New Hampshire Needs to Move Forward, Not Backward

Christine Montgomery of Chesterfield expressed support for the freedom to same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.

Equality matters to me - and, specifically, the marriage equality recently enacted in New Hampshire.

It’s not quite full marriage equality yet. Not until all adults can marry the consenting adult(s) of their choice, regardless of relation.

I cannot be silent as I read of the current GOP legislators’ plan to repeal the marriage rights of our gay and lesbian citizens.

Good. We need to go forward to full marriage equality, not take a step back to take away a freedom to marry.

I believe that, regardless of sexual orientation, most couples have similar values around marriage. In fact, let’s focus on similarities rather than differences.

Not just couples, either.

Generally, we marry a person for whom we share deep affection/love. We marry the person we want to build and share a life with. We marry because we want our relationship recognized as a legitimate entity by all.

Marriage is how we define the depth of our relationship. Legally, marriage provides protection and financial benefits for couples and families.

Married couples create homes in their community, nurture friendships within their communities, provide stability within their community and beyond. Many married couples provide the foundation for families.

Not just couples, either. Poly families do, too. Let’s support full marriage equality for all. Writing a letter to the editor is one way.

If We Could Talk to the Animals

Jenny Block, who has written about open marriage, wrote that there are some interesting comparisons between humans and other animals when it comes to sexuality. How often have we heard that some relationship isn’t “natural?”

As she says, “Just because animals do certain things doesn’t prove that we necessarily do them too.” But sometimes humans can be compared to other animals, and the comparisons have weight. We might be able to get some good ideas from them.

She points out that animals flirt, they masturbate, they watch other animals express their sexuality, even through video.

They exhibit habits other than monogamy. They are polygamous and polygynous. And they are social monogamists as well as serial monogamists, even swans. Bonobos, for example, have multiple sexual partners at any given time in their life. And some species even engage in group sex. When red-sided garter snakes mate, the female is made the center of what is called a mating ball, where 100 males all attempt to mate with the female at the same time.

People exhibit habits other than monogamy. Although not always socially accepted, people partner in a variety of ways. Many of those ways have proved to be perfectly healthy.

Also,

They are homosexual as well as heterosexual. Marine birds, mammals, monkeys, great apes, dolphins, penguins, cattle, bonobos and rams are just a few of the many animal species in which scientists have observed homosexual behavior.

Humans are homosexual as well as heterosexual, obviously. And each is perfectly normal and absolutely biological. Once again, the only issue in human society is our lack of acceptance of both orientations.

She goes on to note that some animals have sex for pleasure, some will seek out additional sex partners if the current one is not interested in another session at that time, some over-indulge, and there are female initiators. And I’ll add that anyone who has had closely related hamsters can verify that some animals engage in consanguineous sex.

Consenting adults should have their rights to any of these things, without the law interfering.

A Mormon Ally

Julia, a Mormon, gives a “testimony” that includes...

I believe that polygyny, polyandry, and gay/lesbian marriages should be legal. I don't believe it is the government should tell me who to love.

Thank you, Julia. There are probably many more members of your church who believe the same thing, but just haven’t spoken up in public about it. The silence has meant people assume they support Prop H8.

About her choice of schools…

This choice kills me when I hear people use the word gay as a synonym for stupid.

Words do matter. There are stupid gays, but there are brilliant gays, too. Gays are people. “Gay” shouldn’t be used for “stupid,” or as an insult. People are slurred simply because of who they love. That’s wrong and everyone needs to reject that hateful attitude. Thanks, Julia.

A Coming Out Account

Young single mother Kiwi comes out as lebian and polyamorous after earlier coming out as bisexual.

So I started speaking to a friend of mine who is married with an 8 month old son.To cut to the chase, her marriage is an open marriage on her part, since she is bisexual.

Perhaps “and” would have been better than “since,” beause there are bisexuals who are monogamous and married heterosexuals, gays, and lesbians who are polyamorous or engage in some other form of nonmonogamy. But I’m sure Kiwi didn’t mean that bisexuality always necessitates an open marriage.

Her husband has no problem with her dating (yes, having an actual emotional/sexual relationship) a girl. If anything, he supports it! And no strings involved, either. So after a while of her and I pondering the subject and opportunities, We decided to give it a go. This type of relationship is referred to as Polyamory…In a nutshell, she is a married woman with a girlfriend at the same time. No secrets in either relationship.

