queer_marriage

National Protest Against Prop 8 on November 15!

cattack — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:45:05 GMT

Hey, all...

I just heard about this. Pass the word on to everyone you know. Cities all across the CA and the US are participating in this protest.

Let's show them that Americans care about equal rights for all!

SF link: http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/San+Francisco

CA link: http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/California

Homepage: http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/?t=anon
(You can print out fliers here)

See you there. . .

BIG GAY GOP FEAR FACTOR FEVER

homaffectional — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:59:51 GMT

There's an actual song that you can listen to.

With elections round the corner
When the voters start to care
About the mess we have created
We give you issues that aren't even there

We give you Homosexual marriage
Gonna wreck your family's life
Gay men want your husbands
Lesbians will steal your wife

Lies lit up the daytime
Till bombs lit up the night
Bin Laden sleeps in a cave somewhere
While in Iraq our soldiers die and fight

We give you Homosexual marriage
Gonna wreck your family's life
Gay men want your husbands
Lesbians will steal your wife

Sam Brownback and Arlen Specter
Know the votes are just not there
Orrin Hatch said "Go tell all of your wives"
In his sacred Mormon underwear

Gas is four bucks a gallon
Katrina's wrath is still unfixed
The deficit is at an all-time high
While Republicans play politics

They give us Homosexual marriage
Gonna wreck your family's life
Gay men want your husbands
Lesbians will steal your wife

With scandal all around us
Indictments everywhere you look
We ask ourselves what would Jesus do?
He'd said "Hey! Look out, what¹s that over there"

It must be Homosexual marriage
Gonna wreck your family's life
Gay men want your husbands
Lesbians will steal your wife

Just remember there's a price paid
For each inflammatory thing you say
Mathew Sheppard's safe in heaven dead
How many other souls will have to pay

You give them Homosexual marriage
It won't affect your family's life
Gay men don't want your husband
Lesbians won't steal your wife

GOP Tries Gay Marriage Again

homaffectional — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:56:44 GMT

Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the failure of the Bush Administration and the Congress to address the major problems facing the nation including the deteriorating situation in Iraq, our growing dependence on foreign oil, health care, education, and the environment. But Republican leaders have finally come up with a strategy to deal with growing public discontent--bring back gay marriage. On Monday President Bush will again announce his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Despite the fact that the amendment has no chance of being enacted, Republican strategists hopes to use the issue of gay marriage to distract the public from the war and other issues and to energize its conservative base--just like they did in 2004.

The problem with this scenario, however, is that the strategy didn't even work the first time. There is no credible evidence that the issue of gay marriage actually helped the GOP in 2004. Gay marriage referenda were supposed to increase turnout and support for President Bush among religious white voters. But they didn't. Turnout increased by the same amount in states with and without gay marriage referenda on the ballot and George Bush's share of the vote increased by the same amount in states with and without gay marriage referenda on the ballot.

According to national exit poll data, in the 11 states with gay marriage referenda on the ballot, regular churchgoers made up 46 percent of the white electorate in 2000 and an identical 46 percent in 2004. The percentage of regular churchgoers who voted for George Bush was 72 percent in 2000 vs. 74 percent in 2004, an increase of two percentage points. But this was less than the three point increase in support for Bush among all white voters.

The gay marriage ploy didn't work in 2004 and it is highly unlikely that it work in 2008. Maybe the Republicans should try something different this time--like dealing with the real problems facing the American people.

Link.

ls56 — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:52:14 GMT

Posting this everywhere because it is made of win.

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/gaymarriage.html

A linguist talks about the definition of marriage.

OK, let's vote on marriage

homaffectional — Thu, 17 May 2007 14:51:19 GMT

By Monique Doyle Spencer | May 17, 2008

IT'S MAY 17, the anniversary of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. You can bet you'll hear plenty of talk about defining marriage, and whether or not we should have a referendum question about it. I can't wait to vote on marriage. I have studied the issue carefully so I know it will work like this: If you want to get married, you have to put your choice of spouse on the ballot. Nobody can walk down the aisle unless we all think you should. At last. We people will have the power we really want.

I've always felt that Ann Romney could do better, so I like to think we would have voted young Mitt off. Keep looking, Ann, we would say. Don't rush into this. Hillary, we would warn, that fella has a wandering eye. Kick him to the curb. There's a tall skinny guy from Massachusetts who would be a better mate. Dull but faithful.

And does your sister want to marry a no-goodnik? She should know better, but she doesn't. We would "vote no" on that guy long before the bachelor party. That woman your brother likes? The one who is taking a break from ruling the demons of evil just to ruin your life? Stopped long before the altar. Imagine the bumper stickers. Save Joe! Vote No! Vote Yes on Maryellen, It's Her Last Chance! No on Tiffany, For the Love of God!

Of course, this referendum question is really about sex. So before your wedding is approved, we will have to observe you in flagrante delicto, which is Latin for "in the back seat." I don't know how the Legislature will make that work. Maybe you'll be on YouTube, or maybe you'll have to canvass door-to-door. Gosh, it's going to be time-consuming and tough on the furniture.

I got in under the wire. I got married before anybody could vote on it. I showed up in an almost white dress, I wrote thank you notes in a timely fashion. If I make a lifetime commitment to somebody, say, for lack of a better example, my husband, then there are certain things I would like in return. We should be able to have joint health insurance. If we welcome children together, nobody better say they shouldn't be mine. Well, except for me, on a bad day.

Are you worried about your marriage passing the test of public opinion? Well, if history repeats, the referendum question will be so confusing that everyone will just vote no. The question will be written by a monkey who was raised by wolves. Not smart wolves, but wolves raised by referendum writers. So the question will be: Should the Legislature of Massachusetts be instructed to implement the non-implementation of a definition of marriage to be defined as a definition?

If we want to make a difference in marriage, let's vote on something that's everyone's business. If the groom's mother is thinner than the bride's mother, should said groom mother be required to wear a bridesmaid dress? If an aunt accidentally sent a "You're Expecting!" card to the bride, may the best man use this in his toast?

Otherwise, we should stick to the definition of marriage that God bestowed upon us. A romantic, loving, and spiritual journey of no more than two people, shortly to be destroyed by children.

Monique Doyle Spencer is author of "The Courage Muscle: A Chicken's Guide to Living With Breast Cancer."

Gays can learn from civil rights backlash

homaffectional — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 02:12:17 GMT

By Deb Price:

In May 1954, overjoyed by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that racially segregated public schools were unconstitutional, NACCP attorney Thurgood Marshall predicted school segregation would vanish within five years.

