I received this in email a few minutes ago. It's something that we are going to have to deal with, and soon!

October 18,2008

* Hartford Courant online poll

We're Voting NO - join us!

Dear VOTE NO supporter,
The Hartford Courant has an online poll asking whether you support or oppose a constitutional convention. Please follow this link to register your NO vote as soon as possible.

This is the current poll results...

You can take the poll here.

So what is this all about? Ultimately, the impetus for this is gay marriage. This has been brewing for awhile because anti-gay activists have been running scared that the legislature, or the state supreme court would somehow make marriage equality a reality in Connecticut.

Well, a week ago last Friday, that happened when the CT State Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality. I went to this rally the day of the ruling. There were two rallies that stand out in my entire life as a gay rights activist. The first one took place years ago in San Francisco at an AIDS rally. It was a very sad time in my life. At the time, I felt so sad that I had lost so many friends, and felt that no one really cared. But at that rally, I was surrounded by other people just like me, who felt just like me, who did care. I cried through much of that rally.

The second rally that stands out to me is this rally, celebrating the overturning of the civil union law, and allowing gay couples to finally marry. I was unprepared at how deeply this would effect me. I went to the rally as a way to close my feelings on this issue. But at the rally, I was surrounded by hundreds of couples, many with children, and other single gay people who eventually want the chance at marriage. And again, I found myself crying. I wondered why. And it came to me that over the years, I have written so much about how unjust the civil union law was, and how offended I was by it. The tears I shed that day was all that crap coming out. I was sad, at an event that I would have thought I would be happy at.

Don't get me wrong. I'm extremely grateful to the supreme court, and to the my state for allowing us to marry. I'm just very disappointed that so many had to go through so much heartache over this. Kent and I have been together for 33 years now, and only now will we be able to publicly and legally be married and no longer seen by the law and our state as legal strangers.

The justices didn't stop at overturning the civil union law in Connecticut. Unlike Massachusetts, where that state's Judicial Supreme Court ruled that gay couples must be given access to marriage, that court sent the issue back to the legislature to deal with, stating that anything short of passing a law to make marriage available to gay couples would be held by the court as unconstitutional.

In Connecticut, the supreme court just did it. They invalidated the civil union law that was passed by the legislature, and signed by the Governor (who placed verbiage in the text of the civil union law that marriage is "One Man, One Woman"), as saying that separate was not equal. Said the court (highlighting my own):

The issue presented by this case is whether the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates the constitution of Connecticut. The plaintiffs, eight same sex couples, commenced this action, claiming that the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution.

The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant state and local officials upon determining that, because this state's statutes afford same sex couples the right to enter into a civil union, which affords them the same legal rights as marriage, the plaintiffs had not established a constitutionally cognizable harm.

We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm.

We also conclude that

(1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,

(2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and

(3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.

In light of our determination that the state's disparate treatment of same sex couples is constitutionally deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny, we do not reach the plaintiffs' claims implicating a stricter standard of review, namely, that sexual orientation is a suspect classification, and that the state's bar against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental right in violation of due process and discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of equal protection. In accordance with our conclusion that the statutory scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

The courts ruling is final, and begins on October 28, 2008. That means that without the Governor, and without the Legislature, gay couples will have access to marriage after that date. Representatives of the legislature said that in the next session, a bill will be passed swiftly, which the Governor agreed to sign agreed not to contest, to catch up with the court's ruling.

THIS is why the urgent push for a Constitutional Convention. The goal of marriage equality opponents is to first get the constitutional convention passed by the voters. If passed, it will be used by special interest groups to amend the constitution to overturn this ruling, and any other ruling they don't like.

Read more about it on ctvoteno.org.

Resources used:

Love Makes A Family
ctvoteno.org
CT Supreme Court Marriage Ruling

View entire photo collection of Boston Gay Pride, 2007

I has a great time at Boston Pride. I left for Boston Friday afternoon, and arrived at Jury’s Hotel in Boston. Here’s a photo just inside their lobby. (view set)

The wall was a cascade of water. I was really happy with Jury’s Hotel. It is a beautiful place and the rooms are awesome. But most important, when I wanted to go to the parade, I simply stepped out of my hotel, and the parade passed right in front of my hotel, which is why I had front row seats to the parade.

