365 Gay

Much has been written over this past week about what happens next with the decision handed down by Judge Vaughn Walker [1], declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. Most of it, as usual, had to do with trying to predict what the Supreme Court might do with the ruling. That parlor game, in turn, predictably devolved into the ritual exercise of trying to discern the inner workings of the enigmatic Justice Kennedy [2], widely assumed to hold the decisive – and therefore only “real” – vote on the matter. But a brief filed by the successful plaintiffs raises this fascinating possibility: The case might already be over. That’s right: Over. Here’s what happened. As you probably know, Judge Walker is being asked to stay his ruling until the case reaches the end of its appellate road. Most lawyers and legal academics, including this one, have been predicting that he’ll grant the stay for at least a couple of reasons. First, to avoid a repeat of the confusion that ensued when the passage of Prop 8 took away the right to marry that the California Supreme Court had found constitutionally protected: many thousands of state residents were legally married, while others were – and still are – frozen out. Second, to put off a possible early collision with the Supreme Court, which could be called upon to reverse Judge Walker and grant the stay. Such a decision could preview, if not effectively decide, the merits of the full case. Now, though, there’s a new twist: Neither of the state actors, Attorney General Brown nor Governor Schwarzenegger, is seeking a stay. So will –can? – Walker grant one in any case? If he doesn’t, who can appeal? It’s not clear that the Prop 8 proponents have standing to do so. And if they can’t do that, can they appeal the ruling itself if the state does not? Answers to both questions are less than clear. Although the intervenors were allowed into the case to defend Prop 8, their standing to appeal is legally cloudy; the  standards aren’t the same for the two actions. Thus, if the state’s not willing to appeal (we’ll know soon), an appellate court might conclude that the intervenors lack the kind of – here comes some law-speak – “particularized injury” to confer legal standing on them. In other words: What’s it to them? The immediate appellate court, the Ninth Circuit, has some precedent suggesting that standing to appeal might be appropriate in this case, but the Supreme Court [3] has strongly suggested otherwise. An excellent summary of the legal complexities is here [4], and a fuller account can be found at Lambda Legal’s Jon Davidson [5]. Even if there’s no stay and ultimately no right to appeal, the case won’t end right away, because these questions will themselves be contested, likely all the way to the Supreme Court. (For this reason alone, Walker might decide to stay his holding for now.) And the Court might dance around some of its earlier cases suggesting that parties in the shoes of the Prop 8 proponents have no right to appeal – after all, the issue of marriage equality is bound to come before them at some point, and what happens if the Court then decides that states can bar same-sex couples from marrying? Oh, the chaos that would then ensue! But it now seems quite possible that Judge Walker’s ruling will ultimately stand as the final word in this case.  Should we then declare victory? To an extent, yes. California has a population that’s estimated to exceed 38 million in the 2010 census, and is usually ahead of the curve when it comes to national trends. With the issue of marriage equality resolved in our favor here, the pressure for uniformity will increase dramatically; and, as in those states that already have achieved equality, resistance will tail off as people come to see that simple equality hasn’t caused cataclysmic results. There’s more: Judge Walker’s careful and thorough decision, which powerfully braids facts and law, will create strong precedent for other courts to use when the issue comes before them. It might even figure into the Defense of Marriage Act litigation now working its way through the federal courts on the other side of the country (assuming an appeal by the Obama Administration, which still seems likely.) The chance that this case could end here isn’t what anyone would have expected, and it still might not happen. It would be disappointing to those of us hoping for a knockout win at the Supreme Court level. But by giving courts, legislatures, and the public a little more time to acclimate themselves to marriage equality and providing a huge example of how it works, in practice, a California-only victory might be better in the long run. John Culhane is Professor of Law and Director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Del. He blogs about the role of law in everyday life, and about a bunch of other things at: http://wordinedgewise.org [6]. [1] http://www.365gay.com http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=1397 [2] http://www.365gay.com http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/ [3] http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2010/08/can-the-proponents-of-proposition-8-appeal-judge-walkers-ruling-1.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LeonardLink+%28Leonard+Link%29 [4] http://www.365gay.com/news/whats-next-can-the-prop-8-decision-be-appealed/ [5] http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/08/lambda-legal%E2%80%99s-jon-davidson-explains-what%E2%80%99s-next-judge-walker%E2%80%99s-stay-of-his-prop-8-ruling-timeline-for-appeals-and-more/ [6] http://wordinedgewise.org