Kiwi can see the relationship lasting. Shouldn’t they be able to make it official, if that is what they want?

Then came coming out..and telling a select few family members about my relationship. Coming out went well. No negative comments (Yes, I did it through facebook. It was a quick, easy way to tell a lot of people at once) and a few people weren't surprised in the least.

Telling my family about my girlfriend didn't go nearly as well.

You can go read what she wrote about that.

Best wishes to Kiwi on her life as an out polyamorous lesbian.

Not an Ally

Roslyn Phillips, Tea Tree Gully, SA shows that she is not an ally with this letter to The Australian.

The definition of marriage in the Marriage Act -- the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life -- contains five elements. There must be a union, not just a friendship; it must be a union of a man and a woman; it must be an exclusive union, not involving polygamy or adultery; it must be a voluntary union, not entered under coercion; and it must be a union for life.

If any one of these elements is missing at the outset, the relationship is not a marriage.

She doesn’t say why she is against the freedom to voluntarily enter into same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage. But that is typical. Rarely does anyone try to actually give a reason for their anti-equality stance that isn’t based merely on their personal preferences or religion.

Solidarity From Will O’Bryan

Will O’Bryan, who is gay, wrote a great piece over the controversy surrounding the comparisons made to the David Epstein situation and same-sex relationships, expressing his solidarity with those of us who want consanguineous lovers to allowed their happiness. First, though, he expresses concerns about statements by the lawyer for David Esptein…

Of course, the reasonable, conventional reflex from the gay community and its allies would be an utter repudiation of that rationale, with arguments, diagrams and psychoanalysis as to why incest and homosexuality are apples and oranges.

They are different categories of sexuality. There are some consanguineous same-sex couples, for example. But both categories fall under “consenting adults.”

He also see’s Saletan’s point…

The portion of Saletan's argument that boils down to the gay taboo of same-sex lovin' being the only avenue available for gay people, while someone with an incestuous attraction could simply look elsewhere, has some merit.

What gives anyone the right to tell consenting adults they have to look elsewhere instead of to each other?

Thankfully, he goes on to express a high level of solidarity.

In the ways that we've strained to outdo our oppressors, which seems a common reaction among the oppressed, aiming to prove we can surpass whatever hurdles our oppressors place before us, we perhaps emulate them in ways that make me as uncomfortable as a God-fearing, GOProud, married gay parent with four children and a golden lab when the leather/BDSM float passes at the pride parade.

Those who have been told to stand at the back of the bus should not be so quick to throw others under it. Instead, we should all join together and insist that we all should have equal access to sit in the bus.

I will grant that incest and homosexuality are not the same things, particularly when it comes to a parent and child. But I may also feel uncomfortable when I see an employer bedding an employee or a teacher fooling around with a pupil. But I'm not going to feel threatened if someone equates the two for the sake of legal argument. Why should I feel uncomfortable?

Thank you.

The human norm evolved so that we have two sexes, each sexually attracted to the opposite, leading to reproduction. That norm has often been enshrined into law. But I don't want to submit to such laws because I am gay. If I was one of those kinky Bel Ami ''twincest'' twins, Milo and Elijah Peters, considering my brother my boyfriend, I might also resent the laws against incest. I can promise, however, my straight brother and I will never be getting it on. That does not, however, put me in any position to support a law telling Milo and Elijah they can't do their (highly lucrative) thing.

Thanks again.

So I just can't get that worked up about two grown people having an incestuous relationship. Even in the case of the Epsteins where a line has been crossed between parent and child and there may be psychological fallout for years to come for the latter, she was an adult when this began.

Don’t we all know people, perhaps ourselves, who have been emotionally scarred from nonconsanguineous relationships with people roughly the same age? Infatuation or love always brings such potential. Relationships can end up hurting, but they can also bring much happiness. Either way, as long as the participants consented, the law should not be against it. O’Bryan eloquently gives one reason why…

And for those who do care, who demand laws to prevent this sort of thing, who are you kidding? I don't really know how such laws might affect the incestuous, but I can tell you that attempts to ban homosexuality did little more than ruin lives – of the persecuted, of those forced into unhappy marriages, and sometimes the children of those marriages. They did not help society. And with or without such laws, the number of gay people remains the same.

