Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again

[Dos Equis]

   Amazing how this is even debated in religious circles. 

[BayGBM]

Pastor Quits After Revealing Same-Sex Relations

By NEELA BANERJEE

The senior pastor of a suburban Denver evangelical church resigned Sunday after admitting to having had sexual relations with men. The move apparently came after the pastor was confronted by another minister in his church who had been alerted by an anonymous caller, The Denver Post reported.

The resignation of the pastor, the Rev. Paul Barnes, from the pulpit of the 2,100-member Grace Chapel megachurch in Englewood came by way of a tearful, 32-minute videotaped address to his congregation.

His departure occurred a month after the Rev. Ted Haggard quit as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and senior pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs when a former male prostitute disclosed that Mr. Haggard had had a sexual relationship with him.

Dave Palmer, the associate pastor of Grace Chapel, told The Post that the church received a call last week from a person who had overheard someone speak of “blowing the whistle” on other evangelical ministers in clandestine homosexual relationships, among them Mr. Barnes. Mr. Palmer then spoke with Mr. Barnes.

A spokeswoman for Grace Chapel said that church leaders had declined to comment further. A statement issued by the church on Sunday said that Mr. Barnes, who founded Grace Chapel 28 years ago, had confessed to infidelity; it did not mention homosexuality.

Mr. Barnes said in his address that he had struggled with his attraction to men since he was 5, The Post said. The only time Mr. Barnes said he had talked to his father about sex, his father told him what he would do if a gay man, for which he used a derogatory term, walked up to him.

Mr. Barnes recalled thinking, “ ‘Is that how you’d feel about me?’ It was like a knife in my heart, and it made me feel even more closed,” The Post said.

Justin Lee, a self-described gay evangelical, said many men had written messages to his Web site, gaychristian.net, telling of anguish similar to what Mr. Barnes described.

“The church has created a double standard that all of us are sinful and have temptations and need to be open about that — unless you’re gay,” Mr. Lee said.

Mr. Barnes’s wife, Char, told The Post she had been unaware of her husband’s struggles. The couple has two adult daughters.

Mr. Barnes avoided preaching about politics, and Grace Chapel did not take a stand on a recent successful ballot initiative backed by most of Colorado’s megachurches banning same-sex marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/us/12resign.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Dos Equis]

N.J. lawmakers OK civil unions, not same-sex marriage
POSTED: 6:34 p.m. EST, December 14, 2006

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Facing pressure from the state's top court, the New Jersey Legislature voted Thursday to give gay and lesbian couples the rights and privileges of marriage, while using the term "civil unions" to describe the partnerships.

The vote in the General Assembly was 56-19. The Senate vote was 23-12. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would sign a civil unions bill into law.

Steven Goldstein, director of Equality New Jersey, told Bloomberg that the vote was a mixed blessing for the state's gays and lesbians because there was no guarantee non-government entities would honor the decision.

"Nobody knows what civil unions are in the real world. That's the problem,'' Goldstein told Bloomberg. "We want marriage equality, not a law that discriminates.''

The move follows an order by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which directed the state to provide same-sex couples with marriage rights or their equivalent.

Employing civil rights terminology, gay and lesbian advocates blasted the decision and said that providing the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage was tantamount to the "separate but equal" treatment of a discriminated group.

Conservatives have steadfastly opposed legislation that suggests same-sex relationships are equivalent to marriages between men and women.

If Corzine, a Democrat, signs the measure into law, New Jersey will become the third state behind Vermont and Connecticut to OK civil unions. Massachusetts also recognizes rights for same-sex couples, and is the only state to use the term marriage.

The federal government recognizes neither same-sex marriage nor civil union, meaning same-sex couples do not receive federal marriage benefits such as Social Security.

According to the New Jersey bill, two people who enter into a civil union "shall have all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage."

Adoption and hospital visitation are covered under that definition.

In October, the state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that New Jersey could not discriminate against same-sex couples by excluding them from the benefits of marriage. It gave the state 180 days to rectify the situation through legislative action.

"By passing a law that marks same-sex couples as inferior, the government has paved the way for others to discriminate against them," said David Buckel, marriage project director at Lambda Legal and lead attorney on the Lewis v. Harris marriage lawsuit that led to the court's decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/14/same.sex/index.html

[suckmymuscle]

Marriage has always tradionally meant a union between man and woman. Why should this definition be changed to please a bunch of fags?