Instead, a decade later, only 1 percent of black children in the Deep South sat in the same classrooms as whites.

What had interfered? A fierce backlash by the white majority.

That backlash prompted black leaders to debate whether full-throated demands for equality, particularly in courts, should be replaced by a go-slow approach aimed at giving white supremacists more time to see the error of their ways.

The aftermath of the Brown decision has much to teach those of us who are gay and feeling wobbly after a string of heartbreaking setbacks in our push for equal marriage rights.

Legal scholar Carlos Ball offers historical perspective and a much-needed pep talk in "The Backlash Thesis and Same-Sex Marriage" in the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. (Find it using Google.) He stresses that the heterosexual backlash after the 2003 Massachusetts ruling opening marriage to gay couples was a predictable majority response to minority progress -- much like the backlash after Brown.

Why? Because civil rights movements ask "the majority to give up privilegesthat reinforce their perceived superiority," Ball says. And a lot of people get mighty angry when their special privileges are threatened.

The Massachusetts marriage decision certainly wasn't the first ruling to trigger reactionary constitutional amendments or to bring out the worst in some folks.

Soon after Brown, 11 black children were admitted to a white high school in Milford, Del. White parents were furious; outsiders burned crosses; the school was boycotted. In the end, integration was delayed another eight years.

Louisiana amended its constitution in 1954 to declare that public schools "shall be operated separately for white and colored children."

Yet NAACP attorneys wisely pushed ahead, getting the Supreme Court in 1955 to order desegregation "with all deliberate speed."

Resistance intensified: Southern voters replaced moderate politicians with strict segregationists. The Ku Klux Klan spread like a virus. Nearly 100 Southern congressmen blasted the high court. Some towns shut down their schools.

But once backlash is recognized as unavoidable, it is "less threatening," says Ball, who adds, "The aftermath to Brownteaches us that the backlash can be overcome."

Recent gay marriage setbacks -- court losses in New York and Washington state, and the sad breakup of the lead lesbian couple in the Massachusetts case -- are painful. But civil rights movements are "struggles"-- difficult and long.

Gay rights attorneys Evan Wolfson and Jon Davidson note that only after losses in 14 states' courts did a challenge to a ban on interracial marriage succeed--in California's Supreme Court in 1948. Interracial marriage remained illegal in 29 states. Nineteen years later, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the last 16 bans.

Thank goodness advocates of racial equality didn't wait for attitudes to change. In 1958, just 4 percent of whites approved of interracial marriage. That rose to 17 percent in 1968, the year after the court's ruling, but it took until 1997 for a majority of whites, 61 percent, to approve. In 2003--when Gallup last asked--27 percent still objected.

The durability of prejudice is no reason to go slow in pushing for full equality. Speak up for fairness, and trust that the nation will catch up.

Reach Deb Price at (202) 662-8736

A Message of Hope

homaffectional — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:15:16 GMT

Hello,

The following open letter from John S. Spong, XIII Bishop of Newark, The Episcopal Church is reprinted with permission of WATERFRONTMEDIA, Bishop Spong's online publisher.

Dawning Hope: The Supreme Court and the Case of Lewis v. Harris

The Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey will sometime in the next few months hand down its ruling in the case of Lewis v. Harris. The final arguments from the attorneys for the plaintiff and the state have already been heard. All that remains is for the members of the Court to engage in their own deliberations, to vote and to announce their decision.

This case was filed more than three years ago by seven gay and lesbian couples of New Jersey, who have been living in faithful, committed and loving partnerships that range from 13 to 34 years in duration. They are asking in this suit for the State to recognize their relationships as marriages and to sanction them, thus giving them the same rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexual couples, including equal benefits under the tax codes, full spousal coverage in insurance programs, and equal visitation rights and authority in all circumstances of sickness, accidents and death.

It has been my privilege to know two of these seven couples quite well. I respect their integrity, I honor their partnerships and I yearn for the High Court of this State to put its legal stamp of approval on their commitments to each other. Even more, I want this Court to speak for the people of New Jersey. It would mark one more time in our history when this State strikes a blow for justice and inclusion in the long human struggle to make the promise of our State Constitution to provide our citizens with equal protection under the law a reality.

Because I feel so deeply about this matter, I have taken the unusual step of becoming amicus curiae, filing a brief with the Court in support of the petition of these seven couples. I wanted the members of the Supreme Court to know that New Jerseys retired Episcopal Bishop is ready to welcome their positive decision. I do not believe I am alone in this.

I am encouraged about the prospects for this case. The questions asked by the justices during final arguments seemed to me to offer sufficient reason to anticipate a positive decision. The State of New Jersey is a place where a consensus has already been formed in favor of extending basic human rights to all of our citizens. This case has been in the legal process since 2002, winding its way step by step to this last stop with the Supreme Court. The time for a decision has come. I thus anticipate a positive decision.

This decision is a deeply personal one for me. I grew up as homophobic as anyone I know. It was healthy, whole and indeed wonderful gay and lesbian people who by the beauty and integrity of their lives, forced me to reassess and finally to abandon my ill-informed prejudices. On the day that I retired as the Bishop of Newark, I had 35 openly gay and lesbian clergy serving churches in my Diocese. Thirty-one of those clergy lived with their partners, once again quite openly. Our Diocesan Convention supported the issues brought to us by our homosexual members with huge majority votes. Gay and lesbian clergy were elected by this Convention time after time to the highest offices a Diocese can bestow upon a priest. Never once in my 24 year career as a bishop did I have a complaint about sexual misconduct on the part of any of our gay or lesbian clergy. I cannot make that statement about our heterosexual clergy.

Our stance as a Diocese also brought tremendous numbers of gay and lesbian lay people out of their closets of fear and into significant roles of leadership in the life of the Diocese. At this moment a gay attorney is the president of our Standing Committee, a gay university professor is the chair of the committee to nominate candidates for the office of the tenth Bishop of Newark, who will be elected in September and who will then become my successor twice removed. These people were chosen for these positions for no other reason than that they were competent and devoted Christians. I no longer believe it is possible for any part of the institutional church to claim to be the body of Christ, if it is not open to all of the variations that exist in the human family. For me that is not being liberal, it is simply being Christian!

I do not think it is coincidental that two of the seven couples in this lawsuit are part of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Newark. Both of these couples are people I admire. That is why I have chosen to stand with them in this case.