Yes. It seems that the greatest harms caused by these relationships are, ironically, caused by the fact that others try to interfere in them with laws, violence, harassment, and insults.

I've been told my sexual expression is disgusting, though that was far truer 20 or 30 years ago. Now that I can get married and join the Army, I could wrap myself in propriety and call others disgusting. Because of my experience, having to consider and dissect and wear my sexuality for decades, rather than simply take it for granted, I cannot. Instead, I grant that if two – or 10 – adults consent to sexual activity, it's really none of my business. If the thought of it makes me feel foul, I will think about something else.

Brilliant. Amazingly brilliant. Thank you, Will O’Bryan.

Still Waiting For A Good Reason to Deny Marriage Equality

This guy tries to explain why only some adults should have the freedom to marry the person they love.

Essentially, I believe that whatever involves just consenting adults, and does not do violence to others or society as a whole, should be tolerated. And, when it involves the notion of legal equality, it should be accepted.

Sounds great.

Gay marriage: Sure. Fine. Whatever. "I think it's gross" is NOT sufficient legal justification for banning it.

Thanks for supporting this freedom to marry.

Incest: No, no, a thousand times no.

Why not? He struggles to justify his opposition to this freedom to marry.

In some cases, it involves minors -- so there goes the "consenting adults."

By starting out with this, he’s trying to equate fun, romance, and love between consenting adults with child abuse. It’s like making a case against adults working for a living because of child-slave labor. I, like most people who want marriage equality, condemn child abuse.

In others, it raises the likelihood of inbreeding -- so there goes the "harm to others."

We’ve dealt with this one so many times before. There is no law against people having children despite and increased risk that the child will inherit a disease or birth defect, so unless you want to deny reproductive rights and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection prevents this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry. Still, most children born to consanguineous parents are fine. Furthermore, there are people marry who have no intention of reproducing, and most sex does not result in a live birth, nor is it intended to. So give this one a rest.

In some, involving parents, squicky issues of power and authority and inequality are raised.

This objection also fails. Next?

But even in those cases where those pitfalls are avoided, the introduction of the sexual dynamic entirely within the family structure causes violence to society as a whole.

What does this mean, and where is the proof? One might as well say that it kills ancient redwood trees. Spell out the harm. The sexual dynamic often brings people closes together. If you’ve found otherwise, maybe you’re doing it wrong.

Bigamy: Too many legal nightmares.

That’s what the bigots said about same-sex marriage and the Americans With Disabilities Act and just about any civil rights laws. Of course it is easier for those who already have what they want to keep things as they are. But what about all of the people who are denied their rights?

Let's take the case of Adam, Eve, and Eden. Adam marries Eve, and then the two marry Eden. Then Adam wants out. What does that mean to the legal relationship between Eve and Eden? Are they still married, even if they don't want to be? Are they divorced from each other, even if they don't want to be?

Use some thinking. It is very simple. If Adam leaves, Eve and Eden have the option of either continuing in a reformed marriage or entirely dissolving the marriage. It’s called freedom of association. When one person leaves a polygamous marriage, the others can too. Or, they can stay. It is their choice, not anyone else's concern.

And what about children?

What about children from one night stands, donated sperm, surrogate mothers, affairs, brief flings, or supposedly monogamous marriage that's ending? What about children born to a woman whose husband wasn’t the man who impregnated her? All of these situations are entirely legal. A court decides custody disputes that aren’t resolved amicably.

Marriage is a straight line (pardon the expression), defined by two points.

In his limited imagination. Others are living in marriages that are different.

It can be made and broken relatively simply (geometrically speaking). Introducing more points, making it into triangles, squares (with corners also connected), and whatnot just gets messy. No just say no to bigamy.

Got that? You can’t have your freedom to marry because someone else finds it “messy.” I mean really, why does one person care if someone else’s relationship is more complicated than he would like for himself? Don't want a poly marriage? Don't have one.

It’s past time to stop this. Just let people marry the person(s) they want to marry. Stop persecuting and prosecuting people for the sex they have with other consenting adults.

The Kids Are Alright

The Las Vegas Sun had a column from high school student Jordan Orris, reporting on the 54th annual Sun Youth Forum. It was held on November 23 with about 1,000 students from high schools throughout Southern Nevada participating.

She says…

With regard to the role of marriage in contemporary America, two questions were posed: (1) Should polygamy be made legal? (2) Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?

