SCOTUS Gives Victories on Marriage

The Supreme Court of the United States has given victories on marriage, although just about the weakest possible. They issued decisions on the federal DOMA, which denied equal treatment to same-gender marriages under federal law, and California's Proposition 8 (Prop H8). DOMA is dead! In the PropH8 case, they decided those defending the discrimination didn't have standing to defend it.

The basic gist is that progress was made, but the Court did not recognize that there is a right for an adult to marry any and all consenting adults, or even that a gay or lesbian person has a right to the limited same-gender freedom to marry.

So, congratulations to all who will now have their marriage treated equally under federal law & to Californians who will again have the  freedom to marry the person they love. But we must remember there are still many people in many states who are denied their right to marry the person or persons they love.

We will keep fighting to make sure all adults have relationship rights, including full marriage equality, sooner rather than later.

US Supreme Court Should Make Bold Move For Equality

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments about both DOMA and Prop H8 and could issue a ruling any day now. DOMA denies same-gender marriages recognition at the national level and has been very problematic, including for members of the US military and immigrants. Prop H8 took away the same-gender freedom to marry in California. Cases about both laws had been making their way through the courts and are now at the Supreme Court. There are many possible outcomes, some seen as more likely than others. It is possible that the Court could end up ruling next month, in June, to strike down DOMA so that same-gender marriages granted in states that currently have them will be recognized by the federal government, and letting lower court decisions striking down Prop H8 stand, so that California will again have the limited same-gender freedom to marry. It is also possible the Court may rule in a way that brings about the limited same-gender freedom to marry nationwide.

We want the US Supreme Court to make the best possible ruling, which is to recognize relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults nationwide.

The Court should rule that…

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

There are many reasons why the Court should do this.

They Know Equality Will Happen

Steve Sailer wrote at vdare.com that we'll eventually get the polygamous freedom to marry, and he says it will happen because of African immigrants. I get the impression he's not happy about it and is being sarcastic when referring to racism.

Whether someone is a bigot or not, it is good that more and more people realize we will get full marriage equality. We've seen that over the last few days when it comes to the DOMA and PropH8 cases before the US Supreme Court, and how defeated the anti-equality mouthpieces are sounding.

The sooner opponents of equality realize that it is inevitable, the sooner they can put their resources to things like, oh, protecting children (and adults) from predators. I know denying basic rights to other adults is high priority and all, but once they realize equality is going to happen whether they like it or not, they're less likely to waste their time and money.

They've claimed their opposition to equality has been for the protection of women and children. In their convoluted desperation, maybe some of them actually believe it. But every dollar or minute spent fighting another adult's right to marry is a dollar or minute that can't be spent feeding the hungry, sheltering, the homeless, treating the sick, or fighting crimes against children.

Down with H8 - Up With Marriage Equality For All

With so many people filing papers with the US Supreme Court to argue against DOMA and Prop H8, I wanted to bump up this old entry because it is still relevant...

Encouraging President Obama and the Supreme Court

According to this Associated Press article by Julie Pace…

The Obama administration is quietly considering urging the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage, a step that would mark a political victory for advocates of same-sex unions and a deepening commitment by President Barack Obama to rights for gay couples.

More and more US states are adopting the limited same-gender freedom to marry. Many others have domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the two neighboring countries, Canada has had the limited same-gender freedom to marry and Mexico is moving towards it nationwide. The US, as a country, is playing catch-up. How embarrassing.

I urge President Obama and the Court to boldly, strongly put the US in a leadership role and support protections based on sexual orientation and relationship rights and full marriage equality for all, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, or in this state but not that state, is not equality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the US government ensure the rights of all adults.

Supporting relationship rights, including full marriage equality for all, will eliminate the impractical, unjust, and confusing inequalities in the law pertaining not only to some same-gender relationships, but in all adult relationships, including those that are polyamorous or consanguineous. Some of those inequalities include:

1. Utah’s criminalization of polyamory while other states allow polyamory but do not protect polyamorists and deny the polygamous and polyamorous freedom to marry.


2. Some states allowing first cousins to marry monogamously without restriction, other states allowing them to marry with restrictions, some states banning this freedom to marry, and even a couple of states criminalizing sex between first cousins.

3. Some states allowing any adults who are closer relatives their sexual rights with each other while other states ban those rights.

Nobody should fear being arrested and imprisoned for having a consensual relationship with other adults.

Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.

There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.

Please, Mr. President, urge the Court and the American people to support equal rights for all. Please, to those who serve on the Court: end the discrimination.

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. Protect the rights of all adults in all states.

Baby Steps For Marriage Equality

There is much to celebrate with the news from yesterday that the federal appeals court confirmed Prop H8 is unconstitutional. The cloudy lining to this silver moment is that no gay or lesbian couples can get married in California again, as they could in 2008, just yet. Also, it is looking like this ruling will not directly bring the limited freedom to same-sex marriage to any other state unless the Supreme Court takes this case and takes it in an unlikely direction.

However, California and other states can still move forward towards full marriage equality in other ways, and perhaps President Obama will take some action, too. Also, the Supreme Court could get another case that could help.

From sfexaminer.com…

City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the earliest marriages could potentially begin again is 21 days after the decision, but he acknowledged it would be “very unlikely” the court would deny an extension of the stay.

“We’re going to wait and see what happens,” said Herrera, whose office took up the fight to defend same-sex marriage eight years ago.

“I have no doubt that the tide of history is on our side,” he said.

Sooner or later, we’re gong to have full marriage equality. Sooner is better.

Prop H8 Killed Again, But the Corpse Still Remains in the Way

The appeals court did the right thing in backing up Judge Walker as a professional and agreeing with his decision to use a little thing called the US Constitution to kill the infamous, hateful Prop H8 (California's Proposition 8.)

I'm a little late to the party, which saves me some work. Click through to one of our favorite blogs, Life as a Reader, for some good links.

It is good that the court did not throw Judge Walker under the bus, but I didn't think they would.

It would have been nice to immediately reinstate the limited same-sex freedom to marry that Prop H8 took away, but the court left that corpse in the way, pending appeals.

It would be great of the Supreme Court soon did a broad ruling granting full marriage equality; that an adult has the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. But I know court cases usually are more narrow, which is why the Loving vs. Virginia case only lifted the ban on interracial marriages when it came to monogamous, heterosexual, marriage.

Will Appeals Court Rule For Freedom to Marry?

There’s more than one question to be answered tomorrow morning when the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on Prop H8 (Proposition 8,) the infamous California ballot measure that rescinded the limited same-sex freedom to marry. The biggest question is whether or not the court will affirm the federal court ruling that Prop H8 was unconstitutional, and then whether or not they will do so in a way that will only apply to California, or if opponents of the same-sex freedom to marry will be able to appeal to the Supreme Court, and if so, whether same-sex weddings can resume immediately in California or not.

Whatever happens, I hope it moves us further to nationwide full marriage equality sooner rather than later, so that an adult is free to marry any consenting adults.

Good News in California, But It’s Still Not Over

The bigots behind Prop H8, which banned the same-sex freedom to marry in California, lost another round. They still have some more rounds to lose before this case is over, though.

A federal judge on Tuesday upheld a gay judge's ruling that struck down California's same-sex marriage ban, noting that his fellow jurist could not be presumed to have a personal stake in the case just because he was in a long-term relationship with another man.

That’s right. The H8ers tried to have the decision slapping down their marriage ban overturned because the judge was *gasp* gay!

In a 19-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker had no obligation to divulge whether he wanted to marry his own gay partner before he declared last year that voter-approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

Kudos to Judge Ware.

The ruling does not settle the legal fight over Proposition 8. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether Walker properly concluded that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violates their rights to due process and equal protection.

In my dreams, it goes on to the Supreme Court and they decide for full marriage equality, but we’ll probably only get the monogamous, nonconsanguineous freedom to same-sex marriage, for now.

"We all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right," Ware wrote. "The single characteristic that Judge Walker shares with the plaintiffs, albeit one that might not have been shared with the majority of Californians, gave him no greater interest in a proper decision on the merits than would exist for any other judge or citizen."