  Because the traditional definition of marriage is wrong. A society that values reproduction and believes that biologically-based sexuality should be the guiding principle of how to organize a Human society might value the traditional definition of marriage. However, this is a primitive view of what marriage should be. Reproduction today can be controlled, and traditional sex is no longer required to reproduce the species. As for children, there's no evidence that a man and a woman provide a better moral role model than a two men, or two women. And even if a taditional couple did povide a better role model, they'd be providing a better role model for what? For supporting traditional role models! Personally, I'd much rather have a child raised by a gay couplke rathe than living in the streets, eating out of garbage cans.

  I have a libertarian view of how a Society should be. Traditionalists keep bringing up the point that legalizing gay marriage would open the doorfor legalizing all kinds of marriage, such as that of adults to children or hmans to animals. These are terrible analogies, because the disparities between the examples are far less dramatic than in the other cases. An adult and a child could potetially be in love, but the child doesen't really know what love is, has no discernment or capacity to judge what is in his/her best interests. The same for the animal. Two adult men or two adult women, conversely, are mature, free-willed and have the capacity to decide what's best for them. Marriage should not be about reproduction and children, because it demeans the human conditon to reduce us to the level of breeding animals; it should be about love and sex within the context of love.

  The only problem I see here are children. Now, even if gay marriage were legalized, most people would still marry to the opposite sex and sire children, so that would't be a problem. And it still wouldn't be a problem if all humans became homosexuals, because children could still be produced through artificial isemination and then raised by same sex couples. The survival of the species would be assured regardless. To finish, I must reiterate that there's no evidece whatsoever that chilren raised by gay couples grow up to become robbers, sex perverts or homicidal maniacs. I fact, there's no evidence that they even grow to become gay - not that there would be any problem in that! Let's be logical about this and end the concept of marriage as a function of reproduction, because there are far more worthy things to build a marriage on, and maintaining the traditional family as the only one is perpetuating something that is: no longer necessary, not morally superior, not necessary for children's morals and, above all, it is turning marriage from a symbol of love to one of reproduction, a mcuh lower one. Use your brains, people!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[BayGBM]

N.J. Gov. to Make Gay Unions Official
By TOM HESTER Jr.
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 21, 2006; 7:16 AM

TRENTON, N.J. -- New Jersey's gay couples are gaining all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law as New Jersey moves to become the third in the nation to institute civil unions and the fifth to offer some version of marriage.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine planned to sign the civil unions bill on Thursday.

When the law takes effect Feb. 19, New Jersey will join Connecticut and Vermont as states that allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights.

Gay couples granted civil unions in New Jersey will have adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights and the right not to testify against a partner in state court.

The Legislature passed the civil unions bill on Dec. 14 in response to an October state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.

Gay couples welcome the law, but some argue that not calling the relationship "marriage" creates a different, inferior institution.

Also, while the state law provide them with the benefits of married couples, they won't be entitled to the same benefits in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Surviving partners won't be able to collect deceased partners' Social Security benefits, for example, said family lawyer Felice T. Londa, who represents many same-sex couples.

Donna Harrison, of Asbury Park, has been with her partner, Kathy Ragauckas, for nine years. She isn't exactly celebrating the bill signing, though she said she and Ragauckas will probably get a civil union certificate.

"Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings," she said.

Chris Schwam and Steven Piacquiadio, of Collingswood, have been together for 20 years, have a 3-year-old son and had a big wedding in 1993, though it wasn't recognized legally. Schwam, 40, said they will get a civil union, but without a big fuss.

"I don't think my mother would be happy to pay for that again," he said.

The gay rights group Garden State Equality has promised to push lawmakers to change the terminology to "marriage." Others are considering lawsuits to force full recognition of gay marriage.

The bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.

Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems a reasonable approach, but he said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than gay marriage is preferable.

"For most, people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief," the governor said. "So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law."

Senate President Richard J. Codey, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, said time could bring change.

"The history of civil rights progress, whether it's women's rights, minorities' rights or any other movement, is one that is typically achieved in incremental steps," Codey said. "This is, by no means, the end, but it is a major step forward."

Social conservative groups and lawmakers opposed the measure, reasoning it brings gay relationships too close to marriage, but it easily passed the legislature. Some have vowed to push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but Democrats who control the legislature said such proposals won't be heard.

The three-day waiting period required by the law is the same as with marriage licenses. Licenses will be valid for 30 days, and ceremonies can be officiated by anyone who performs weddings, including clergy and mayors. As with marriages, civil unions will have to be witnessed by one additional adult.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122100155.html

[BayGBM]

Despite Laws, Gay Wedding Industry Booms
By DIONNE WALKER
The Associated Press
Monday, December 25, 2006; 7:12 PM

RICHMOND, Va. -- He's no celebrity, but when Phillip McKee III tied the knot in September, he did it with all the pomp and circumstance of an A-lister: Custom-designed gold rings, a $2,000 kilt and a caviar-and-crepe reception at a five-star hotel. McKee, 34, sank some $60,000 into his Scottish-themed nuptials, worth it he says for the chance to stand before a minister and be pronounced husband _ and husband.