It is good that it wasn’t questioned if same-sex marriage should be legal. The students appear to assume it should be and will be legal nationwide.

We examined the benefits of marriage under the status quo, including emotional, spiritual, physical, cultural and financial incentives.

Interestingly, there were quite a few yeas for polygamy, whose arguments included that polygamy is an institution of Muslim society and should be legalized for religious rights purposes, and the catch-22 of prosecution for cheating in a relationship being no different from prosecution for marrying many.

Actually, cheating has been almost entirely decriminalized. Most, if not all, of the few cases in which cheating makes it to court and is relevant to a case is in civil court. Marrying more than one person when all involved consent is a far different thing than cheating, even if the marriage isn’t legally recognized. And such marriages should be legally recognized, not only for religious freedom but as a basic human right. It does not make sense that in some places in this country, someone can get into legal trouble for ceremonially marrying more than one person and caring for that person as a spouse, but has no risk of legal trouble for cheating with a series of affairs or one night stands. Polygamy should not be a crime. Why discourage anyone from loving and caring for another consenting adult?

Those in disagreement argued the legal entanglements caused by situations of divorce, child custody and child support.

I don’t see how it would be much different than with supposedly monogamous marriages. You know, requiring accommodations for the disabled meant far many more changes than it would take to accommodate this freedom to marry, and yet that was voted into law twenty years ago.

The dissenters also argued that polygamy was not relevant in America.

Of course it is relevant. There are American citizens who want this freedom to marry.

Others simply stated that the government should not intrude on the lives of people or their marriages.

Support full marriage equality and let the people decide for themselves. The younger generations are supportive, so it is only a matter of time before hate no longer has enough power to deny marriage equality.

Kill Proposition 8

It is looking good for (some) same-sex couples in California after yesterday’s Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on Prop H8.

Attorney Theodore Olson, representing opponents of Proposition 8, argued that the measure is unconstitutional and denies "the fundamental right of...citizens to marry."

Fundamental rights can’t be denied.

Two same-sex couples filed a federal challenge, saying the law violated 14th Amendment constitutional protections of due process and equal protection.

On August 4, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker agreed, ruling that the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President George H.W. Bush, wrote in his 136-page opinion. "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."

Same-sex marriage works for some. Opposite-sex marriage works for others. Monogamous marriage works for some. Polygamous marriage works for others. Some people don’t want to get married at all. Everyone should have their freedoms. Consenting adults should not be denied their right to marriage based on age, race, gender, sexual orientation, number of spouses, or relation.

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five states and in the District of Columbia. The five states are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire.

Vote with your feet, because while this report says…

Walker's landmark ruling led to a swift federal appeal that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

...Some analysts have said that the ruling could be written in a way that keeps the Supreme Court out of it and only restores the freedom to marry to same sex couples in California. It would be great if the ruling applied nationwide and was backed up by the Supreme Court, but we’ll have to wait and see what happens. In my dreams, the Supreme Court takes up the case and rules for full marriage equality nationwide, but I don’t think that is likely. What is more likely is advancing to full marriage equality based on this freedom to marry and other precedents.

Prop H8 in Court Again Today

Canada has granted the freedom to marry to same-sex couples and a court there is now dealing with the possibility of increasing the freedom to marry to polycules. Meanwhile, Proposition 8 (Prop “H8”) is back in US federal court as we fight for the freedom of same-sex couples to marry in more places in the US.

I’m cautiously optimistic. I'd like to court to quickly decide that the lower court’s ruling was correct and again lift the ban on the freedom of (some) same-sex couples to marry in California. It remains to be seen if this will go up to the Supreme Court. It would be great if this would bring this freedom to marry to all of the other states that currently have bans, too. What would be best of all is if we got full marriage equality out of this, but that is a longshot.

Opponents of Proposition 8 contend it violates the due process and equal protection rights of gays and lesbians under the U.S. Constitution by denying them the right to marry the person of their choice and by singling them out for disparate treatment without a legitimate rationale.

Let freedom ring.

Mexico May Get Better For Same-Sex Couples

Almost a year ago, Mexico City started allowing most same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. Now the national House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to change social security rules to include medical and social benefits for same-sex couples. It still needs to get all the way through the legislative process (the Senate, etc.), and it wouldn’t be marriage, but it is a step in the direction of the freedom to marry for most same-sex couples.