After settling in, I decided to take a walk before dinner. I walked a short distance to the Boston Gardens (view set).

The next day was the gay pride parade. I arrived a few minutes early. Like I said, it was literally two minutes from my hotel. It started at 12:00 noon, and lasted for an hour or so. (view set)

I was a bit surprised at all the churches that were marching in the parade this year. There were dozens. And it made me feel good that there are so many in the religious community that support equality for us, and our open to us as gay people.

But I think the underlying theme this year was what is to come in just a few days. The Constitutional Convention will once again, for the second time, vote on the issue of gay marriage. Last year, the legislature voted to put the issue on the ballot for the voters in Massachusetts to vote on. This must happen in two consecutive sessions (it’s not easy to change the Constitution of a state). This year will be the second time. If they vote to allow the issue to go to the ballot, the voters of Massachusetts will vote in November if the state will continue to honor marriage equality for gay couples.

What does this mean if this passes. It means that the marriages already performed for over 8,000 couples will remain intact. It means that no other gay marriages will be allowed. It also means that civil unions, domestic partnerships, or anything similar to marriage will be allowed. So, everything is at stake. This dark cloud of uncertainty was very present in this years parade and rally.

After the parade, I went to the rally (view set).

I suppose my favorite float was this one...

But I must admit, there was a lot of eye candy as well....

I had a great time. The only down side was that I was by myself. It would have been nicer if someone was with me, but Kent was in Switzerland. Then Tuesday morning, we are off to Seattle and the Olympic Peninsula for two weeks. A busy time for us.

View entire photo collection of Boston Gay Pride, 2007

My response to Bryan Fischer’s email to me, 02/12/2007, 07:02am:

Bryan,

First of all, this has nothing to do with drunk driving or condoning that behavior, BECAUSE we do not give 1055 Federal rights and hundreds of state-sanctioned rights to those who do not drive drunk. Your analogy is flawed.

Again, from the letter I sent you...

Bryan, the problem is, all you can see is “.... marriage is one man, one woman...”, PERIOD. You and people like you absolutely refuse to see any middle ground here. Indeed, you wouldn’t even allow for “civil unions”, or “domestic partnerships.” You want us to have NOTHING. Now honestly, how do you think we should respond to that? How would you feel, if I had the power to strip your marriage of any legal rights, to take away all the legal protections of marriage, and tell you, “If you want more than that, then what you are really demanding is full society approval for your lifestyle, and that I do not believe a caring society can afford to do.” How would you feel about that?

Think about that and then tell me which side is being hateful and divisive. You know, if you had advocated allowing gay couples in Idaho to have civil unions with full state legal rights of marriage, I would have bought your argument. But without that, you really lose your credibility with me. You want us to have nothing. Just admit it.

I’m not asking you to “condone” homosexuality. You are perfectly free to feel or judge it in any manner you wish. But, you seem to be totally unwilling to distinguish between what you want marriage to be, and what civil liberties this country has afforded to marriage. I’m not trying to belittle you, but I honestly don’t understand why that is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. The government issues these rights to marriage. The government therefore sanctions marriage with these rights. HOWEVER, the government is giving these rights to CIVIL MARRIAGE, not religious marriage. This is why when any minister, pastor, or priest performs a marriage, he/she MUST say something on the order of, “...by the powers vested in me by the state of...”.

As I’ve stated before, I have no desire what so ever of forcing a religious institution to do anything against their will (e.g. be forced to marry a gay couple if it is against their religion). However, as a tax paying citizen, I do expect that my state and national government put me on a level playing field with all other citizens. I have a very legitimate right in wanting that. If that’s not possible, then my tax rate should be adjusted to second class, right along with my second class citizenship.

Now, let’s talk about hate. There are different forms of hate. There are people who will openly attach and bash gay people, as has been done to me in the past. That is a form of hate. There are people who belittle gay people in the form of derogatory jokes, getting a laugh at the expense of gays. That is a form of hate. There are people who will talk about preserving the “sanctity of marriage”, and to do that, gay couples must not be allowed to partake in marriage. That’s not necessarily hate, in my opinion -- that is more a difference of opinion.