The first is a lesbian couple; active lay people in one of the churches I was privileged to serve as bishop. These women, who have been a couple as long as I have known them, have children who are reaching toward the teenage years. Their parish priest is one of our finest; an open, sensitive and courageous man, whose church signboard states overtly, that in this house of worship all gay, lesbian, and transgender people are welcome. That welcome is real. The homosexual members of that church are not merely tolerated; their presence is enthusiastically celebrated. Indeed this wonderfully diverse and open congregation charters buses on Gay Pride day so that its straight members can join its gay members marching together in the Pride parade down 5th Avenue in New York City.

This lesbian couple has also been an inspiration to this congregation. When their child was baptized some years ago in that in Church, the entire congregation gathered to be the welcoming community. It was quite poignant to me that during the closing arguments before the New Jersey Supreme Court, one of the members of this particular couple told the justices that it was her hope that she and her partner could get married before our children do. I join them in that hope.

The partners who form the other couple I know even better, for one of them was and is a priest in our Diocese. His partner is an Episcopal priest in the Diocese of New York. Both serve with distinction in two different Episcopal Churches, separated only by the Hudson River. Beyond having had this professional relationship with them, these two people are also close personal friends both to me and to my wife. The four of us have shared meals together on five or six occasions since my retirement, sometimes in our home and sometimes in theirs. When I was still the active bishop this priest was one of the most effective ordained leaders of our Diocese. He was and still is an extraordinary clergyman, well loved by his congregation that deeply appreciates his sensitive and enthusiastic ministry. He lives his life quietly but quite openly and enjoys the admiration of all who know him. He is respected in his community, writing a well-read and popular weekly column in his local newspaper. He has served on the Board of Trustees at the major hospital in his area, giving much of his time to that facility. Doctors and nurses alike, as well as the administrative staff and trustees hold him in high esteem. He is active in the civic life of his larger region and state, including doing volunteer work on the telephones for the Public Broadcasting System during their annual fundraising drive. He has an infectious sense of humor and is quite often the life of the party in a variety of social settings. His partner is a dedicated urban priest in New York City, whose church has helped to transform his neighborhood. The Bishop of New York is as fond of him as I am of his partner. These two priests have found in each other a sustaining love that has made each of them more whole, more giving and more alive.

The arguments against gay marriage are to me so strange, revealing, as they do, deep levels of irrationality. The State of New Jersey, in the defendant role in this case, has argued that marriage is by definition between one man and one woman. However, there were times in American history when that was not all it took. It was not until 1967 that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that all state laws prohibiting racially mixed marriage were invalid. There were also times in history when the words one man and one woman did not imply equality since the woman did not enjoy the same rights in that marriage as the man. Now the State of New Jersey is actually arguing that gay marriage will somehow compromise this historically already compromised institution. This defense is an example of how entrenched interests always grasp at irrational straws to buttress their dying prejudices.

The executive director of the league of American Families, John Tomicki, opposing the petition of these couples, said before the proceedings, We hope the Court will resist the temptation to legislate from the bench. That is a tired argument and was used to try to stop the Supreme Court from both declaring segregation illegal and supporting the rights of women to equal treatment. Legislating is an interesting code word. New Jersey?s Assistant Attorney General, Patrick De Almeida, took the same line in his closing statement, basing his entire case on the argument that this is an issue that should be decided not by the courts but by the legislature. Since when, I wonder, have basic human rights been granted by the vote of the legislature, rather than by the guarantee of the Constitution? What this argument seems to be based on is the hope that there is sufficient homophobia still existing in the people of this State to defeat equality for homosexual people through a legislative process. If that is true then no person would ever be safe from the tyranny of the majority. This pitiful argument is a tacit admission that justice for gay and lesbian people is right but it might not yet be sufficiently popular to be passed by a vote in the legislature. Clearly, under our State Constitution, it is the Courts duty to make this decision. If inequality before the law is the plight or the reality of any citizen of this state, then the Supreme Court must act to remove the barrier. I believe this Court will act and when it does I will be very proud of my adopted and now much loved state. John Shelby Spong

We sincerely thank Bishop Spong for extending permission to the New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Coalition to reprinting his open letter in support of marriage equality. If you wish to support the Coalition in acheiving marriage equality and other important rights and protections for LBGTI people, please visit https://secure.ga4.org/01/mem2006a

And the WA state marriage ban was indeed...

homaffectional — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:30:13 GMT

upheld, as much as the now thoroughly corporatized, LOGO-ized 365gay, which got their hands caught in the broken crystal ball, whine 'bout it.

NJ will indeed be the second US state to offer its citizens marriage equality.

NOW there might actually be some substance to 365gay's constant hyping of WA marriage rulings

homaffectional — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 04:10:47 GMT

First article hyping up impending rulings they have no way of predicting; they make it clearly obvious they want them to happen soon as much as they try to say it's just the plaintiff couples involved in the suit

Second

Third

Fourth

Most recent article hyping up both WA state and NJ's pending rulings

Discuss this further (and how inaccurate 365gay.com can be, even before it was commercialized into a corporate LOGO nightmare) here

Married, but Certainly Not to Tradition

furrbear — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:07:54 GMT

From The New York Times

Modern Love
Married, but Certainly Not to Tradition

By ALISON LUTERMAN
Published: July 16, 2006

Put "Catholic" and "gay wedding" together, and you get an extravaganza of rituals.

THE groom’s mother wore a peach silk suit and an expression of mingled happiness, anxiety and bemusement. The other groom’s mother wore a peacock-blue dress and a similar expression, one that seemed to combine “I can’t believe this is happening” with “What a beautiful day, what a lovely chapel, what nice well-dressed people — just like a real wedding.”

One groom’s father needed to step outside and smoke a lot. The other groom’s father was dead. Nieces were in abundance, though — a bouquet of skinny adorable girls, dressed in hot pink and giggling with excitement.

But I didn’t have a lot of time to gawk at the family members because I was a huppah holder at this gay Christian wedding, and our routine was intricately choreographed.

The huppah, in the Jewish tradition, is a canopy, often made from a prayer shawl, whose corners are held up on poles by four people close to the wedding couple. But these grooms, Randy and Michael, were Catholic — super Catholic in fact. Michael had been a seminarian, preparing for the Jesuit priesthood in a former life, and Randy a Benedictine monk, deeply steeped in prayer, contemplation and service.

So why, as my Brooklyn-raised father carefully asked, would they want a huppah? The thing is, when you put “Catholic” and “gay wedding” together, you come out with one inevitable conclusion: an extravaganza of rituals.