Let’s keep the momentum moving in North America towards full marriage equality, so that any person will have the right to marry the person or person(s) of his or her choosing.

Iowa Bigots Parody Eharmony

You may have already seeing this video, which has appeared in several place, including Incest News. It is interesting to see bigots parody the bigoted business Eharmony, but that's not the main point.



The video is put out by a group upset that same-sex couples have the freedom to marry in Iowa. Apprently, the bigots are attempting to use the “ick factor” that some people have towards consanguineous sex to gain political advantage, if not actually take away the freedom to marry from same-sex couples in Iowa. Taking away that right would be very difficult at this point, but bigots want to use the prejudice of voters and potential donors to manipulate. It also tries to reinforce the denial of the freedom to marry to consanguineous couples.

But notice something very important about the video. It doesn’t offer a single reason why anyone should oppose either freedom to marry. It merely appeals to animus. So typical of bigots.

This is a parody commercial showing a hypothetical dating site that matches you with your relatives. The point they are trying to make is that the court system is very lopsided and unfair when it comes to marriage and sexuality, picking and choosing preferred classes rather than applying the same rules to everyone.

Yes. The bigots want to exclude everyone from marriage except for supposedly monogamous, nonconsanguineous, heterosexual couples, preferably of the same race. And then there are those who neglect solidarity, who want marriage rights extended to just their group. But the best solution is full marriage equality, allowing consenting adults to form the marriages they want without anyone else telling them they can’t.

Hey, look at this.

Tim Hicks, who created and posted the video on YouTube, is a member of Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City. In fact, nearly half of the videos he’s posted on YouTube are of the church’s pastor, Cary Gordon. The church is facing a possible IRS investigation over its campaign to convince other pastors around the state to encourage their congregations to vote against retaining three state Supreme Court justices on the ballot this fall.

Fascinating.

This is another chance to stand up for solidarity. Will more people do so?

Gender and Number

This is all too typical…

The flaw in the logic of comparing polygamy and gay marriage is that an individual does not choose to be gay, an individual is born gay. People are not born polygamists.

Of course people are born gay. But people are not “born polygamist?” There are lot of poly people who will tell you or that they are naturally (born) poly. There are other people who are denial but haven’t stuck to celibacy or monogamy, being with many people. Some people are heterosexual, some gay. Some are poly, some monogamous.

Gender and number certainly are two different factors in the freedom to marry. Recognized polygamy has a long and rich history around the world. Marriage between people of the same sex hasn’t. So yes, there is a difference. The freedom to marry one person of the same sex is not the same as being able to marry two or more people of whatever genders. But both are essential to marriage equality. Let’s show some solidarity. The heterosexual person doesn’t truly have the freedom to marry if that person wants to marry two or more. The gay person or the bisexual person doesn’t truly have the freedom to marry if that person wants to marry two or more. This is why we need full marriage equality.

Lesbian Compares Her Past Monogamy to Current Poly

Sometimes, you can find some good perspectives at the Experience Project. PeggyO, who is in her late 40s, shared why she is glad she discovered polyamory and why she enjoys it. She’s a lesbian who had experienced long-term monogamy in a marriage relationship before discovering she is poly. I have not removed her typing errors.

Single now for a little over two years - I am suprised and rather shocked at my own desires to seek polyamorous relationships. I have read some books - agree with certain points made. A strong argument is the could you only love one child if you had more than one? no! you would love each one and accept them for who they are. I have always been one - who has had a wide variety of friends - good friends, I value my freindships and actually each one of those is a sort of relationship of thier own. This is especially true in the lesbian world where our friendships bonding can be quite close. So - I make connections and let them unfold as they do at a natural pace, and should it become sexual and the feelings are mutual - I invite that into my life.

She found seeking monogamy to be confining and something that brought her loneliness.

I just seems - when I was living the "monogomous" life - unless for me to cross "that" line and become intimate with another - I had to have all my ducts lined up perfect with THIS person - they must show that they are THE one - the perfect one to allow to bring myself into a "relationship" the thing is - with this thinking - you end up doing a whole lot of eleminating and much more time being lonely- but that "perfect" one could be around the corner.......

As you’ll find with many poly people and anyone else, she points out that it isn’t just about sex.

At the same time - it is not all about just sex with me - it is about knowing that woman and feeling good about expressing some mutual attractions, careing and sharing - even if our "time" together does not last until all enternity.