[1] [2] Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach [3] is not going to be discharged quietly. The Air Force pilot, who has earned nine Air Medals, has been sitting at a desk for two years, waiting for the investigative results of a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discharge proceeding. The Air Force Personnel Board has sent a recommendation concerning the lieutenant colonel  to Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley. “Our nation is on the verge of firing a highly decorated combat aviator, an American hero. The Air Force Secretary can do the right thing and retain Lt. Col. Fehrenbach under the Pentagon’s own recently revised regulations on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’" Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said in a statement. "If Secretary Donley does not step in, this nation will lose a service member worth $25 million in training whose skill sets are desperately needed today." Fehrenbach, who has served for 19 years, is 14 months away from 20 year retirement. He, his lawyers, and SLDN filed a  temporary restraining order in in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The plaintiffs argue the government cannot prove  the air man's continued duty hinders “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.” The legal route will take its course, but SLDN wants  people to contact their senators to urge them to pass the Defense Appropriation bill [4] that includes an amendment to repeal DADT. UPDATE: Working to interview Fehrenbach and one of his lawyers. Will keep you informed. [1] http://www.sldn.org/pages/icnw7oxy2malqe#fehrenbach-sarvis [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/fehrenbach-top.jpg [3] http://www.sldn.org/pages/icnw7oxy2malqe#fehrenbach-sarvis [4] http://www.sldn.org/page/s/HelpVictor

During the few months California legally recognized gay marriage, the Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr [1] officiated at 16 weddings for gay couples. Now, the minister is facing charges from within the Presbyterian Church [2]. Spahr has been an ordained Presbyterian minister for 36 years and she led worship for gay Presbyterians in San Francisco [3] until she retired in 2007. The Redwoods Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will put Spahr on trail August 24, causing an unprecedented religious interference with legal marriage. She faces lifelong suspension of her ministerial duties. This marks the second time in four years the PCUSA will “press charges” against Spahr. The minister was acquitted two years ago by the church after performing gay marriages; according to the church's Supreme Judicial Council she did not violate denominational law because they were not real marriages. But because the most recent marriages were considered legal in California, the tables have turned. The prosecutors insist that the marriages are “expressly prohibited” by the church. Spahr says, “To turn my back on the love and life-long commitments of these wonderful couples would have gone against my faith, the ministry where I was called, and most of all, against God’s amazing hospitality and welcome where love and justice meet together.” [1] http://www.anglicansunited.com/?p=6439 [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-howard-merritt/gay-rights-and-the-presby_b_659245.html [3] http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2028

On August 11, an attempt was made by Matty Daley and Bobby Canciello to break the world record for the longest kiss.  The two men began the mulit-hour kiss yesterday as part of their “Our Lips Are Sealed [1]” campaign to fight homophobia. The New Jersey college students have big hopes for their long kiss.  The two, who are not a couple, say that the kiss campaign is “about fighting hegemonic norms.”  If they succeed, it will be the first gay kiss to break a record in Guinness World Record history.  Daley and Canciello came up with the idea while watching an episode of MTV’s “Fantasy Factor” where the world’s longest skateboard was constructed.  In an interview with Equaltopia blog [2], the pair said they were inspired by the attention the record could bring to LGBT issues. Matty said, “Why break a record if it doesn’t mean something? And to us, this means so much.”   Matty Daley and Bobby Canciello Photo by: AJVR Photography According to Guinness rules: the kiss must take place standing up, no breaks are allowed, lips must stay locked continuously, the couple must be awake and no incontinence pads or adult diapers are allowed.  The current record is 32 hours seven minutes and 14 seconds held by Nikola Matovic and Kristina Reinhart of Germany.  In preparation for the event, the student activists arranged a nutrition regimen, spent hours on their feet and developed hand signals to communicate. Explaining their motives, Daily says, “This kiss isn’t about sexual or romantic expression between two lovers. We’re not required to make-out, use our tongues, or any of that nonsense. It’s all really simple and innocent; it’s a kiss between two men, two friends. Hopefully, others will see this and begin to think that it’s okay to kiss your closest friends Hello and Goodbye, to let them know in other ways that you care and are ready to face the obstacles life throws your way together, when the words refuse to surface in our voices.” [1] http://mattyandbobbykiss.tripod.com/index.html [2] http://blog.equalitopia.com/post/932902684/gay-men-world-record-for-longest-continuous-kiss

