AGLBICAL
 

GAY
MARRIAGE


 

HOME

MISSION

NEWS

INFORMATION

RESOURCES

LINKS
 

MORE INFO

GLBT Articles

GLBT Statements

GLBT Reports

GLBT Statistics

GLBT Quotations

GLBT Relationships

GLBT Love

Domestic
Partnerships

Origins of
Homosexuality
 

ADDITIONAL
LINKS

About Gay Marriage:
Collection of Articles

Wikipedia:
Same Sex Marriage

How to Get Married
in Massachusetts

Civil Unions &
Domestic Partnerships

Same Sex Marriage
in Canada




ADDITIONAL
LINKS

Queer Theory:
Same Sex
Marriage

Keep Media:
Collection of Articles
About Gay Marriage

How to Plan a
Gay Wedding

Polling Point:
Gay Marriage Survey




ADDITIONAL
LINKS

Freedom to Marry

Gay Marriage:
Arguments & Motives
By Scott Bidstrup

Buddy Buddy:
Partners Task Force
for Gay & Lesbian
Couples

Amazon: Books on
GLBT Weddings
 

GAY MARRIAGE
Poignant Commentary
 

"Protect marriage? Puhlease. With a 50 percent divorce rate, rampant domestic violence, Las Vegas drive-through chapels, and I wanna-marry-a-really-rich-guy reality TV shows, there's no way gays could trash marriage the way straight people have."    
Good Times / Santa Cruz County News

"We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity."
David Brooks / New York Times

"The consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of the New Hampshire Diocese of the Episcopal Church is an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves, and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriage."

Owen Keavney
 

ELLEN & PORTIA
Wedding Ceremony
 

Ellen DeGeneres and Portia De Rossi were married on August 16, 2008. They wed at their home in Beverly Hills, California in an intimate ceremony attended by about 20 guests.

De Rossi, 35, wore a backless, light pink Zac Posen dress, and her hair in a loose updo. DeGeneres, 50, wore an all-white Zac Posen ensemble that included pants, button-up shirt and vest.

In May, following the California Supreme Court's monumental ruling that same sex couple's have the right to marry, DeGeneres announced on her talk show that she intended to wed her girlfriend of nearly four years.

"It's something that we've wanted to do and we want it to be legal and we are very, very excited," DeGeneres said.
 

In June, de Rossi debuted a marquis cut Neil Lane sparkler set with pink diamonds at the Daytime Emmy Awards.

De Rossi has credited DeGeneres with helping her come out of the closet.

"My feelings for Ellen overrode all of my fear about being out as a lesbian,” she told the Advocate Magazine in September 2005.

De Rossi said the first time she spotted DeGeneres, the comedian took her breath away.

In 2005, DeGeneres said she hoped she and de Rossi would be "together the rest of our lives."

"I never would have thought my life would have turned out this way," DeGeneres told Allure Magazine. "To have money. Or to have a gorgeous girlfriend. I just feel so lucky with everything in my life right now."

View Ellen & Portia's Wedding Photos
View Scenes from Ellen & Portia's Wedding
View More Ellen & Portia Wedding Photos
View Nuptials TV Report on Ellen & Portia Wedding
Us Magazine Report on Ellen & Portia Wedding

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Legal Notes and Updates
 

According to Wikipedia, same-sex marriage, also referred to as gay marriage, is defined as a marriage between two persons of the same sex. Currently the federal government of the United States does not recognize same-sex marriage, under the Defense of Marriage Act, but same-sex marriage is currently legal in three states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, and will be legal in Vermont on September 1, 2009, and in Maine on September 14, 2009.

Maine was the most recent state to allow same-sex marriage and the second state, after Vermont, to do so through legislative means. The issue is a divisive political issue in the United States and elsewhere. The social movement to obtain the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States for same-sex couples began in the early 1970s, and the issue became a prominent one in U.S. politics in the 1990s, with New England being the center of same-sex marriage legalization in the United States.

Read Wikipedia Article on Same Sex Marriage
About: Same Sex Marriage License Laws
NPR: Legal Battle Over Gay Marriage (State by State Map)
About: States That May Soon Allow Same Sex Marriage

 

WHO SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY?
History Repeating Itself

The prejudice and marginalization of gays and lesbians today are reminiscent of the treatment once endured by African-Americans.

