VP would back ban on gay marriage Best guess: Bush won't try for an amendment so as not to lose potential votes for his party. But this does say something about the man next in line--if not already first--for the presidency.
posted by Postroad
on Jan 10, 2004 -
36 comments
"They have no business debating the efficacy of gay marriages, any more than they should be debating the pullout of troops from South Korea" North of Detroit, a county commissioner and avowed Christian Conservative pushed a resolution supporting an amendment to the Michigan state constitution, declaring marriage to be a strictly man-and-woman affair. It passed in Oakland County's Board by a narrow margin. But the county executive, a longtime prominent conservative, won't let it go without a fight, and says that with an urban county seat, Pontiac, they should have better things to do-- like their jobs.
Is a county board seat an appropriate forum to push another agenda, or should they be more concerned with fixing roads and economy? Does such a resolution at such a low level of goverment even mean anything? Meanwhile, some couples are saying heck-with-it and making that trip 'cross the Ambassador Bridge.
posted by marzenie99
on Sep 18, 2003 -
14 comments
DC church approves same sex union. From the article:
The unanimous decision on Saturday by its board of elders places the 159-year-old congregation, where U.S. presidents James A. Garfield and Lyndon B. Johnson once worshiped, among a small number of D.C. area churches that permit such services, often called "covenant ceremonies."
No leading questions this time, (see saturday's "gun post") just curious if this is happening elsewhere in the U.S.
posted by buz46
on Dec 10, 2002 -
9 comments
"If you've got ovaries, you're a female. I'm just old fashioned."
Acknowledging that there may be more to sex than chromosomes, a Kansas appeals court has overturned a lower court's ruling invalidating the marriage of a transsexual to someone of the (now) opposite sex. Some in the Kansas legislature think this is just some gay radical's way of skirting the same-sex marriage ban. There's an opposing Texas precedent that the Supreme Court refused to hear last year, so this one may go all the way. Sadly, it'll probably fall under the much-maligned equal protection clause. Anyone think this poor woman has a chance?
posted by Gilbert
on May 11, 2001 -
14 comments
The new
weblog/site: take back vermont covers the the recent gay marriage ruling in Vermont and the flap it has caused for some of the more kooky right wing citizens. Many citizens have go so far as to openly display their bigotry by
posting signs in their yards. The best part about the site? Putting it at the domain of the people that oppose gay marriage, and asking people to deface the signs by
adding a ".COM" to them so they can see a site that asks folks to support the law and all the reasons why it should stand. Simply ingenious.
posted by mathowie
on Jul 30, 2000 -
6 comments
Get the petition. They need one million signatures before April 20 to get it back on the November ballot. If you're in California, print out the petition and start drumming up support today. It's not so often you get a second chance like this. Show the country that California does indeed, rock.
posted by veruca
on Mar 20, 2000 -
9 comments