Proposition 8 is brief and brutal: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” On Aug. 4, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that the 2008 ballot measure violates the due process and equal protection clauses in the14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The decision — which may be appealed and could go as high as the U.S. Supreme Court — is as thoughtful and comprehensive as Prop 8 is brief and brutal. The decision is a reasoned denunciation of an irrational prohibition. The decision is that of a conservative judge first nominated by Ronald Reagan and appointed by George H.W. Bush. And this is a sweet note from that old bit of history — his original nomination stalled because a group of congressional Democrats — led by now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — had concerns that Walker was insensitive to gays and the poor. The decision shreds the bigoted but widely circulated arguments that have been used to deny equality to gay and lesbian Americans. Yes, our side in Perry v. Schwarzenegger benefited from the fact that California’s top officeholders wanted nothing to do with defending Prop 8. The governor, after Walker released his decision, said, “For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.” Yes, our side in Perry v. Schwarzenegger benefited from the pitiful case that the defense brought to the trial. Walker said the defense witnesses lacked any credibility. Yes, our side in Perry v. Schwarzenegger benefited from the representation of the curious pairing of two brilliant lawyers – conservative constitutional Ted Olson, who represented George W. Bush in the 2000 election fight, and liberal trial lawyer David Boies, who represented Al Gore. Watch for a legal-eagles film based on that odd-couple pairing. Yes, our side in Perry v. Schwarzenegger benefited from the thorough judicial consideration that Walker gave to the case. “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Walker wrote. “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.” Kids go to bed with visions of sugar-plums dancing in their heads. Gay activists go to bed with words such as “Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples” running through their minds. I read Walker’s 136-page opinion last week and found myself discussing certain passages, certain points, certain turns of phrase with friends — as if the Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling is this summer’s book-club reading. My favorite part, I found myself telling a friend, falls on page 116 under “PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE I DENIES PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING) REASON.” The parenthesis and caps are Walker’s, not mine. In that passage, the judge looked back to a prior case and wrote, “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as ‘fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’” That passage I read again and again and again. It has a certain ring to it, a certain " let freedom ring" quality.

(Tacoma, Wash.) Opponents of the state's expanded domestic partnerships for gay couples are heading back to federal court, hoping to block the release of signed referendum petitions. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle is holding a hearing Wednesday, where he may decide whether to continue blocking the names and addresses of people who signed Referendum 71 petitions. The referendum was approved last fall by voters. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that generally, the release of petition signatures does not violate constitutional rights. However, the court said Protect Marriage Washington could go back to the lower courts and try to prove that the release of their names would put them in danger.