However, when groups of people actively lobby and pass bills that prevent families like mine from having any legal protections in law that other couples receive, that is a form of hate. You may not like it, but it is. You are basically doing everything in your power, by preventing the enactment of civil unions or domestic partnerships, for families like mine from being protected against all the things that I mentioned in my last letter. Bryan, that is hate. I will not give on this point because eventually, this issue will probably effect my family in a big way - and not in a good way. I ask you in all sincerity and honesty, do you honestly even care about the family that Kent and I have? Do you?

If the answer to that question is, “No, not really.”, well Bryan, I don’t know how else to say this, but that is a form of prejudice and hate. You may not “agree” with what we have, but that doesn’t mean that you have to legally bar us from any legal protections. That is taking it beyond the area of simply being an “honest disagreement.” That makes it personal.

Now to answer your question....

Once again, I ask you: is it possible for you to regard our differences on this matter is one of honest disagreement, or must you insist on accusing me of hatred for holding my views? Until you can agree with me that disagreement is not hatred, I’m not sure constructive, meaningful dialogue is possible.

If your group had been against full “marriage” rights for gay couples, but had recognized the need for some civil legal protections for families such as mine, I would be able to say to you that we have an “honest disagreement.” However, you didn’t stop there. The amendment makes no consideration for civil unions that would grant critical legal protections for gay couples. I assume that is just fine with you? So how on earth can I get to a place where I can say that we are having an “honest disagreement” when in fact, there is no disagreement. You simply, at the end of the day, do not want families like mine to exist.

AM I WRONG ABOUT THAT?

Bill

Bryan Fischer’s response to me, 02/05/2007, 12:25am:

Bill,

The bottom line for you, as I read through to the end of your note, is that my position is not one of disagreement but of hatred. You accuse me of hating homosexuals because I do not think that homosexual behavior should be normalized and endorsed by society. I do not think drunk driving should be normalized, either, but that doesn’t mean I hate drunk drivers. I’m guessing you would oppose normalizing drunk driving as well, and would take umbrage with anyone who accused you of hating them. Your position would be simply that drunk driving is a kind of behavior that should not be endorsed by society.

Once again, I ask you: is it possible for you to regard our differences on this matter is one of honest disagreement, or must you insist on accusing me of hatred for holding my views? Until you can agree with me that disagreement is not hatred, I’m not sure constructive, meaningful dialogue is possible.

Once we can cross that bridge, then we can rationally discuss the nature of homosexual behavior and its consequences, and take an objective look at whether it represents behavior a thoughtful society should embrace.

Can you cross that bridge?

Bryan

Thinking about being a parent? I read an excellent article in the New York Times about all the issue involved that most people probably don’t think about. The issue has come up for me as well, and I have had women who wanted to do this with me. But, I decided against doing it because I was fearful of all the things that this article brings up. I wouldn’t want to just be a dad. I would absolutely need to be very involved in my child’s life. I would want to be that “TV dad” that they talk about. Here’s an excerpt from the article.

“The law,” Leonard went on to say, “has lagged far behind in taking account of nontraditional family forms.” Partly, he said, this can be attributed to the “natural inertia in the legislative process.” Legislatures on all matters are “slow in reacting to changes in society,” but in this case they are also reluctant to offend socially conservative voters. (In the midterm elections this month, seven states voted to ban same-sex marriage.) Finally, Leonard said, despite the current outcry about “activist judges,” many courts are skittish about reshaping social issues from outside legislative bodies.

A result is that gay donor dads must not only trust that their co-parents will abide by whatever agreements they have designed but also hope that as dads they have managed to adequately predict their own reaction to being a parent. As Guy, who has two children of his own with a lesbian couple, said: “A lot of guys can’t do that. They think they can do it, but when the baby’s born, they really can’t.” In other words, a father-donor working with a lesbian couple must make peace with the fact that he just isn’t going to be a TV dad, a heterosexual dad or a full-time gay dad. “Ideally,” as Guy put it, you need to be “willing to accept that the baby has two parents, who are the two moms — and then there’s you.”

Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child’s well-being, the state’s high court ruled Thursday.

The court agreed with a lower-court judge that the state’s child welfare board had improperly tried to regulate public morality. The ban also violated the separation-of-powers doctrine, the justices said. [...]

“There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual,” Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote.