Justice moves slowly, but we must keep pressing on towards full marriage equality so that an adult is free to marry any consenting adults.

A Legal Movement Towards Full Marriage Equality

The Pursuit of Harpyness has praise for what sounds like an important book by Martha C Nussbaum, From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law. The book and the review both support full marriage equality and the review cites the need for solidarity.

The reviewer notes that people who are disturbed by a given sexual activity should not continue to think about it (presumably, if they are unlikely to get over their disgust).

Yet this doesn’t seem possible for some folks, who insist that the mere possibility of someone doing a sexual act that they think is “gross” violates them personally - and somehow contaminates our shared civic culture and public spaces in some ineffable way. Because of this feeling of threat and contamination, they try - and often succeed, particularly here in the United States - in passing laws which circumscribe the sexual rights of certain segments of the population.

They become sex police.

Nussbaum’s brief volume takes us on a whirlwind tour of the history of constitutional law as it relates to human sexuality, with a particular focus on the rights of gay and lesbian Americans - though the implications of her argument can be generalized out to consider the sexual practices of all citizens. Nussbaum’s goal is to sketch out the historic rationale for laws grounded in disgust and show that these arguments are extremely weak as a basis for denying certain groups fundamental and constitutionally-protected rights (such as the right to engage in consensual sexual activities with the partners of their choice, the right to marry, and the right to engage in commercial sexual activities).

Sounds like a great read. The review goes on to talk about the long tradition in the US of recognizing that it is respect for persons that has compelled everything from religious tolerance onward.

From this basis of understanding concerning the Constitutional right to equal protection for individual liberty, Nussbaum argues that we can - and must, Constitutionally-speaking - protect the right of people to do things (consensually and privately … and in some cases, publicly) which we find morally abhorrent and physically disgusting.

Like I’ve said before, if you don’t want to marry someone, you don’t have to. But if someone else wants to, they should be allowed. The review then calls out those who throw others under the bus instead of expressing solidarity….

One thing I particularly appreciated about From Disgust to Humanity is Nussbaum’s willingness to discuss, however briefly, the legality of sexually-intimate relationships (and even marriages) that go beyond the two-consenting-adults model. All too often, proponents of same-sex marriage seek to distance themselves from associations with the legalization of other non-normative relationships. Yet Nussbaum points out that the legal arguments separating out two-person unions from other types of unions are “extremely weak.”

The book doesn’t leave out the consanguineous lovers, either.

”Regulations on incestuous unions have also typically been thought to be reasonable exercises of state power, although, here again, the state interests have been defined very vaguely. The interest in preventing child abuse would justify a ban on most cases of parent-child incest, but it’s unclear that there is any strong state interest that should block adult brothers and sisters from marrying. (The health risk involved is not greater than in many cases where marriage is permitted.)”

Adults should be allowed to marry each other, even if one of them is a parent to the other. Back to the solidarity thing by the reviewer…

I realize there are strategic reasons for the marriage equality folks to emphasize that gay and lesbian couples aren’t attempting to radically alter marriage in scary, unknown ways - the argument that anti-gay marriage folks routinely make. Yet every time I hear the “of course same-sex marriage won’t lead to polygamy!” argument I wince because of the poly relationships I know that just got kicked to the curb by queer folks who, you would think!, would be natural allies. And while I know incest seems, to the majority of people, a physically repulsive concept, Nussbaum is right in arguing that disgust alone is not a justifiable reason to outlaw a behavior that does not do demonstrable harm.

Adults should be allowed to exercise their rights to love, sex, and marriage with any consenting adult, even if someone finds it disgusting. Participation is voluntary.

And to those ends, there is breaking news that US President Obama is letting DOMA (Denial of Marriage Act) die, which will allow the federal government to recognize the marriages of some same-sex couples. Based in part on that, lawyers have asked a court to lift its hold on the a lower court's Prop H8 verdict to allow (some) same-sex couples to marry in California. Congratulations to all same-sex couples who will benefit from today's move by Obama. It would be great if same-sex triads could also marry, or two sisters. But we will get there.

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.