Flight attendant freak out.  After an altercation with a passenger on a Jet Blue flight from Pittsburgh to JFK on Monday, experienced flight attendant Steven Slater [1], 39—who is gay—snapped.  In an exit that would have left the biggest diva’s mouth gaping, Slater dropped the f-bomb over the intercom, grabbed a beer, popped open the emergency exit slide and made a run for it.  The meltdown was prompted by an argument with a passenger who allegedly told Slater to “f--- off” when asked to keep his from removing his luggage from the overhead compartment.  The passenger continued to open the compartment, hitting Slater in the head with the door.  Slater faces felony charges of reckless endangerment and criminal mischief.  He was arrested Monday at his house in Queens and released on bail Tuesday.  In the meantime, Slater has become a hero to our nation’s disgruntled workers with his tagline of: “To the f----ing ass---- that told me to f--- off, f--- you. I’ve been in this business 20 years!” Muslim gay bar near Park51 mosque.  Fox News’ Red Eye host, Greg Gutfeld [2] proposed his solution to the controversy over the new “Park51” mosque that is placed two blocks from Ground Zero—a Muslim gay bar. On his website, The Daily Gut [3], Gutfeld wrote, “The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance. Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero is no different than mine.” [4] Gutfeld seems serious, but is this a legit call for acceptance or simply meant to antagonize? ABA embraces gay marriage.  The American Bar Association, the nation’s leading legal organization, has passed a resolution that supports gay marriage: "RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry." The ABA has spoken out about DOMA before, deeming it unfair.  This resolution, however, takes their action to the next level. Watch here for more info: Drag Queen brawl leaves male model earless.  Drag Queen Jane Lane, famous for frequenting New York’s sweatiest gay clubs, is now infamous for biting off a man’s ear. Sunday, Jane Lane [5]—whose real name is James Leahy—allegedly attacked and disfigured male model Ronnie Brown at New York’s High Bar.  In an e-mail to gawker.com, Brown wrote, “While I'm speaking to my ex, Jane starts saying obscene things to me. I told him he was a liar and he then threw a glass in my face leaving me scarred on my right side. Then the confrontation started. We were on the floor and I saw him go for my ear where my earring was but didn't think twice about it until he pulled away with blood in his mouth and someone said my ear was bleeding. I reached for it and half was gone.” [6] Jane Lane in one of her signature looks Brown and the lower half of his ear were rushed to the hospital, while Leahy was arrested by NYPD.  This queen’s bite was actually worse than her bark. [1] http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/jetblue_attendant_flips_out_flees_EJ6RiGgCZiZxGmo2xsU2TI?offset=8#comments#ixzz0wJjoHILG [2] http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/a-gay-muslim-bar-next-to-wtc-mosque-greg-gutfeld-vows-to-make-it-happen/ [3] http://www.dailygut.com/ [4] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-greg-gutfeld.jpg [5] http://gawker.com/5609375/meet-the-marauding-drag-queen-who-bit-off-someones-ear [6] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-jane-lane-dragqueen.jpg