In addition, the court said, the testimony of a Child Welfare Agency Review Board member demonstrated that “the driving force behind adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board’s views of morality and its bias against homosexuals.” (source)

I just wanted to share a piece of good news. It’s easy for us to forget the good things that happen now and then. It’s important to remember that we are making progress in some areas. Arkansas is a very conservative state. Maybe things are turning around a bit, at least in terms of foster parenting and adoption.

The elimination of adoption rights for gay couples is the next big push in what the conservatives are going after. So far, they’ve made little headway in this area. We can hope that trend continues.

Just more evidence that bigotry in this country against gay and lesbian citizens isn’t working any longer for self-righteous bigots who want to win votes from bigotry.

After the Senate’s rejection of the Marriage Protection Amendment Wednesday, supporters tried to portray it as nothing more than a temporary setback. “We are making progress,” announced Kansas Republican Sam Brownback, noting that since the last vote two years ago, 14 states have approved bans on same-sex marriage.

If this is progress, it’s on the order of a shipwreck survivor swimming toward the nearest island, 500 miles away: going in the right direction, but with no chance of getting there. All the leading indicators suggest that the smartest thing the amendment’s supporters could do is pack it in. [...]

Start with public attitudes, which are growing more and more favorable to gays and gay rights. The hard right thinks the citizenry absolutely detests “activist judges,” but when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stunning decision overturning state laws against sodomy in 2003, the public barely blinked.

In fact, 74 percent favored striking down such statutes. If Brownback and his allies think the public is with them on gay issues, where is the federal anti-sodomy amendment?

And finally, to me, the most telling of all...

Growing tolerance presents a huge obstacle to another cause of social conservatives. Earlier this year, they were trumpeting a multistate push to ban adoption by same-sex couples--to prevent homosexuals from “experimenting on children through gay adoption,” in the words of Russell Johnson, head of the Ohio Restoration Project.

It seemed a shrewd and logical follow-up to the state-by-state offensive against gay marriage. Since Florida was alone in explicitly outlawing adoptions by same-sex couples, the opponents of gay adoption thought they had a target-rich environment--not to mention a winning issue with voters.

But they had a little problem launching the campaign. Kent Markus, director of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy at Capital University Law School in Ohio, says that in state after state, “it peeked above the surface and got knocked right back down. Nothing has gained any momentum anywhere in the United States.” (source)

I think what is the saddest and most pathetic concept in all of this is the need of the conservatives’ failure to understand us as people. They are more interested in getting the vote at all cost. And if that means they have to alienate a segment of the population from the rest and divide this nation on issues of equality, they seem to be very willing to do that.

The problem is, when everything is said and done, we have all lost. And eventually, these damaging laws that only serve to hurt people emotionally, psychologically, and patriotically (it’s hard to feel good about a country who thinks you are scum and at the center for the problem with our children and marriage today).

They point to the “gay agenda”. Our agenda is a simple one - equality. It always has been. Their agenda will not stop with marriage. They want it all, right down to the denial of adoption rights. At the heart of this debate are people, just like you and I. I recently read of a gay male couple who was able to be foster parents for a child who was born HIV positive. There were able to care for the child as foster parents because the child was “unplaceable” because of his HIV status. So, this gay couple were good enough to be foster parents to the child. They kept the child for nine years. Then the unbelievable happened. The child turned HIV negative. His body was able after years of medication and care, to rid itself of any detectable traces of the virus. Suddenly, the state wanted to take possession of the child again because he was now “placeable” in a “normal” home.

The only problem was that he had bonded with these two men and thought of them as his parents. They tried to adopt him to protect their family, and are still fighting. This happened in a state that had no laws against gay couples from adopting. However, because of this case, a bill was introduced in that state to prevent gay adoptions.

This is what the article referenced above addresses. Make no mistake about it - there is an agenda. Ours is one of equality and fairness. Their agenda is quite a bit less than that, and they know it. The question is, will straight Americans buy into it.

I guess we will see what happens in November.

OKLAHOMA CITY - A federal judge struck down a 2-year-old law that prohibits Oklahoma from recognizing adoptions by same-sex couples from other states and countries.

U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron ruled Friday the measure violated due process rights under the U.S. Constitution because it attempted to break up families without considering the parents’ fitness or the children’s best interests.

