this isn’t available as a link anywhere.

        Back when we all wanted to see the D-I’s trial briefs filed on Feb 26, I registered for the District Court’s e-filing system, and have been paying to get these docs, then making them available to anyone who wants them.

      • 114. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2010 at 6:03 pm

        Meant to add: All the docs up until the last two are now available at the Justia site (link above). However, some of the docs are not as complete as they should be. Also, until just recently, the site hadn’t been updated since Feb 12, hence, the need to purchase copies from the court system.


  • 115. JonT  |  March 5, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    :) Yes Brian, love is winning out. I can’t wait till the 9th :)

    On another note, I was also pleased to read: (read the comments).

    As an XBL gamer, I think this is a very positive step on Microsoft’s point. Yes, the hating in XBL will continue, but at least I’m now allowed to actually ‘admit’ I’m gay without being banned :) A good week indeed!

    These victories… they add up.

    Of course, there’s the downside:

    So the war is hardly over :( I am hopeful though – I really am.

    • 116. Billy  |  March 6, 2010 at 4:09 am

      XBL? Ewww… I play on PS3 hehe

      But yeah, the online gaming community is horrible for consoles. Now, on World of Warcraft, if you go to the PROUDmoore server, the server is literally filled to capacity with glbt-friendly guilds.

    • 117. RAY in MA  |  March 6, 2010 at 6:01 am

      Wait a minute everyone, please consider that CO Catholic school poilcy is actually benefiting the child.

      (As a child I attended St. Auhustine’s Parochial school in Andover, MA)

      This policy will result not benefit the Catholic reputation in the long run.

  • 118. Felyx  |  March 5, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    A nice article to feel good about….

    People do care. Felyx

  • 119. Bob  |  March 6, 2010 at 11:18 am

    my nugget for the day was Kirill’s posting 64 I’ve been having a dialogue with my church for a while now, and this is very helpful, the church is wife, church submits to christ,

    this goes with my questions re law and gospel, old testament is about law, Moses, new testament about gospel, gospel overcomes and replaces law. christ replaced the law by writing the gospel in our hearts and minds.

    The church should keep silent on these issues and let Christ rule, not moses thank you for that

    • 120. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 6, 2010 at 12:21 pm

      I was afraid I was being too harsh and inconsiderate to the people of faith. But sometimes you gotta use the simplest words available to make everyone see how ridiculous some people are. And the credit goes to Waxr and his citation from the scripture.


  • 121. Johan  |  March 6, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    “The bill would eliminate the word marriage in state law and replace it will civil union contract.”

    Well, if that happens, it raises interesting questions.

    Will it mean that those civil unions are even recognized by other states or on the federal level, considering DOMA and all the different statutorial state laws and constitutional amendments? And, if recognized, will the civil unions of opposite sex couples be recognized equally to the civil unions of same sex couples. Would be interesting if it turned out the civil unions weren’t recognized accross the board or not equally for opposite sex couples and same sex couples. Both cicrumstances might add more proof to our case that: 1. anything less than marriage is insufficient and 2 (if treated unequally) the only reason for those bans and statutes is to discriminate for the sake of discrimination out of animus toward a special minority.

    Am I seeing ghosts or are my musings anywhere near a realistic scenario?

  • 122. Roger  |  March 7, 2010 at 2:46 am

    I had always understood that French law only recognises civil marriages, and that having a separate religious ceremony was entirely optional, but I thought I’d better look it up.

    Voila! from the French Embassy in Australia —

    To be legally recognized, a marriage in France must take place at a town hall (Mairie). The town hall must be either the town hall where one of the applicants was born, or the town hall of the district where one of the applicants is currently resident.

    And from

    French law only recognises civil marriage. This must be performed by a French Civil Authority (officier de l’état civil), which includes the mayor (maire), their legally authorised replacement – the deputy mayor (adjoint) – or a city councillor (conseiller municipal).

    Religious ceremonies are optional, have no legal status, and may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day.)

    All of which seems very sensible to me; none of this nonsense of the State delegating clergy as its agents…. Yes, it’s for mixed-gender couples only, but the French do have the equivalent of civil unions. Again from the Embassy’s page —

    Pacs is a legal protocol in France that formally recognises both opposite sex and same sex de facto relationships. The requirements for a PACS are the same as those for a marriage….

    • 123. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 7, 2010 at 4:14 am

      Same goes about Russia: every marriage must be performed only in a Registrar building by the city clerk, no delegations are allowed… and you have to wait for a month or two after you apply for marriage… This is way too strict, I think… American system is easier and more flexible — you can have a ceremony anywhere you want and anyone you want can officiate… this part I was always envious of… It’s not a bad thing to have all these freedoms, as long as people do understand that civil marriage is not the same as religious one.


      • 124. Roger  |  March 8, 2010 at 12:23 am

        Kirill, I don’t know….. The French system — and it’s been in place for a couple of centuries now – strikes me as a sensible one.

        If the State contracts to provide certain benefits to married people, then it’s logical for the State to oversee and verify the contract that brings a particular marriage into being. And logical that it doesn’t presume to give God’s blessing on it, either directly or by delegation. In this respect, separation of Church and State is absolute.

        But if people want God’s blessing, there is nothing to stop them making their vows before Him in whatever church, mosque, temple, synagogue or rose garden they please — but they must also enter into the prescribed legal contract with the State.

        And this brings up a distinction that is often lost, especially on the “traditonaists” who snigger “and which of you two guys is going to wear the white veil?” A wedding is not the same as a marriage.

  • 125. ASW  |  March 8, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    In a related vein, my HS friend Greg and his fiancee Jonathan got their license in DC on the 5th.

    And they’re still in 2nd place at the Crate & Barrel Ultimate Wedding contest:

    Worth a read/registration/vote for equality.

  • 126. mayans 2012  |  February 3, 2011 at 7:27 am

    Whoa! This blog looks just like my old one! It’s on a completely different topic but it has pretty much the same page layout and design. Wonderful choice of colors!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,324 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...