(Washington) A name like Maria or Jose isn't a solid clue anymore that the person who answers to it will worship in a Catholic church on Sundays. An Associated Press-Univision poll finds that younger Latinos, as well as those who speak more English than Spanish, are much less likely to identify as Catholics than older Hispanics who mostly speak Spanish. The poll of 1,500 Latino adults also found significant divisions on social issues such as same-sex unions and abortion, along lines of age, language and whether one is Catholic or Protestant. It's been more than a year since Melissa Solis went to Mass. An executive assistant at a New York financial firm, she was raised by a pious Catholic mother but calls herself "nonpracticing." "There is peace in the house of God for me, but there is also inner peace," said Solis, 35. "I do believe there is a God, and that has helped me through tough times. But you can practice your religion in your home, and it doesn't necessarily have to be in a building labeled the 'house of God.'" Overall, 62 percent of Hispanics identify as Catholic, but that includes only 55 percent of young adults 18 to 29, compared with 80 percent of elders 65 and over. Catholicism is the primary religion in the ancestral countries of U.S. Latinos. Spanish missionaries brought the faith to what is now Florida and the American Southwest more than 400 years ago. But in the United States these days, religious sentiment seems to be keener among Latino Protestants than their Catholic counterparts. Protestants are twice as likely to attend weekly services, according to the poll, also sponsored by The Nielsen Company and Stanford University. Many worship in evangelical or Pentecostal churches. They tend to be more conservative than Catholics on matters of religious doctrine and social morality. Seventy percent of Hispanic Protestants said the Bible is the actual word of God, to be taken literally, compared with 46 percent of Hispanic Catholics. Just 26 percent of Protestants said abortion should be mostly legal, compared with 41 percent of Catholics. And 59 percent of Protestants said same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, compared with 29 percent of Catholics. "What does it mean to be a Latino Catholic?" asked Robert P. Jones, founder of the Public Religion Research Institute, a Washington think tank. "How does one move from religious belief to public policy? Among Catholics it's a much more complex process. While it takes into account scripture and church teachings, it also brings in reason and experience as authoritative sources." Lindsay Dusenbery, 27, of Columbia, Md., said she gradually came to accept same-sex unions, even though Catholic bishops are staunchly opposed. Working as a preschool teacher, she met a lesbian couple and their rambunctious son. "As much as I had thought it would mess up our social order, it doesn't seem like anything different now," said Dusenbery, who is of Panamanian and Nicaraguan heritage. The lesbian couple "reminded me so much of what a normal couple would be like," she added. Their son "was just a normal two-year-old, running around and going crazy." But Jose Ramos, 70, of La Puente, Calif., doesn't see how same-sex unions can work. "If the parents are two women, who are the children going to call daddy?" asked the retired truck driver. "If it's two men, who are the children going to call mommy? That business seems very difficult to me." The poll found a large generation gap on same-sex marriage, with 46 percent of Hispanics ages 18 to 29 saying same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, compared with less than one-third of those in older age groups. Same-sex marriage seems to be gaining acceptance in Latin America. Last month, Argentina became the first South American nation to allow it. Gay marriage is also legal in Mexico City, while same-sex civil unions granting are allowed in Uruguay and in some states in Mexico and Brazil. The AP-Univision poll was conducted from March 11 to June 3 by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Using a sample of households provided by The Nielsen Company, 1,521 Hispanics were interviewed in English and Spanish, mostly by mail but also by telephone and the Internet. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Stanford University's participation in the study was made possible by a grant from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

(Washington) The White House was on the defensive Tuesday after press secretary Robert Gibbs lashed out at liberals he dubbed the "professional left," saying some of them should be drug-tested. Gibbs contended that some progressives critical of President Barack Obama wouldn't be satisfied until the Pentagon was eliminated and Canadian-style health care ushered into the U.S. Some of them wouldn't even be happy if anti-war congressman Dennis Kucinich were president, according to Gibbs. His comments appeared Tuesday in "The Hill" newspaper. Standing in for Gibbs at the daily White House press briefing, Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton downplayed the comments, saying Gibbs simply "answered honestly" in a conversation with a reporter. "Is there ever some frustration from anyone who works in this building about the way it's being covered? Sure," Burton said when asked if Gibbs' comments reflected Obama's views. "But that doesn't distract us from the very serious work that we've got to do to keep the American people safe and keep the American economy growing. So I would just say that our focus today isn't one article in a Hill publication." Burton said Gibbs had a sore throat and his absence from the briefing was unrelated to angry blow-back from left-wing bloggers and others. One Democratic congressman, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., told the Huffington Post that Gibbs should resign. "I don't think there's any danger of that," said Burton. Among Gibbs' comments: "I hear these people saying (Obama's) like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested. I mean, it's crazy." It wasn't the first time Gibbs has ticked off Democrats. Last month he angered them by saying on a Sunday talk show that Republicans could take back control of the House. Progressive groups have been frustrated with Obama almost since the outset of his presidency over issues including the health care bill, which they contend didn't go far enough to provide government-run insurance, and Obama's failure to move more quickly to end the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy on gays in the military. Democrats at the White House and on Capitol Hill, in turn, have been frustrated by that frustration, arguing they've delivered for liberals on many issues. Obama himself addressed the issue at a fundraiser in Dallas Monday for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "Sometimes Democrats, we're our own worst enemies, because we can do great stuff and somehow still feel depressed," Obama said. "Sometimes we do a little too much handwringing. Say, well, you know, I don't know, I wish we had gotten that public option. Well, that's great, but we got 31 million people health insurance."