And that’s what this was. We started in a circle of 100 people, holding hands, blessing and thanking earth, sky and the four directions. We then moved into some Christian sacred dance, all about breaking bread and feeding one another. While the rest of the wedding party proceeded into the chapel, wearing burgundy and orange ribbon stoles and holding long-stemmed gerbera daisies, three fellow Jews and I struggled outside to mount the huppah.

In a typical Jewish wedding, our task would have been simple: Don’t let the huppah sag, and don’t sneeze during the ceremony. But this huppah was not just a huppah. First, it was a quilt, created by the grooms’ families and friends, with squares that read “Two Boys Dancing” and “I don’t even know how to think straight.” Then it was to become a kind of medieval coat of arms, which we were to carry folded to the altar where we would unfurl it into a backdrop for the ceremony. And later it would become an altar cloth, an anchor for the Bible and a robe.

Michael, a veteran actor and director, has had a lifelong love affair with props. I met him six years before, when we did a children’s play together, and I quickly came to appreciate his wit and gallantry. But he was reserved about his private life, so we didn’t engage in the usual banter about ex-lovers and current flings.

When he met Randy, who radiates the kind of sincerity that I had only before seen in Jehovah’s Witnesses, something came loose in Michael, and here, at the wedding, it was on full display.

When the communion part of the ceremony rolled around, the priest in Michael took over; he grabbed the plate of bread and held it aloft.

“Bread! What does it make you think of?”

Answers poured forth: “Earth.” “Seeds.”

“Our bodies!” Michael cried.

And I realized why monastics can be so sexy. It’s not just the repression. It’s also the sense that the miracle is contained within the body, the body within the miracle. Seeing Randy watching Michael with the same realization written all over his face, I blushed.

“Michael and Randy don’t want you just to witness their ceremony,” said the minister, a petite lesbian with spiky platinum-tipped hair. “They want you to be co-celebrants with them, and they promise — we promise — that if you open yourselves fully to this experience, you will be transformed. Are you willing?”

“Yes!” the assembled roared.

AS greedy for transformation as the next girl, I held up my corner of the huppah as the first hour of the ceremony rolled by. A unity candle was lighted, hymns were sung, and a monk with a beautiful tenor voice played sacred music on the guitar. Everything — the music, the decorations, the grooms’ outfits (black pants, white shirts imprinted with the motif of a sacred Hawaiian flower) — had been selected with exquisite care.

I snapped out of my reverie when the huppah changed roles to become an altar cloth for communion.

I had never taken communion, out of respect and also out of a vague fear that, as a Jew, I would be struck with thunderbolts if I did. But the minister and Michael and Randy said this communion was for everyone, that it could mean whatever we wanted it to, and after all it was challah. So I stood in line, dunked my bread in the cider, and was generously showered with a Jesus-free blessing by a minister friend.

The contrast between this ceremony and my previous night’s outing could not have been more profound. I’d gone to see a documentary from 1972, “Winter Soldier,” that featured recently returned Vietnam veterans testifying about atrocities they had witnessed or taken part in. One after another, these cherubic young men, cigarettes smoldering between their fingers, leaned toward the microphone and described memories of bound prisoners pushed out of helicopters, 3-year-old children stoned to death with ration cans, whole villages torched for sport. Their eyes were dry as they spoke, their voices steady. They had been well trained to suppress any signs of emotion, no matter how horrific their memories. I think many of them were still in shock.

When asked why they had participated in such atrocities or stood by and watched as others committed them, one answered: “You don’t start out that way. You wanted to cry when your friend got killed.” But you couldn’t, he said, because that would have made you look weak.

“It was about being a man,” another said. “The more kills you had under your belt, the more of a man you were.”

Now, in the chapel, a decidedly different version of manhood and male emotion was being played out. Randy and Michael’s eyes were wet as they turned to each other to recite their vows. I stood behind them, conscious of beautiful masculine energy that was cascading between them.

They promised to cherish each other, fight side by side for justice and dedicate their marriage to protecting the earth. Then Michael looked at Randy and said, “Randy, I would die for you.”

I blinked back streaky mascara tears. Marriage does involve a kind of death of self, as I had learned the hard way. It’s all or nothing. You can’t be less than fully present in your marriage or it will collapse when the cold winds blow. And they always do blow. When I had married, years before, I hadn’t been truly ready, or at least not as ready as these two seemed to be.

“Michael, I would die for you,” Randy said. Rings exchanged, they turned and faced friends and family, a sea of loving faces. Not one dry eye in the house. We wrapped the huppah around them, so they were like two tall teddy bears swaddled in well-wishes. It would be nice if we could protect them this way, from the hatred and fear of those who might find their union abhorrent, but we knew that was impossible. Linking themselves solidly and visibly to each other, they become twice targeted, and yet infinitely strengthened.

My own wedding history started on a less uplifting note. As a young woman I stood bridesmaid for a friend. My dress was pink taffeta with pouffy sleeves, a tiny waist and a full skirt. I looked like Glinda, the Good Witch; the only thing missing was the wand. The day before the ceremony, I somehow managed to lose the dress and was punished by having to wear the dress intended for the maid of honor (who wore a lavender substitute from the bride’s aunt). The dress was several sizes too small, and I had to endure the wedding and reception without taking a full breath or sitting down.

Maybe it was this experience, maybe just my own particular brand of feminism, that has made me dislike traditional weddings ever after. In particular, I always hate when the minister or rabbi turns the couple to face the congregation and says, “Let me be the first to present to you Mr. and Mrs. X.” In that moment, I always feel the woman’s identity wiped out.

When I became a bride myself — barefoot, in a yellow dress, no train, no veil — I was so on the outs with tradition that we didn’t have a rabbi, just friends and family with poetry, music and blessings. We had youth and optimism and hubris and mad love for each other.

At the time, it seemed like enough. But marriage is tricky; you go in seduced by sweet idealism and can end up confronting your worst monsters in the mirror. A good wedding can be a kind of grounding for all the psychic chaos that comes unleashed when two people commit themselves fully. Honest, intimate community is essential. And the humility to ask God or Spirit or whatever you call It for help. When I married, I didn’t even know I could do that.

I HAD never heard God called upon so openly, unashamedly, ecstatically and often as I did during Michael and Randy’s ceremony. And the walls of the little chapel were still standing at the end and lightning didn’t strike anybody, and when it was finally over the grooms’ mothers were no longer looking bemused or anxious, just teary and happy. And the nieces and nephews who had sat so patiently were tugging on Randy and Michael’s hands and asking to be lifted up and twirled as the music began.