It used to be against the law in many states for whites and blacks to marry each other. Today those laws have been repealed and few people see any merit to the original law. Clearly such bans arose out of ignorance and in time as people became more enlightened they abandoned such antiquated prejudices.

Interracial dating and interracial marriages once held the same contempt as same-sex dating and same-sex marriages have today.

In 2000, the question of a 1901 Constitutional amendment prohibiting lawful marriage between whites and blacks, was placed on the ballot in Alabama. 40% of those who voted in this referendum, voted to keep the law prohibiting interracial marriage.

"the legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro."
 

GAY MARRIAGE
Where Is It Legal?

From Ramon Johnson,
Your Guide to Gay Life

Gay Marriage Around the World

Gays all over the world are fighting for equal protection under the law, including legal gay marriage. Some may think granting civil, registered or domestic partnerships is enough- seeking to preserve the legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. But, did you know most civil, domestic and registered partnership laws around the world provide fewer benefits than full marriage? So in many cases, life-long partners are denied some or all of the rights of marriage simply based on their sexual orientation.

Read this comprehensive guide to gay marriage around the world and the differences between civil unions and full marriage in the U.S.

Nations that recognize gay marriage:

Canada
In June of 2005, the Canadian Parliament enacted a law allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Belgium
The second nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003.

Netherlands
The first country to grant gay marriage in 2001.

South Africa
South Africa became the fifth nation to recognize gay marriage in 2005.

Spain
Spain became the forth nation to allow gay marriage on June 29, 2005.

U.S. states that recognize gay marriage:

Massachusetts
On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Recently added then subtracted:

California

Recently added:

Connecticut

Iowa

Coming Soon:

Vermont

Maine

Nations that allow same-sex partnerships:

Croatia
Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been granted since 2003.

Denmark
Legal civil partnerships have been allowed since 1989.

Finland
Has offered registered partnership benefits since September 2001.

France
Pacte Civil de Solidarité” (PACS), or “Civil Solidarity Pacts,” were instituted in France on November 9, 1999.

Germany
Gay couples can register as "Life Partnerships," granting equal the same financial and pension benefits as marriage.

Great Britain
Domestic partners can register under the Civil Partnership Act. This legislation took affect in December 5, 2005 giving registered same-sex couples rights similar to marriage in areas such as pensions, property, social security, and housing.

Hungary
Gay couples have been protected under common-law marriages since 1995; however they are not eligible for legal marriage.

Iceland
Since 1996, gay Icelanders have been protected under registered partnerships.

Luxembourg
Civil partnership legislation modeled after France's PACS were introduced in Luxembourg in 2004.

New Zealand
In December, 2004, New Zealand enacted legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions.

Norway
Since 1996, gay Norwegians have been protected under registered partnerships.

Portugal
Same-sex partners have the same rights as opposite-sex partners in common law marriage.

Scotland
Civil partnerships have been afforded to same-sex couples since 2004.

Sweden
Swedish same-sex couples have been able to register under domestic partnership laws since 1995.

Switzerland
Same-sex couples are given limited legal benefits with civil recognition.

U.S. States that allow same-sex partnerships:

California
California provides domestic partnership benefits. The state legislature successfully voted in favor of legal gay marriage in California, only to be vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In March, 2005, a San Francisco judge ruled that the law banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

Connecticut
Although Connecticut defines marriage as between a man and woman, it became the second U.S. state to grant same-sex civil unions in April, 2005.

New Jersey
The New Jersey Domestic Partnership Law grants same-sex couples many of the full rights of marriage.

Vermont
The first U.S. state to offer same-sex civil unions in 2000. Learn about Vermont civil unions.

Nations that ban same-sex unions:

Honduras
On March 29, 2005, the constitution of Honduras was amended banning same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.

Latvia
December 21, 2005 marked the day Latvian president Vaira Vike-Freiberga signed into law a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Uganda
On September 29, 2005, legislation banning same-sex unions was signed by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. Penalties for gay marriage will be set in 2006. Under current law, homosexual acts are punishable by imprisonment from five years to life.
 

THE CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
It rests on equality, liberty and even society
 

So at last it is official: George Bush is in favor of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely “Massachusetts liberal” opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr. Bush must actually believe in what he is doing.