Gay-rights organization Lambda Legal had challenged the law on behalf of three same-sex couples.

“Gay and lesbian parents in Oklahoma can now breathe a collective sigh of relief because their relationships with their children are no longer threatened by the state of Oklahoma,” said Ken Upton, an attorney in Lambda Legal’s Dallas office.

It’s a beautiful summer day here. The sky is clear and no rain in sight. That’s a big issue here. It has been raining here pretty much every day for the last week. We are all sick of it. The rivers are overflowing. Aside from that, it’s hard to be cheery when day after day is cloudy and gray. Now I know how people in The Matrix felt.

And on this beautiful summer day, I noticed in the news that the Oklahoma gay adoption ban has been struck down by a federal judge because it violated due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. According to the article, the law specifically bans the adoptions that have been accepted and put in place from another state, from being recognized in Oklahoma.

For example, if the State of Rhode Island granted you and your partner adoption of a child, if you moved to Oklahoma, that adoption would not be recognized. The federal court ruled that that action violated due process because it does not take into account the best interests of ... anyone - the parents, or the child. I’m not sure if Oklahoma has a law forbidding gay couples from adopting. I believe Florida is the only state at this point in time that does, but other states are working on it as well.

So, for the other states out there thinking of doing this, you might want to think again. This ruling has now become legal precedence and will surely be referenced when you try to pull this in your state.

The article ended with this:

“It’s another case of an activist court trying to legislate from the bench,” said Republican Rep. Thad Balkman. “It’s unfortunate that a single judge is trying to rewrite the law.” (source)

For those out there who don’t like the ruling of this case, get used to it. I don’t know about the majority of you, but my patience is wearing very thin with people who pull the “activist judge” card every damn time they don’t get their way.

The judges are interpreting the U. S. Constitution. THAT IS THEIR JOB. It’s not their fault that you legislators put laws on the books left and right that can not pass constitutional muster. And when you don’t like what the Constitution has to say, you bitch and moan about it, accusing an “activist judge” for the ruling. I notice that you never directly attack the Constitution itself, other than our President and Congress bringing up placing a discriminatory amendment into the Constitution.

I often say to myself, “Thank God for the Constitution”, because if it wasn’t for that document, many of us “less desirables” would have met the gallows or prison long ago.

You all have a nice day. Kent is on his way to Washington, D.C. for a week of meetings. He leaves right after our breakfast at Monet’s Table at 9:00. I may go out to Mashapaug Pond today to Rock Point (I think my favorite place in Connecticut), and just relax and think about life.

In a controversy with a familiar ring, parents of a Lexington second-grader are protesting that their son’s teacher read a fairy tale about gay marriage to the class without warning parents first.

The teacher at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School used the children’s book, “King & King,” as part of a lesson about different types of weddings. A prince marries another prince instead of a princess in the book, which was on the American Library Association’s list of the 10 most challenged books in 2004 because of its homosexual theme.

“My son is only 7 years old,” said Lexington parent Robin Wirthlin, who complained to the school system last month and will meet with the superintendent next week. “By presenting this kind of issue at such a young age, they’re trying to indoctrinate our children. They’re intentionally presenting this as a norm, and it’s not a value that our family supports.” [...]

Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash said Estabrook has no legal obligation to notify parents about the book. “We couldn’t run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed,” he said. “Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” (source)

We really need to get beyond this idea that people choose to be gay and that we are trying to “indoctrinate” children into being gay. That thinking is moronic.

Three points on this...

1) The superintendent is absolutely correct in his point when he mentioned that it would be impossible to notify parents on every single issue that would be talked about to children that could possibly be offensive in any way to any student or parent. If they had to do that, the school district would constantly be sending out notifications of one sort or another to the parents. They would get nothing else done.

2) It’s quite disingenuous for these parents to claim that they don’t want their children to be exposed to sexuality at such an early age. The truth of the matter is, practically every single fable or story these children are taught deal with sexuality in one form or another. The difference is, the sexuality spoken of is always heterosexual. It is taught to be “normal” at the exclusion of any discussion of anything else. In other words, if you don’t speak of any other type of relationship, the children would never know to ask about it. If I were being cynical (I would never do that!), I would say that they were trying to “indoctrinate” our children into heterosexuality!