Together, we all marched onward and outward to bright sunlight and chicken breasts in apricot sauce: the gay Catholics, the nominally straight Jews, the Midwestern families who had traveled long distances in more ways than one, the whole motley collection of pagans, ex-priests, Buddhists, actors and singers, each of whom had absorbed the ceremony in their way.

It wasn’t a legal wedding. Even so, it made me think the Right is correct in fearing same-sex unions. There is such power in this kind of brave and naked love that it may make the walls of Jericho come tumbling down.

Alison Luterman, who lives in Oakland, Calif., is the author of “The Largest Possible Life” (Cleveland State University).

2 Gay Wedding 'Presents' in a row...

homaffectional — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:24:47 GMT

Courtesy of "New York Mag":

The Gay-Wedding Present
Don’t call off the caterer just yet: New York’s same-sex-marriage court defeat is a gift in disguise.

Of course men who love men and women who love women should be entitled to all the advantages of marriage, legal and financial and ineffable, including the secret handshakes and special discounts on Juicy Juice and minivans. But we shouldn’t be gnashing our teeth and tearing out our hair just because New York’s appellate court ruled, 4-2, that the state constitution doesn’t require that gay people be allowed to marry. In fact, paradoxically, the decision looks to me like a blessing in disguise, a pseudo-setback. Because the more that marriage equality can be achieved politically rather than by judicial fiat, the better in the long run—not just for gay rights but for progressivism generally. When courts make certain “good” decisions too far ahead of public opinion and legislative consensus, the result can be hugely problematic, as we’ve seen since Roe v. Wade.

So concerning Massachusetts, where the supreme court in 2004 did what New York’s has now declined to do, I won’t be dispirited when that state’s legislature finally gives the go-ahead for a public referendum on a state constitutional amendment to prevent gays from marrying—because I’m confident Massachusetts voters will do the right thing and defeat the proposal, thus giving same-sex marriage even deeper, more democratic standing. Losing certain battles can help the war be won more soundly.

Not that the New York court’s opinion was remotely persuasive. It didn’t find that the heterocentric legal definition of marriage was correct, merely (as constitutional precedent requires) “rational”—or, as Judge Robert S. Smith wrote, not “wholly irrational.” And that ostensible rationality, claims Smith (a Federalist Society conservative who was a Paul, Weiss partner until 2003 and lives on the Upper West Side), is all about protecting children—not about the fact that lots of people find homosexuality weird and icky. In groping for a way to impute rationality, the decision repeatedly uses a strangely conditional future tense (the Legislature could find; the Legislature could believe) and appends it to entirely lame rationales. “The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better . . . for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.” It could, but if so, why has our Legislature made adoption by gay couples legal?

“The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right,” the opinion declares, which is why restrictions on marriage violate the Constitution, but “[t]he right to marry someone of the same sex . . . is not ‘deeply rooted.’ ” However, the decision also claims that longstanding custom is not the real issue: “If we were convinced that the restriction plaintiffs attack were founded on nothing but prejudice . . . we would hold it invalid, no matter how long its history.” Really? Because if it’s not prejudice against homosexuals that sustains the law, then what do you call it? Prejudice can even be rational—as with racial profiling—but that doesn’t make it right as a basis of law.

Gay sex was criminal in nine states until 2003, when the Supreme Court decided in Lawrence v. Texas that if it’s legal for heteros to engage in sex not involving penises entering vaginas, it ought to be legal for homos, too—“moral disapproval” doesn’t justify banning it. So, as Justice Antonin Scalia suggested in his dissent, why wouldn’t the same argument apply to gay marriage? Well, the New York court said, you know, um, it just doesn’t, that’s why: Lawrence concerned “private activity,” whereas marriage is inherently public.

What clearly drove this opinion was not a dispassionate consideration of precedent and logic but a nervous scramble to practice judicial restraint and avoid radically overturning ancient custom. It’s what constitutional experts disparage as a “results- oriented” ruling—stacking the deck to get to the decision you want. Results-oriented judicial restraint is supposed to be an oxymoron; until now, that phrase was un-Google-able. “We . . . express our hope,” the opinion concluded, “that the participants in the controversy over same-sex marriage will address their arguments to the Legislature . . . and that those unhappy with the result . . . will respect it as people in a democratic state should respect choices democratically made.”

In other words, they tossed this very hot potato back to the political system, back to us—a disingenuous and maybe cowardly act that may help achieve the optimal outcome.

The first gay marriages on earth took place just five years ago, in the Netherlands, and we la-di-da avant-garde urbanites have to remind ourselves that the prospect of homosexuals marrying homosexuals still seems profoundly . . . queer, in the old sense, to most Americans. About 40 percent say they know no gay people. Even public opinion in New York City isn’t so far ahead of the curve: According to a Times poll last year, only a minority of New Yorkers support gay marriage. All across the country, there’s enough visceral opposition and ambivalence to make it an election issue, as in 2004, that really works for Republican panderers. And the more that appointed judges rather than elected legislatures reform existing marriage laws, the more galvanized the right-wing hot-button backlash will become, and the greater the support for a national constitutional amendment—passage of which would be a deeply depressing disaster.

As a practical political matter, full-bore gay marriage is useful to have on the table, so that marriage lite—civil unions, domestic partnerships—seems by comparison a moderate option. Supporters of gay rights can learn from the anti-abortion playbook of the past three decades. The positions of the pro-life hard core have served to make modest restrictions on abortion seem reasonable to the conflicted middle. But the risk of righteous passion is overreach.

In retrospect, it’s unfortunate that we pro-choicers won by means of Roe v. Wade. The legal reasoning was dubious, and it inflamed a chronic anger (against the courts, the irreligious, Washington, Democrats) that Republicans have exploited masterfully ever since. If the decision had come, say, a decade later, political history would be quite different. Back in 1973, the tide of opinion and politics was clearly moving in the pro-choice direction. Thirteen states, including six in the South, had recently liberalized their statutes to allow abortion if the fetus had any severe defect or if a woman’s physical or mental health was endangered. But just four states (including New York) had fully legalized abortion. Roe shockingly short-circuited an organic, progressive political process and slammed our politics in a religious and rightward direction.

By contrast, consider the political-judicial history of interracial marriage. The timing was perfect. In 1967, when the Supreme Court got around to declaring laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional, only sixteen states still carried such statutes on their books—whereas less than two decades before, it was illegal for a white to marry a black in most states. In the progress toward marital equality, it’s not yet 1967.