It is a good relationship for that time. It may not always be. She is selective…

I still look for women of character - when deciding to become intimate - so as to give myself some feeling of grounding and trust building. I am actually rather selective on who I choose to become intimate with. I do however feel very strongly - I would not wish to be required to "drop" one of my other intimate connections - so as to make any new one I make feel "safe and secure"

She gives a good explanation of why polyamory is what she needs…

Mono and Poly, it it like comparing apples to oranges. I loved my apples for a long time - I just now am enjoying oranges. This is even a better comparison. I have this unique opportunity do my having flight benefits - I live in two different areas / states - have for nine years - I live in the beautiful Cascade mountains of the Pacific Northwest for part of the week and then in a beautiful metropolis city during the other part of the week. So - everyone love to ask me - which is better to live? The mountains or the city? they almost insist it has to be either / or. I say Both! each area as their good side to it and also their bad side. I am just lucky that I get an opportunity to experience BOTH - experience and live it - in THIS I find true happiness :)

She should have equal rights, so that she can pursue happiness.

A Muslim Perspective on the Freedom to Marry

At Altmuslimah, Laura Miller wrote about the freedom to marry from a Muslim perspective, mostly centered on the freedom of same-sex couples.

There are Muslim women, even here in the United States, who believe that there aren’t a lot of suitable men to go around, and perhaps sharing one of the “good men” is the closest she’ll come to having what she wants – a decent marriage. You don’t have to agree with polygamy, just like you don’t have to agree with gay marriage – but if personal beliefs are not to be the basis for policymaking, then what do governments who allow gay marriage have against sanctioning polygamy?

Sometimes, governments change only as much as the people demand. This is why everyone who wants the freedom to marry needs to speak up, recruit friends, and fight in solidarity for full marriage equality.

Restored Freedom to Marry on Hold in California

The federal appeals court has put a hold on same-sex marriages in California before they could even start taking place again. They want to take a look at the case first. Let's hope they decide in December to let this freedom to marry resume in California. Let's keep working towards full marriage equality so thatsame-sex couples can marry, but also others can marry who do not currently have the freedom to marry.

Mixed News Out of California

Judge Walker, who ruled that same-sex marriage is a right, refused to keep the state from allowing same-sex couples to marry. That’s the good news. The bad news is that he just said it can’t happen until next week – so no marriages for same-sex couples today or for almost a week, most likely. He did this to give an appeals court time to place their own hold on issuing the licenses pending the appeal of Judge Walker’s decision in the lawsuit.

Let’s hope the higher court doesn’t put a hold on this freedom to marry, so that same-sex weddings can resume in a few days.

And then, may this freedom never be taken away temporarily or permanently, and may this freedom to marry go nationwide, and may the freedom to marry increase until we have full marriage equality, so that same-sex couples can marry even if they happen to be sisters, and so that people can marry more than one person if that is what they want.

Mexico's Supreme Court Upholds Freedom to Marry

Almost didn't catch this one. The highest court in Mexico upheld Mexico City's new freedom to marry for same-sex couples. It would be great if the rest of the country would follow, and if the freedom to marry was extended to all in Mexico City and in the whole nation: full marriage equality.

Congrats to the newlyweds!

Freedom Map For Same Sex Couples

The Los Angeles Times has a map that indicates levels of the freedom to marry in different states in the USA for same-sex (nonconsanguineous, presumably) couples.

I'm sure there are better maps out there and ones that detail other countries, and I'd be happy to link to them, too.

California Prop H8 Loses So Freedom Wins

It’s a good day. A federal judge has ruled in favor of extending (again) the freedom to marry to same-sex couples by siding with those suing California over Proposition 8. Same-sex couples were granted the right to marry in California for several months in 2008 before “Prop H8” was passed.

Congratulations to the same-sex couples who will be able to marry as a result of this ruling.

The right could still be taken away by an appeals court or the Supreme Court, but let’s hope the Supreme Court rules for freedom. Is it too much to dream that the Supreme Court will go further and rule for full marriage equality? Let’s not wait for that. Let’s build on today’s decision to move towards full marriage equality. It’s great that some same-sex couples can now marry, but why should that not include a same-sex couple that happen to be sisters? Or why shouldn’t a man who is in love with two other men be able to marry both of them? Love is love.