Mr. Bush says that he is acting to protect “the most fundamental institution of civilization” from what he sees as “activist judges” who in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling that banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution. The city of San Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands of marriage licenses to homosexual couples, in apparent contradiction to state and even federal laws. It can only be a matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal Supreme Court. And those “activist judges”, who, by the way, gave Mr. Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same view of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution demands equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws violated the constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex, saying further that “the Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code”. That obligation could well lead the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry.

Let them wed

That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two countries—Belgium and the Netherlands—have given full legal status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships. The sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those enjoyed for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When The Economist first argued in favor of legalizing gay marriage eight years ago (“Let them wed”, January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock today. That is why we argued that such a radical change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be blocked precipitously.

The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was “traditional”. Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be “married”. But that is to dodge the real question—why not?—and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?

Civil unions are not enough

The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage.

But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends.

The importance of marriage for society's general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage—a so-called civil union—is not enough. Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a “marriage”. Some European countries, by legislating for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash—of the sort perhaps epitomized by Mr. Bush this week.

Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilization.
 

From The Economist, February 26, 2004, London

STAND UP FOR THE RIGHT TO MARRY
Valentine's Day Message

BY EVAN WOLFSON

FEB 14, 2006

A robust debate and many personal conversations are helping our nation, in President Lincoln's words, "think anew" about how America treats gay couples and their kids and loved ones.

Every year, around Lincoln's birthday and Valentine's Day, gay and non-gay people gather in living rooms, houses of worship, parks and civic halls to celebrate the values of equality and love, and call for an end to discrimination in marriage.
 

Today is Freedom to Marry Day, a day to share personal stories, and ask others to push past discomfort and embrace fairness and marriage equality. Freedom to Marry Week, which stretches from Feb. 12-18, helps even more Americans get to know the real faces behind this civil rights movement.

Two years ago on Feb. 12, the nation watched as hundreds of couples lined up in San Francisco to legally wed in that state for the first time.

This year, in hundreds of American cities, citizens will be hosting statehouse rallies, wedding ceremonies, book parties, family picnics and discussion groups to learn and inform about the freedom to marry.

Ministers and rabbis from Texas to Vermont and from Washington state to the Sunshine State have given sermons in support of equal marriage rights, helping their congregations to understand the scriptural underpinnings of embracing their neighbors with love and compassion as well as the importance of equal civil marriage rights for all families.

This is a week to engage the people around us in this conversation about fairness. Gay people - and our friends, families and allies - cannot assume that just because a person loves us and is generally a good guy that this person understands how the denial of marriage harms us. We have to challenge each other and ourselves to make a more substantive, moral case for what we stand for.

It is not enough for gay people and our allies to say we are for marriage equality, and then wait for the courts or legislators to do the heavy lifting. Rather, it is our job to take every opportunity to address people's concerns and discomfort, answer questions, and give them the time and information they need.

When non-gay people talk about marriage, they mean love, clarity, security, respect, family, intimacy, dedication, self-sacrifice and equality - qualities that describe the relationships and lives of gay and lesbian couples just as well.

Trying to avoid supporting marriage equality by suggesting other, lesser solutions such as civil unions only complicates the issue. It invites questions about how such arrangements would be defined, what form they would take, how they would differ from marriage and what role states or the federal government would have.

Why do we need two lines at the clerk's office, or unequal protections for some couples and kids? With marriage, on the other hand, rights and obligations are already clearly established in all 50 states as well as with the federal government. Marriage is the system we have.

All families should share equally in the rights, protections and responsibilities currently afforded only to some. Gay families also deserve health care, retirement protections, the ability to use money to pay for education or a home and the ability to give kids the security to openly and proudly describe their families. This would make our nation stronger.

When our friends and families are given the truth about the injustice and unfairness of marriage discrimination, they are able to see past the false distractions and put a human face to the issue.

With justice and equality within reach, Freedom to Marry Week is an opportunity to engage our neighbors and fellow citizens in the personal and informational conversations they deserve - and trust that from this commitment to engagement will come understanding about why marriage matters to our families.

Lincoln stood up for freedom, equality and fairness for all, even when it was at its most unpopular. Freedom to Marry Week also offers a unique opportunity to stand up for freedom, equality and fairness.

Wolfson is executive director of Freedom to Marry, the gay and non-gay partnership working to end discrimination in marriage nationwide (www.freedomtomarry.org), and author of "Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People's Right to Marry."