Even as lawmakers across the nation debate legislation banning same-sex marriage, couples are uniting in weddings both miniature and massive, fueling a growing industry peddling everything from pink triangle invitations to same-sex cake toppers.

Vendors say attention to the marriage issue has encouraged more gay couples to recognize their relationships, though in most states, the ceremonies are purely sentimental.

"For the longest time, there was so much shame and privacy around it that people didn't really give themselves permission to have ceremonies like this," said Kathryn Hamm, an Arlington-based wedding consultant who planned McKee's marriage to partner Nopadon Woods. "(Now) the market is growing as the headlines remain out there."

Unlike the multibillion dollar traditional wedding industry, experts say the gay wedding business is harder to track. Some estimates place its value at up to $1 billion.

In 2005, gays spent $7.2 million with vendors found at the Rainbow Wedding Network Web site, according to data collected by the site, which publishes a national magazine and hosts wedding expos. That's up from $2.1 million in 2002, according to Cindy Sproul, who co-owns the North Carolina firm.

Marriage-minded gays and lesbians are purchasing basics like flowers and limousines. But vendors say couples also are spending on items with a same-sex twist: rainbow bejeweled rings, double-bride thank you cards and "His and His" towel sets.

"We almost completely parallel what heterosexual couples are doing," Sproul said. "The only difference is there may be two grooms, or two brides."

Sproul estimated gay couples spend about $20,000 on ceremonies in states offering some form of recognition, like Massachusetts and Vermont. But couples elsewhere also are investing: Sproul said couples average $15,000 on ceremonies in states that have banned gay marriage such as Georgia, where an annual wedding expo her company hosts draws about 500, mostly black gays and lesbians.

Vinyelle White and Madeline Jones of Richmond spent $4,000 _ a month's worth of their combined income _ on their August ceremony, a homespun affair with handmade invitations.

"It may sound really stupid to say, but why not," said White, who visited gay wedding Web sites before choosing an African-themed wedding. "We're showing this is how much we love each other, whether it's legal or not."

Emerging in gay communities largely in the last decade, same-sex marriages _ and weddings _ recently have been drawn into the national spotlight by attempts to make the unions illegal.

Massachusetts is the only state to date to allow gay marriage, since the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 the state constitution guaranteed that right. According to the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics, 8,764 same-sex couples tied the knot in Massachusetts since the first same-sex weddings began taking place May 17, 2004 through Nov. 9, 2006, the most recent figures available.

In November, Virginia was one of seven states that approved gay-marriage bans, joining 20 that had done so in previous elections. But other states are moving in the opposite direction: New Jersey's gay couples gained new rights last week when the state legalized same-sex civil unions there.

Sharmayne Wesler, a planner with New York's annual GLBT Expo, credited the hubbub and well-publicized gay weddings like that of lesbian rocker Melissa Etheridge in 2003, with encouraging gays to formalize their relationships.

"They too want to be traditional," said Wesler, whose RDP Group has 70 wedding-specific vendors at its expo. "The trend ... is toward really large weddings, none of these simple affairs.

"They want to go to a ceremony with all the bells and whistles."

McKee and Woods invited 200 guests to their black-tie ceremony, followed by a cocktail hour and reception at the Ritz-Carlton, in Tysons Corner, Va.

Groomsmen received engraved pocket watches; a bagpiper, pianist and DJ serenaded guests, who dined on caviar and lobster.

McKee used gay wedding books, Web sites and a wedding coordinator to find things like gay-friendly photographers. The ceremony cost half their annual income.

In Virginia, the men were no more legally bound after the lavish wedding than before. Still, they considered it a good investment.

"For us, the essence of a marriage is our love," McKee said. "Whether the state honors it is the icing on the cake _ it's not the cake itself."

[Dos Equis]

 

[Dos Equis]

Mass. Lawmakers Vote on Gay Marriage
 
BOSTON (AP) -- Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban it.

The amendment's backers had collected 170,000 signatures to get a question on the 2008 ballot asking voters to declare marriage to be between a man and a woman, but they still needed the approval of two consecutive legislatures.

Gov.-elect Deval Patrick had urged lawmakers not to vote on it Tuesday, which would have effectively killed it.

 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=HIHAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[drkaje]

A majority of people don't wish to expand/redefine marriage/family to accomodate gays.

Why gays can't accept something so simple is beyond me.