Proposition H8 Update

Potentionally good news for the freedom of marriage for same-sex couples and perhaps full marriage equality for all. Opponents of California’s Proposition 8 (“H8”) submitted arguments to the federal appeals court in the case, asking the court to uphold the decision of the previous court that found Prop H8 to be unconstitutional on due process and equal treatment grounds.

See this story…

Lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies, representing the couples, cited U.S. Supreme Court cases that called marriage a fundamental right and "the most important relation in life."

"Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals," the attorneys wrote.

From this story…

Proposition 8 is antithetical to the “principles of equality” on which this “Nation . . . prides itself.” It creates a permanent “underclass” of hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian Californians (id.)—who are denied the fundamental right to marry available to all other Californians simply because a majority of voters deems gay and lesbian relationships inferior, morally reprehensible, or religiously unacceptable.

The same surely applies to polygamous and consanguineous marriages, which have a rich historical tradition.

From this story…

Just as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Virginia ban on interracial marriage without creating a new right to interracial marriage, the court could overturn California's gay marriage ban on the grounds that all persons are free to decide whether or whom to marry, Olson wrote.

We certainly agree: All persons should be free to decide whether or whom to marry. We’re glad Olson agrees with us, and we home the panel will, too.

Further Talk on Proposition 8

Can the ruling striking down Proposition 8 go beyond restoring the freedom to marry to same-sex couples to bring about full marriage equality? Tom Thoens, as quoted in “Ask Matt Labash”…

With the most recent court ruling {on gay marriage}, it would appear marriage to family members is now acceptable. If this ruling is allowed to prevail, could it result in brothers marrying brothers and sisters marrying sisters? It would also seem possible for all types of family relationships to be deemed acceptable as a new form of marriage. What am I missing in this ruling?

Labash responded…

But I’m missing how this ruling opens the door for brothers marrying brothers and sisters marrying sisters.

In the Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling on Proposition 8, it was stated that the fundamental right to marriage can’t be denied without a good reason. Religion, personal distaste, and prejudice can’t used as the basis to deny marriage rights.

So while the case was about same-sex marriage, what basis is there to deny polygamy or consanguineous marriage that passes muster?

Due process and equal protection outweigh public sentiments.

Although he appears to be employing humor, the author actually starts to list some of the general positives to consanguineous marriage…

1. You come from similar backgrounds.

2. You have a much higher likelihood of getting along with your in-laws.

3. Over a lifetime, you would, as a couple, save a fortune on Mother’s Day cards, and you’d never have to argue about whose folks to visit at Christmas.

Seriously, some marriages fall apart because of conflicts between two different families, divided time and loyalties, etc. But consider the example of parents whose children marry. If they want, the elder and younger couple can spend every holiday (I’m using American English) together without the younger couple having to leave early or arrive late because they also need to spend time with another set of parents. Or, if the elder couple split and remarried others, there are just those two different households for the younger couple to deal with.

Every family has their own history and problems. If you grew up in the same family, you both have the same problems and history. You’re not taking on a whole new set of baggage, dealing with different traditions, etc. Even if you didn’t grow up in the same family, but reunited later, some of this advantage can be there.

My point is that there are tradeoffs to any relationship. If someone can find happiness with someone else, that is never to be pitied or dismissed. Parents may be horrified if their children fall in love (as they may be if their children come out as gay/lesbian or poly), but it could end up being a good thing for those parents.

Still, I doubt the law will ever permit it. While being gay is socially acceptable, incest is still not something to be celebrated publicly. To wit: there are plenty of gay bars, but to my knowledge, not a single incest bar.

Again, I know this is meant in humor, but there is a reason there are gay bars and no bars for consanguineous couples. Most bars are set up as places to meet new people, or socialize with a significant other, and maybe a friend and his or her SO. It becomes obvious why there is a need for a gay bar. Both kinds of bars are places that people who don’t know each other meet, or get to know each other better. Gay or straight, that is not needed in most consanguineous relationships because they already know each other.

But he does have a point about the public celebration. The perception that consensual consanguineous relationships only exist in poor, uneducated, rural families needs to be challenged. It is possible. It wasn’t all that long ago that people thought of gays as dirty, disordered deviants who met up in restrooms and the aforementioned bars, and that those bars were dives. There were laws against gays.