And the way to work it is locally, ripe state by ripe state. Before Massachusetts’s supreme court ignited the national debate, polling showed a solid majority of the state’s citizens in favor of gay marriage. Last year, California passed a bill legalizing gay marriage; the state’s former-bodybuilder governor vetoed it, but if Schwarzenegger is beaten this fall, it’ll be passed again and signed by a Democratic governor. That would be preferable to judges’ remaking the law—the state court of appeal in San Francisco will soon rule on whether the existing statute is unconstitutional—but even a pro-gay judicial outcome would be in sync with the California political consensus. Similarly, any day now New Jersey’s supreme court may rule that state’s existing law unconstitutional—but a poll last month found that Jerseyites now support gay marriage 50 to 44 percent.

States’ rights is an essential American principle—without any inherent ideological tilt.

In some places, gay marriage or even civil unions will never be legal. In 2004, over three-quarters of Georgia voters approved a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, which the state supreme court affirmed earlier this month. So far, eighteen other states have similarly amended their constitutions.

That’s too bad, but that’s the way it goes; such is the nature of a federal 50-state America. During liberalism’s triumphal march at mid-century, everyone imagined that states’ rights were exclusively a pretext for last-ditch conservative attempts to restrict liberty and civil rights. And back then, constitutional amendments (to lower the voting age, to guarantee women equal rights) were the specialty of progressives. But now it’s the right that defaults to proposing constitutional amendments to try to get what it wants. In 1972, in its first and only big decision on same-sex marriage, Baker v. Nelson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota could define marriage any way it saw fit—a precedent that’s been used ever since as an argument against gays’ marrying. Yet with states starting to legalize gay marriage, the states’-rights principle of Baker may now become a tool for progress instead of conservatism. The shoes are on the other feet.

With the right ascendant, it’s clear that states’ rights is an essential American principle without any inherent ideological tilt. If liberals want blue states to be able to pass their own enlightened laws concerning gay marriage (or abortion or medical marijuana), then in the 21st century we really have to be willing to let red states enact laws with which we strongly disagree. As a result, the bluest places will become bluer and the reds redder, each pursuing its own vision of virtue. Which looks preferable to having either side force every American to live by its moral rules, and lousing up our politics or even our Constitution in the process. If letting Georgia and Indiana and Utah go their own way is the price for Massachusetts and California and New York’s being free to go ours, I’m willing to pay it.

ls56 — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:59:55 GMT

I've got a question...

Does the Gay Rights movement have a cult of personality?

Someone like a Martin Luther King that really galvanized the movement and embodies it?

I was trying to think of one, but I can't.

Stonewall riots wasn't caused by one person, but a group of people.

Specter's amendment vote shows HRC was right to endorse his opponent in 2004

homaffectional — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:26:06 GMT

Senator Arlen Specter, as well as the Window Media publications, run by gay right-winger Chris Crain, took issue with the fact that the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) endorsed his Democratic opponent for the US Senate in 2004, Joe Hoeffel, who voted against the amendment in the House.

HRC reaffirmed their decision, even after Specter won his race against Hoeffel.

The Log Cabin Republicans, meanwhile endorsed Specter despite his vote to end cloture on the FMA in 2004. Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said gay voters cannot continue to abandon gay-friendly Republicans simply because they do not support every single gay issue.

Hate to break it to the Log Cabins, but isn't this the same logic many gay conservatives (and even the fringe left, although usually in states that Kerry would have won with or without their vote) thought John Kerry was 'unworthy' of support, because of his stance on gay marriage? Also, I'd ask those self-same gay conservatives if by that logic, they will be registering as Democrats, so they can vote for Russ Feingold in their state's presidential primary in 2008, or if they'll find some other excuse (I know people on the left will be supporting him, for sure). Wasn't this also the reason why Chris Crain himself has attacked many Democrats, most notably Howard Dean?

After the fact, Crain cited Specter's vote on the amendment in committee as proof that HRC was wrong, but is deafeningly silent on his vote against the amendment on the floor. Perhaps Specter now realizes that, if he wants the endorsement of gay rights groups, he has to vote for gay rights!

And perhaps one day Chris Crain will realize that his double standard on Republicans vs. Democrats makes him look like a Republican apologist.

This proves it. Right wing gays like Crain are laden with hypocrisy.

Funny!

maineconnie — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:26:14 GMT

Tee hee!

Curtesy, peep1258

Lesbian Hairstyles

Steve Young: 'Stop me before I burn the flag in my assless chaps!*'

homaffectional — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:46:12 GMT

HOLLYWOOD (apj.us) -- First off, understand that I am not gay nor have ever desecrated the American flag...

... yet.

But if something isn't legislated soon, I don't know how long it'll be before I head down to my local leather shop to suit up and put a match to Old Glory.

"Old Glory." There you go. A few days ago I would have called the flag "The Stars and Stripes." Anyone with a scintilla of flag history behind them knows that the term "Old Glory" was coined by Navy Captain William Driver, a 19th century ship master. Sailor. Ship. Do I have to draw you a Village People map?

Finally, our president and a solid 33% of our legislators are standing up for what is right, no matter how many of conservative core voters come out to vote Republican this November.

Thank you, Mr. Bush -- and Mr. Frist -- for standing up in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. For if it is not passed, how soon before gay men who married each other would start having gay babies? How many extremely well-built, extremely attractive men who know how to dress well are being wasted on other men? How soon before gay women start marrying and stop having that hot, single, lesbian sex that straight men love to watch?

Those who mock the proposed Constitutional amendment seem to have overlooked the fact that the legislation does not say gays cannot marry. They just would not be able to marry each other. How big an exclusion is that? I would have loved to marry Catherine Zeta Jones Douglas, but that didn't work out. Should she have been forced to marry me when she was single? I can't marry people who are already married to someone else. Should Michael Douglas be forced to make Katherine available now... no matter how much she would want that? Do you hear me complaining about changing the law? I mean, a law that I agree with?

There's no denying a slippery slope. If we allow a man to marry a man how soon will it be before bisexuals will be allowed to marry each other? If we allow women to marry women, Mary Cheney may never have the opportunity to marry a man. How soon before Ellen marries the Dixie Chicks? And with all the men marrying men and women marrying women, the sanctity of marriage would suffer so immeasurably that there would leave insufficient time or opportunity for Rush Limbaugh to keep getting married.