3) Perhaps this is the most important point, and one that the superintendent was trying to address. How do you think it makes children who are living in households being run by same-sex married couples feel when their family is completely excluded from any discussion what so ever?

Schools are for learning - not only about how to read and write, but also to start the thinking process. Yes, even as early as second grade. There is a way to present this material and from what I’ve seen, it was presented in a professional manner.

Cutting through all the crap, these parents hate the fact that our relationships are being presented as anything other than sick and perverted. The fact is, this is the world that these kids live in. The parents can accept that, or they can move to a bigoted less progressive state, or they can put them into a private Baptist school who hates gay students, or they can home school them.

The schedule for today’s “Easter Egg Roll” at the White House has been altered at the last minute ensuring gay families who camped out overnight to secure early tickets will not encounter First Lady Laura Bush at the opening ceremony. The families had announced their intention to turn up to the children’s event, receiving significant media coverage in the last month.

The Family Pride Coalition, amongst others, have been waiting at the White House gates for up to 24 hours, to ensure they receive tickets, which are issued on a first come-first served basis. Families with gay parents are simply trying to take part in the event like other families, and many are disappointed with the last minute change. [...]

Perino was clearly not prepared to entertain the suggestion that the event was altered to preclude the possibility of an encounter between Laura Bush and the families of gay parents. The Family Pride Coalition has been diplomatic in its response. (source)

I suppose that way back when, black families would have gone through the same thing - being excluded from an event. The same would probably be true of inter-racial couples when they were allowed to marry.

We can all get caught up in the fact that the gay families were excluded from the event after being some of the first in the line to wait for Laura Bush. And Laura Bush can back peddle all she wants on this issue, and I’m sure she will have 101 reasons why it just didn’t work out from a scheduling point of view to include the gay families. We shouldn’t be surprised by this. She is merely a reflection of her husband and his failed administration on the equality of gay citizens.

For this event, we need to move on and accept this. We need to remember that this was after all, for the children that went to the White House. Why make them suffer by making an issue of the small mindedness of small minded people?

This is about the inclusion (or exclusion) of gay families. Truth be known, the administration would rather not even acknowledge the existence of these families. The fact that they were at the event if a first step. And when they finally realize that these families are just like other families and want the same things for their children, people will start to wonder what all the fuss was about.

But don’t hold your breath on that happening any time soon. Remember how long it took the Administration to respond to Hurricane Katrina? And, they could see that coming from space!

In the meantime, I think the event was a great idea. I hope the kids had a blast.

PORTLAND - A lesbian couple filed suit Wednesday, challenging the state’s refusal to recognize both as parents of their son.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Jeana Frazzini and her partner, K.D. Parman, contends that they have the same right to be recognized as parents to son Emmett, 2, as a straight couple whose child - conceived through artificial insemination - is biologically related to one parent, but not the other.

Married at the time in March 2004, the Portland couple said they were shocked to receive a birth certificate that listed only Parman, the biological mother called “Meema” by Emmett, but not Frazzini, whom the boy calls “Mama.” (source)

I read this story and got to thinking a bit...

I’ve heard arguments on how marriage is in the best interests of the child. So that argument was once used to prevent gay couples from having marriage because of course, they don’t have children.

Then it was discovered that they do indeed have children. So then the focus went away from marriage being in the best interests for the child to keeping children away from gays at all costs. So now, many are looking into the drafting of laws specifically to prevent gays from adoption. Wait and see, this will be the next big election topic - right up there with (you guessed it), preventing gay marriage.

But this couple didn’t adopt. One of the women conceived and had this baby. Moreover, they were married for a short time. After their marriage, the State of Oregon voided nearly 3,000 marriages performed for gay couples.

I guess I’m just thinking out loud here. It just seems to me that those who want gays not to get married are all over the issue in different ways; no marriage for gays, “some” rights for gays as long as it’s not called “marriage”, no adoption for gays... on and on.

I suppose it won’t be long before someone tries to pass a law making it illegal for a gay man to donate sperm for the purpose of conceiving his own child, or for a lesbian to conceive with the intention of keeping the child, giving the child to a gay man, or sharing custody.

In all honesty, nothing surprises me anymore.