I just discovered from this useful guide to gay marriage from the LA Times that as of 5:01PM on Monday, Jay and I will be married in California, thanks to our Vancouver, BC Wedding. I wonder if that means we can now go through immigration at LAX together — several times we’ve been rudely turned back from the podium after approaching it together because we’re “not a family”. (Welcome to the USA!) I wonder if the state law will trump the federal bigotry in this case.

I also learned something quite disturbing in the same article:

You do not have to live in California to marry here, and Massachusetts and New York state will recognize the marriages. Other states may not recognize the marriages, and some, including Wisconsin and Delaware, impose criminal penalties on its residents “if they enter a marriage outside the state that would have been prohibited in the state,” such as gay marriage, according to a fact sheet posted on Lambda Legal’s website. The law in Wisconsin, for example, permits authorities to punish offenders with a fine of up to $10,000 and nine months imprisonment.

Seriously?  A huge-ass fine and nine months in prison just for going through a wedding ceremony in another country or state?  Wisconsin, welcome to my list of places I’ll never visit.

Loving vs Virginia was the seminal 1967 US Supreme Court case that finally recognized that despite a majority of Americans being opposed to it, it was simply wrong to make interracial marriage illegal. And now on the 40th anniversary of that decision, the wonderful Mrs Loving reflects on that time and how it applies to our situation today. You must read and be moved by the entire statement, but I wanted to highlight this part:

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others.

Thank you, Mrs Loving, for your bravery then and your wisdom now.

This is the first I’ve heard of this story, but apparently the
CEO of BP has resigned following revelations of a gay relationship. Is this 2007 or 1977? I’m flabbergasted that this kind of thing still happens today. I’ve got no love for BP, but I can’t help but feel sympathy for any person targeted by the execrable Daily Mail.

I’ve never had a gay boss myself — at least, that I knew about — but I sure hope I’m a good boss to my team.

More at Details Blog.

With enough signatures from Washington voters, Initiative 957 might be the next Defense of Marriage proposition to be put to voters next election. If passed by Washington voters, I-957 would:

• add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage
• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled
• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
• make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits

If the Washington State supreme court can deny same-sex partners marriage rights on the basis of being unable to biologically procreate, then it’s only logical that all couples who can’t have kids be denied those benefits also, right?

I wouldn’t be surprised if it were, but this proposition isn’t sponsored by some fundie Christian group. It’s being put forth by the gay-rights group WA-DOMA to highlight the hypocrisy of the Supreme Court ruling and indeed of all “defense of marriage” laws around the country. The initiative has no chance of passing, of course, but if it gets on the ballot the point is made. And (to paraphrase a commenter on Slog), if hell freezes over and it does get on the ballot and pass then it will just have to be declared unconstitutional … along with the gay-marriage ban. So sign on!

(Thanks to Carol for the tip.)

The future of same-sex marriage is secured in Canada, as a Conservative bill to revisit the issue failed 175-123 on a free vote. More MPs supported same-sex marriage than in the last vote on the issue in June 2005. This effectively closes the issue in Canada, meaning that Jay and I will be married in Canada forever.

It still means nothing legally here in the States, but (with a hat tip to my Mum) it might well make a difference should we decide to move to Australia, where my home state of South Australia has just passed an equal-rights law for domestic partners both heterosexual and same-sex, bringing it in line with other Australian states.

Competition to host the 2008 Bingham Cup (the bi-annual rugby event named for United 93 hero and gay rugger Mark Bingham) is fierce. The Dublin team has produced this professional and appealing proposal:

Although I played in the inaugural event in San Francisco 2002 and Jay and I both played in London in 2004, I’m afraid our days of competing at this level are past. But if Dublin wins, I’ll go to cheer on the Quake!

According to a UCLA study. Only San Francisco has a greater proportion of gay population. Maybe it’s all the rainbows from the drizzly/sunny weather. Then again, Portland is only fourth on the list.

The Federal government now has one less way to screw gay couples when one partner dies. Courtesy of the HRC and a few reasonable legistlators:

The Federal Pension Protection Act passed by Congress and signed into law today by President George W. Bush contains two key provisions that will extend important financial protections to same-sex couples and other Americans who leave their retirement savings to non-spouse beneficiaries. The bipartisan provisions in the bill are a step forward in equality and stem from a continuous effort led by the Human Rights Campaign.

David and I have actually worried about this sort of thing a lot. It’s one less thing to worry about, which these days is really important–because we all have plenty to worry about!