We have to focus on the country's vital objectives. The sooner we stop gays from marrying the sooner we can bring the troops home, the sooner we stop desecrating the flag, the sooner that the Homeland Security Department can become competent and keep bureaucracy from desecrating the safety of Americans at home.

Let us no longer let gays or flag burners divide our country. Let's give that job to the Constitution.

*How the flag got in my assless chaps I'll never know.

Steve Young is a Senior Fellow at the Extreme Far Centrist Foundation' Political Husbandry Conservation Centre and Stereo Repair. In his spare time, he is also an author, comedy writer, columnist, LA talk show host and author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful."(What? You STILL haven't bought it? Then visit http://www.greatfailure.com). You can also check out the satirical side of Steve every Sunday in the LA Daily News.

Link.

Welcome new members

immoralusername — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:04:25 GMT

Hi,

I'm your friendly moderator who never reads the community or even reads LJ anymore...in fact I'm no longer queer (just kidding)

post an update about any activities in your area, discuss or just sit back & have a cup of tea.

Call the # in the link

immoralusername — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 05:34:15 GMT

http://www.livejournal.com/community/postqueer/361440.html?mode=rep

Tell Your Story

angryasiangrrl — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:41:02 GMT

The ACLU is gathering stories of real same-sex couples from all over the country to put a face on the issue of marriage equality and help change public and legal opinion. One way to educate the public is for couples to share their experiences of being barred from the personal, social, legal and financial protections and privileges that come with civil marriage. Also, it is wonderful to share the positive stories of couples that have stayed together despite the odds. Tell your story! Or pass this on to someone you know whose story moves you. The following is from the ACLU website:

Take Our Couples Survey!

The American Civil Liberties Union is looking for LGBT couples to help us in the fight for marriage equality. Stories of real couples put a face on the issue and help change public and legal opinion. Your stories can compel voters to say "no" to discriminatory state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

We are taking information from all LGBT couples, but would especially like to hear from couples with children, couples who are seniors over age 60, couples who are non-Caucasian, couples in interracial relationships, and couples who can demonstrate harm due to not being able to marry (i.e. denial of hospital visitation, denial of health insurance, challenge of will/estate, etc.). If you are a surviving partner, we also encourage you to respond.

Your name and contact information will be kept safe with us. We may share your general story with advocacy groups such as Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry and others in a combined effort to show America that real gay couples deserve the protection of marriage equality. We will always contact you first for permission if we are interested in using your story for litigation or media purposes.

Thank you for taking this important step to make marriage equal in America.

Click here for the survey!

xposted to
gay_marriage, queer_marriage, & queeractivism

Finally: It's done!

nickitty — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:46:44 GMT

EQUAL MARRIAGE BILL PASSES FINAL HURDLE

At 11:25 pm on Tuesday night, the Senate passed the equal marriage bill by an overwhelming 47 to 21, with 3 abstentions. What a night!! Today, Wednesday, the bill will receive Royal Assent and be proclaimed into law. Same sex couples will now be able to marry in every province and territory of this great country.

CONGRATULATIONS CANADA!!!

Welcome New Folks

immoralusername — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 04:24:10 GMT

Hi, to folks who just joined. I'm your absentee moderator who goes by many names. Have a seat, make yourself comfortable...

Celebrate Good Times COME ON!

nickitty — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 02:53:53 GMT

AND IT PASSES!!!!!!!!!!

Cool?

swore — Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:27:48 GMT

ATTENTION CHICAGO-TYPE FOLKS!

Looking for a cool way to kick off Pride Weekend or just a good time in general? Well come see the second annual Out in the Loop! Proudly brought to you by About Face Youth Theatre, CALOR, Center on Halsted, GLSEN Chicago, Howard Brown Health Center, and The Raw Works.

Singers! Dancers! Actors! Poets! Free condoms, lube, dental dams, and sex kits! We've got it all here! And we're queer! It rhymes, so it must be true!

Admission is free, but space is limited!

June 24. 7:15 PM. 606 S. State St. (off the Harrison Red line). Hope to see you there!

X-posted everywhere.

Attention Canadians!

nickitty — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:28:06 GMT

(from equal-marriage.com)

Contact the Prime Minister right NOW -- pm@pm.gc.ca

We're in the home stretch on the equal marriage bill. Only Prime Minister Paul Martin has the power to decide whether or not the equal-marriage bill will be passed before Parliament breaks for summer. It is urgent that you help send a clear message that Canadians are looking to the Prime Minister for leadership, that he must stand up to opponents like Pat O'Brien.

Please email the prime minister right now at pm@pm.gc.ca. Tell him:

I am counting on you to continue to show leadership on human rights.

I am counting on you to take the steps necessary to have Bill C-38 passed into law before MPs leave for their summer holidays. The debate on this bill has been going for well over two years now. There have been eight court decisions, a Supreme Court reference, three votes in Parliament, over 500 witnesses at House of Commons Committees and a very thorough public debate. 76% of Canadians say it's time to let Parliament decide this issue.

Mr. Prime Minister, this is simply a matter of commitment and leadership. You must stand up to those who want to prevent Parliament from deciding. Parliament is too volatile to risk delaying passage of the bill. You must take bold action to reflect the will of Canadians -- and ensure this issue is dealt with now.

(suite de la version française)

Contactez le premier ministre dès MAINTENANT -- pm@pm.gc.ca

Nous touchons presque au but dans le projet de loi sur l'égalité du mariage. Seul le premier ministre Paul Martin a le pouvoir de décider si oui ou non le projet de loi sur l'égalité du mariage sera adopté avant que le Parlement ajourne pour l'été. Il est urgent que vous aidiez à acheminer un message clair que les Canadiens et les Canadiennes se tournent vers le premier ministre pour du leadership.

Veuillez acheminer un courriel au premier ministre dès maintenant au pm@pm.gc.ca . Dites-lui :

Je compte sur vous pour continuer à manifester votre leadership en matière de droits de la personne.

Je compte sur vous pour prendre les mesures nécessaires pour faire en sorte que le projet de loi C-38 devienne loi avant que les députés quittent pour leurs vacances d'été. Le débat sur ce projet de loi a maintenant duré plus de deux ans. On a connu huit décisions de la cour, un renvoi de la Cour suprême, trois votes au Parlement, plus de 500 témoins devant des comités de la Chambre des communes et un débat public approfondi. 76% des Canadiens et des Canadiennes affirment qu'il est temps de laisser le Parlement décider de cette question.

