RECENT  POSTS:  » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something.  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

11/02/2009

Paper of record to America: Don't make us record another round of historical errors!

by Jeremy Hooper

The New York Times editorial board knows what's up. Today, they came out for equality in all of the six areas of the country where self-appointed moral authoritarians are trying to roll back progress, specifically highlighting the three that are up for debate at tomorrow's polls:

NY!Political battles this fall in six different parts of the country could have a profound impact on whether the United States will extend the promise of equal rights to those who are not allowed to marry simply because they are the same sex as their partner.

Three jurisdictions — New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia — seem tantalizingly close to securing legislative approval for measures ending the hurtful and unjustifiable exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage. But in Maine, Washington State and Kalamazoo, Mich., voters are being asked on Tuesday to strip away vital rights and protections.

KEEP READING: Six Tests for Equality and Fairness [NY Times]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

This just in from 2008 Census Statistics: wherein data are presented that represent people as same-sex 'married' vs non-married.. Not with the legal term just self representation as being 'family unit' or just 'shacking up.' Number are very interesting and include.

* The District of Columbia had the highest prevalence of same-sex unmarried partners per 1,000 households (13.22), followed by Maine (6.81), Washington (5.84), Oregon (5.73), and New York (5.15). ... * Massachusetts, the first state to permit marriage for same-sex couples in 2004, had an estimated 3.63 same-sex spousal couples per 1,000 households in 2008, ranking first among all states. Vermont, which has offered civil unions since 2000, ranked second at 2.71.

But the shocking thing was that overall they seem to look like supportive adult families with or without kids. Mind Boggling!
http://tinyurl.com/yffg2jw

Posted by: LOrion | Nov 2, 2009 4:53:07 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails