Starting with Kansas | What a Week!

ruby slippersFirst, I know there are a lot of great people in Kansas, and in it’s own way it’s a beautiful state. However, if I was Dorothy, I would not be clicking my ruby reds to get back there (sorry Auntie Em) anytime soon. It appears that the Republican led house and senate are writing legislation straight out of the Vladimir Putin Playbook. This anti-gay segregation bill is the worst of its kind that I have ever read. It’s more than just marginalizing gay people, it even goes as far as if you are even perceived as gay, you could even be refused services from state employees for almost all services, even the DMV, as I read here on Slate.  Then, soon after Senate President Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican objected to the bill as written, and went much further than just addressing religious freedoms and was concerned about services to gay couples. From the NYT.

Continue reading

Gay sex now criminalized in India again

And in a huge step backwards, India’s Supreme Court has re-criminalized gay sex. This is almost too crazy to believe, but it’s true. more details from Reuters:

In 2009 the Delhi High Court ruled unconstitutional a section of the penal code dating back to 1860 that prohibits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” and lifted the ban for consenting adults.

Continue reading

HRC turns the Internet red for equality

HRC made a pretty big splash earlier this year with their profile picture campaign. As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over Prop 8 and DOMA, they led an allied movement across social networks, encouraging users to change their photos to a red equal sign. The impact was visually dramatic, as Facebook pages and twitter feeds turned red with support.

Now that the Court is almost ready to rule, HRC has raised the bar and made it even easier to demonstrate your beilef in our community’s equality.  Continue reading

Watch: Another couple separated by DOMA


Another day, another couple separated by the Defense of Marriage Act. Pictured above are Tim (left) and Jamie (right). Tim is American, and Jamie is Scottish. Tim and Jamie first met each other in person in August, 2006. Their first date was at The Pink Room in Seattle, Washington. They fell in love.

Continue reading

Infographic from AFER explaining the possible outcomes of Prop 8

It can be confusing trying to understand what a ruling actually means when it’s handed down from any court, the folks at the American Foundation for Equal Rights made this simple to follow flow chart of the possible outcomes in the Prop 8 Supreme Court case. Click to embiggen!

From Skim Milk to Harvey Milk: How Our Community Made History at Last Week’s Supreme Court Arguments

By John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney
Marriage Equality USA

Whether you marched in San Francisco or elsewhere around the country, or traveled to Washington, DC, for the U.S. Supreme Court’s hearings in the marriage equality cases, we have all just participated in history in the making. After going to Washington, we feel more inspired than ever about our community’s work for full LGBTIQ equality.

At the Supreme Court, people camped out for days, even enduring a rare spring snowstorm, in order to get seats inside the courthouse.

Continue reading

Supreme Court hears Oral Arguments:Prop 8 Laywer puts foot in mouth, reactions and (lack of) predictions


Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis at Washington DC marriage rally, photo by Dan Avery

As I’m sure you have heard by now, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments today about Prop 8. There’s a general consensus that there were “penetrating” questions being asked of both sides, so it’s unsure what direction the Supreme Court is going to rule. However I do want to bring up when pro-Prop 8 lawyer Chris Cooper tried using the be-all and end-all “marriage is for procreation” argument, things went south very fast.

Justice Elena Kagan: ” … Suppose a state said that, ‘Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55.’ Would that be constitutional? … If you are over the age of 55, you don’t help us serve the government’s interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?”

Continue reading