Monsieur le premier ministre, il s'agit tout simplement d'une question d'engagement et de leadership. Vous devez vous opposer à ceux qui veulent empêcher le Parlement de décider. Le Parlement est trop volatile pour risquer de retarder l'adoption du projet de loi. Vous devez prendre les mesures voulues pour refléter la volonté des Canadiens et des Canadiennes - et pour assurer que l'on traite la question dès maintenant.

Steve Kreseski: enemy of the state

homaffectional — Wed, 25 May 2005 17:39:17 GMT

This year's Roy Kohn award goes to Steve Kreseki, chief of staff to Maryland governor Bob Ehrlich. See blogACTIVE for more info...

My Fabulous Gay Wedding

nickitty — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:12:37 GMT

Personally, and as much as I <3 Scott Thompson, I think this sounds like kitschx1000 that may induce vomiting! And, as much as I hate the entire 'fags and dykes are funny!" push by shows like Queer Eye and Will & Grace, I do like how the idea of same sex marriage is moving ahead in society.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Global's got the premiere of My Fabulous Gay Wedding starring Scott Thompson

(TORONTO - Tuesday, April 26, 2005) Actor/comedian Scott Thompson (Kids in the Hall) stars in the new reality series My Fabulous Gay Wedding, premiering Wednesday, June 1 on the Global Television > Network.

In My Fabulous Gay Wedding, Thompson plays "The Wedding Fairy", who must make the nuptial dreams of a dynamic and charming gay couple come true in a mere two weeks. But there's a catch: he knows nothing about weddings and risks losing his wings if he doesn't pull off a fabulous wedding.

Behind the scenes, his collaborator Fern Cohen, a seasoned Toronto-based wedding planner, and her assistant, Gregory White, work their magic. As the clock ticks down, they enlist some of Toronto's top event gurus - designer Eric Aragon, fashion stylist Jim Smith, and caterer Barbara Stuart-Peterson - to create, plan and execute gorgeous, imaginative weddings that will perfectly reflect the values, taste and personality of each couple...while keeping all the details a surprise till the big day.

This leaves Thompson free to spend time with each couple, probing their relationship and exploring their emotional journey in the two weeks leading up to their walk down the aisle...and the biggest day of their lives.

"In My Fabulous Gay Wedding, we share a journey with loving gay and lesbian couples, who will become transformed through the act of marriage, something that has been denied to them until now," said Academy Award-nominated Executive Producer David Paperny. "And with the wry wit of Scott Thompson as our host, My Fabulous Gay Wedding is guaranteed to be smart and fun."

Said Anne-Marie Varner, Global's Head of Original Production, "With the outrageously entertaining Scott Thompson at the helm, My Fabulous Gay Wedding will take viewers through the highs and lows of wedding planning as well as offer a personal glimpse inside the lives of our dynamic couples."

Our six loving couples are:

· Rob & Greg - Rob, a marketing whiz, and Greg, a sales exec, are feted at a Scottish-themed house party wedding complete with bagpipes, kilts, Highland dancing, and a surprise fiddler.

· Debbie & Nikki - For legal assistant Debbie and retail analyst Nikki, both mothers of two, a Speakeasy theme wedding comes complete with some sultry jazz.

· William & Jim - Lawyer William and nurse Jim, who love all things nautical, arrive at the altar in His & His sailboats to tie the knot at Toronto's Harbourfront.

· Michael & Charles - Michael is a United Church minister with a fondness for drag queens and Charles is a computer expert who likes to appear on game shows. You'll never guess how they combine their passions in a ceremony that somehow hits the jackpot.

· Donna & Polina - Actor/comedian Donna and entrepreneur Polina are shocked when their mixed marriage/gay marriage ceremony takes on a Medieval Times/Jewish aspect, but getting roasted by a surprise guest makes everything simply fabulous.

· Dan & Mischa - Drama teacher Dan and ad exec Mischa, a couple still in their early 20s and with a passion for travel, get hitched at a worldbeat wedding, complete with tribal drumming and tropical décor.

The six hour-long episodes of My Fabulous Gay Wedding were filmed entirely on location in Toronto from August 2004 through March 2005 by Vancouver-based producer Paperny Films.

Executive Producer of My Fabulous Gay Wedding is David Paperny. Producer is Trevor Hodgson. Series Director, Writer, and Creative Producer is Daniel Gelfant. Director is Robin Bicknell. Director of Photography is Geoff Lackner. Editors are Denis Takacs and Patrick Labonte. Aynsley Vogel, Daniel Gelfant and David Paperny are the Creators of the series.

My Fabulous Gay Wedding is produced by Paperny Films in association with Global Television Network Inc., with the assistance of the Government of Ontario - Ontario Production Services Tax Credit, the Province of British Columbia Production Services Tax Credit, and with the assistance of the Government of Canada - Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit.

Paperny Films, founded in 1994, is an independent, Vancouver-based production company known for its provocative, innovative, and entertaining television programming. Beginning with The Broadcast Tapes of Dr. Peter, an intimate portrayal of a Vancouver doctor living with AIDS that was nominated for an Academy Award® in 1994 as 'Best Documentary Feature', the company has produced more than 120 hours of programming. Along with My Fabulous Gay Wedding, Paperny's 2004/2005 production slate includes three other non-fiction television series: Crash Test Mommy; a fourth season of Kink; a fifth season of New Classics with Chef Rob Feenie; and two documentary specials, the two-part Victory 1945 and Thirst for Life. The company is developing several projects, including Gay Before God, exploring the struggles faced by gays in the clergy. More information is available at: www.papernyfilms.com <http://www.papernyfilms.com>.

Global Television is a CanWest MediaWorks Company, a wholly own subsidiary of CanWest Global Communications Corp. (NYSE: CWG; TSX: CGS.S and CGS.A, www.canwestglobal.com), an international media company. CanWest is Canada's largest media company. In addition to owning the Global Television Network, CanWest is Canada's largest publisher of daily newspapers, and also owns, operates and/or holds substantial interests in conventional television, out-of-home advertising, specialty cable channels, Web sites and radio networks in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland.

My Fabulous Gay Wedding premieres Wednesday, June 1 on the Global Television Network as follows:

Ontario/Quebec/British Columbia - 10pm
Manitoba/Saskatchewan - 9pm
Maritimes/Alberta - 8pm

For more information, preview tapes, press kits, interviews, photos, clips, etc. please contact:

Jeremy Katz OR Christine Amendola
Publicity Media Relations Manager
Paperny Films Global Television Network
T: 416-656-6970 (416) 446-5542
E: jeremyk@sympatico.ca camendola@globaltv.ca