(San Jose, Costa Rica) Costa Rica's top court has blocked the electoral tribunal from holding a referendum that would have let voters decide if same-sex civil unions should be allowed in the Central American country. The Constitutional Court's 5-2 decision released Tuesday says such a referendum would put a minority at a disadvantage in a largely Roman Catholic country. It also says gay civil unions is a legislative issue and not an electoral one. The court says it considers homosexuals a group that is at a disadvantage and the target for discrimination, requiring government authorities to protect their rights. The electoral tribunal had planned to hold the referendum Dec. 5, when Costa Rica also is holding municipal elections.

(Mexico City)  Mexico's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that all 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the capital, though its decision does not force those states to begin marrying gay couples in their territory. In a 9-2 decision, the tribunal cited an article of the constitution requiring states to recognize legal contracts drawn up elsewhere. It did not specify what degree of recognition must be granted to same-sex couples. Mexico City's same-sex marriage law, enacted in March, extends to wedded gay couples the right to adopt children, to jointly apply for bank loans, to inherit wealth and to be covered by their spouses' insurance policies. Some of those may end up applying only in the capital. The Supreme Court ruled last week that same-sex weddings are constitutional - though it is holding separate discussions this week on the adoption clause. One of the justices, Sergio Aguirre, argued against adoptions by same-sex couples Tuesday, saying children might suffer discrimination as a result.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Troy260WordsOfWisdom_1.jpg [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Troy260WordsOfWisdom_2.jpg [3] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Troy260WordsOfWisdom_3.jpg [4] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Troy260WordsOfWisdom_4.jpg [5] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Troy260WordsOfWisdom_5.jpg [6] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Troy260WordsOfWisdom_6.jpg

Stumped on when to send out your STDs (save-the-date announcements)? Don't know who should be invited to your rehearsal dinner? Get the answers to all your etiquette questions for your gay wedding by submitting your dilemma to etiquette@equallywed.com. Q What is the proper etiquette when you are invited to a wedding of a heterosexual couple that did not or would not attend your same-sex wedding? [1] A I definitely need more information to give you an exact answer, but let’s go through the possible scenarios. We’ll call this straight couple Bruce and Maggie: 1.)  You were at a cousin’s barbecue this summer and overheard this couple saying no way in hell would they ever go to a gay wedding. Knowing they wouldn’t attend yours gives you every right to not attend theirs. On principle alone, I say don’t go! Furthermore, I’d suggest sending a short note indicating such along with your response card stating that you and your partner will not be attending their wedding. 2.)  You invited this couple to your wedding last year, and they never gave an explanation as to why they couldn’t come or you didn’t believe their excuse that Bruce couldn’t possibly cancel his skydiving excursion even though you gave them the appropriate six-week notice with an invitation and Maggie simply had to be there to watch him land. Since you don’t know for sure why they didn’t come to yours, you don’t have reasonable cause to give them a piece of your mind, no matter how much you were hurt by their actions—or inactions, rather. But you still don’t have to go to their wedding. Simply send a response card stating that you and your partner won’t be able to make it, and if you wish, follow up with a note that you’ll be applying for sky-diving lessons and there’s a chance your jump could be scheduled for the same day as their wedding and your partner simply couldn’t bear to not be there to witness your big day. 3.)  You haven’t tied the knot yet … hell, you might even still be single. But you’re bitter as hell that all the straights in the nation are born with the right to apply for a marriage license in any state of their choosing—and you can’t. Your pals Bruce and Maggie are staunch Republicans and you suspect that they could be against marriage equality, but you’ve never dared bring it up to them. Therefore, you’re pretty sure they’d never come to your same-sex wedding, if you were ever lucky enough to have one. Now you’re invited to theirs, and you’re at a loss for what to do. The way I see it, you have three options: 1.)  Adjust your attitude: Don’t see their automatic rights as an affront to yours. If you love them, go to their wedding and celebrate their love. When it’s your turn, hopefully, they’ll return the favor. 2.)  If they’re close enough friends to invite you to their wedding, then perhaps they’re special enough to meet for lunch and discuss your feelings. Assumptions about what people would do or think can lead to bad decisions. If they give you a line of BS about their morals won’t allow them to support same-sex marriage, then you know what to do. 3.)  Check no on the response card. Give no explanation. Sign up for sky-diving lessons. Kirsten Palladino is the editor in chief of Equally Wed, the nation’s premier same-sex wedding magazine, online at http://www.equallywed.com [2]. Equally Wed offers gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer couples a guide to their weddings, a social community and a marketplace of vetted LGBT-friendly wedding vendors. Follow Equally Wed on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/equallywed [3]. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-straight-couple-marriage-wedding-top.jpg [2] http://www.equallywed.com/ [3] http://www.twitter.com/equallywed