Lawrence v. Texas decriminalized same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriages started to become legal not soon after that. The general principles cited in Lawrence, Perry, and other decisions can and should be applied to bring about 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.

More on Proposition 8 Being Overturned

Many thanks to federal judge Vaughn R. Walker! Let's look at some of his reasoning in striking down that hateful law.

Page 24:

Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.

It doesn't matter if even a majority of people disapprove. Stay out of our love lives. We all have the right to enjoy love and sex and life with the person or people of our choosing.

On page 135:

...and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

This is also good news for polyamorists who want to become polygamists, and for consanguineous couples, triads, and others who want to get married. Let's add this decision, along with Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas, to our arsenal in fighting bigotry. Love is love!

Page 136:

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently

All of us deserve due process and equal protection. Prejudice is a relic of the past and is dying out day by day.

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.

Solidarity is Needed

The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial calling for the advancement of the freedom to marry. Their focus on was California’s “Prop H8,” which banned same-sex marriage, and is currently subject to the decision of a federal judge. Good for the Los Angeles Times. But even better for one of their readers, who left a comment that highlights the need for solidarity. “lodmstrong” wrote…

It strikes me as very self serving to demand one alternative form of marriage (gay marriage) while completely ignoring or even fighting against other alternative forms of marriage.

It may be fear more than self-serving. People are afraid they’ll lose the change that will directly help them if they also try to help others.

Any argument made against these other forms of marriage could also be used against gay marriage.

That’s because it is all about trying to control the lives of others. Maybe that made sense when life was short, more people lived rural, agricultural lives, and a repressive church controlled everything. But that’s not reality today, thank goodness.

There is no reason three or more persons shouldn't be allowed to have a union.

That’s right. There isn’t.

Who are we to judge who really loves whom and should have the right to publicly affirm that love through marriage?

It isn’t possible. Let people decide for themselves.

The day that that gay marriage proponents fight for marriage to be defined as a union between any number of persons of any gender and/or any relationship is the day I'll take their commitment to true equality more seriously. In the meantime, I'm not sure which is worse: advocating traditional marriage as it has always been, or advocating one alternative form of marriage while being indifferent to (and silent about) or even against every other alternative form of marriage.

Again, I think some people are afraid. They don’t want to deny others their rights, but are afraid of not getting their rights; they think they can only get a small tent up and trying to get a big tent up will fail. But they need to realize that if we all stand together, we can help everyone.

It’s not marriage equality unless it is full marriage equality. I welcome any advancement of the freedom to marry, but only full marriage equality will be justice. Solidarity is needed.

More Marriage Rights For Same-Sex Couples

In California, it is possible that a federal judge will strike down a ban preventing same-sex couples from marrying. The trial is resuming. Let’s demand the judge strengthens the right to marriage in a way that knocks down other laws in addition Proposition 8, so that other people who are currently prevented from marrying will have their freedom. If not, I hope he will at least knock down "Prop H8." The bigots would appeal to a higher court, but it would be a start.

Referring to the federal prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages, Walker asked the plaintiffs bluntly, ''Can the court find Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional without also considering the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act?''

It would be great if DOMA could be struck down, too.

The question is particularly relevant nearly 3,000 miles away, where another federal trial court judge – U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro – is directly considering whether a portion of DOMA is constitutional in a challenge brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders in Boston.

One way or another, we’ll advance marriage equality in the US, the way we advanced rights for people of color.

In Germany, a court recognized a Canadian marriage between two men, but unfortunately they will only call it a civil partnership.

Andreas Boettcher, a 37-year-old German event manager, married his Spanish partner, a dancer and choreographer, in Montreal in July 2006. He asked a Berlin administrative court to recognize the relationship as a marriage after local authorities listed him as "single" on his registration card in November, despite his Canadian marriage certificate and a family registry entry from Spain that names him as the husband of his partner.

The best news comes from Iceland, where same-sex couples got marriage rights on Friday.

Unfortunately, in all three places, laws against marrying more than one person and against consanguineous marriage are still in effect.