[1] After U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's Proposition 8 decision, Maggie Gallagher was on news shows taking the judge's ruling to task.  Sent her media representative an email, requesting an interview. Wasn't expecting much, but the chairperson of the National Organization for Marriage [2] agreed to answer three questions via email. Here are her responses. She has an open invite to do this again. In your August 7 Washington Post [3] comments, you suggest  those against gay marriage would push for a federal marriage amendment. Is there really a groundswell for such an amendment and isn't that premature considering how the Walker decision hasn't made it through the entire judicial process? There are a number of conversations going on about how to protect people's right to vote for marriage. It is not too early to lay the groundwork for these alternatives, although of course it would require a sea-change politically.  We may see such a sea-change, beginning in November. Eugene Volokh [4] is just one of many legal scholars suggesting that some kind of "federalist" approach may happen. Ted Olson [5] was on Fox News this past Sunday morning. He noted that constitutional rights are not up for popular votes.  Rough paraphrase of course. How would respond to that idea? I did not see his interview this morning, although I have seen him on other occasions. The idea that our Founding Fathers put gay marriage into our Constitution is a big stretch for most people, including most Federalist Society [6] legal theorists, who are scratching their heads at Ted's reasoning. As for me,  I don't believe the Constitution gives you a right to an abortion either, but social liberals, impatient at having to persuade a far more conservative American people, have used the courts to make an end run around the majority views and values on repeated occasions. NOM is clear there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage; however, the same could be said about interracial marriage, yet the Supreme Court struck down codes banning it. How would you respond to people who see equivalency between interracial and gay marriage bans? The 14th Amendment bans racial discrimination. That is clear. Nothing in the Constitution requires treating same-sex couples as marriages , or establishes that sexual orientation is a protected class, in my humble opinion, and I hope in Justice [Anthony] Kennedy's [7]. Time will tell about that. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Maggie-Gallagher-top.jpg [2] http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3836955/k.BEC6/Home.htm [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080605222.html [4] http://volokh.com/2010/08/05/the-politics-of-same-sex-marriage-and-constitutional-amendments/ [5] http://www.365gay.com http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/08/olson-Wallace-fns/ [6] http://www.fed-soc.org/ [7] http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/08/proposition-8-ruling-takes-aim-at-justice-kennedy.html

A woman started an online gay bookstore [1], a prince started two gay magazines [2]; a year after homosexuality was decriminalized in India, the economy is feeling it. The Malaysian Insider [3] reported that the newly obtained right to be gay in India is making way for a multimillion-dollar niche market. Since last year, fifteen bars have hosted gay events and India’s first “gay products” store has seen its first ever year of growth. [4] Sanjay Malhotra runs India’s only gay travel agency, IndjaPink, which interviews hotels and tour guides to make sure they are gay friendly before his agency lists them. “In terms of business as well as inquiries, things have really gone up since the ruling,” said Malhotra. He said that complete acceptance in the country is still a ways away but, “Every traveler that goes with IndjaPink, we want them to be able to be who they are.” [1] http://www.365gay.com/news/first-gay-online-bookstore-opens-in-india/ [2] http://www.365gay.com/news/indian-prince-launches-gay-magazine/ [3] http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/features/article/indias-wealthy-gays-keep-niche-market-in-the-pink/ [4] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/map-india-globe-news-top.jpg