AP reported today that Hallmark Cards, the nation's largest greeting card company is now producing same-sex wedding cards.
The AP story indicated that Hallmark was doing this in response to consumer demand. American Greeting, Hallmark's biggest competitor, apparently has no plans to market same-sex wedding cards.
One wonders what Hallmark would do if consumers "demanded" that Hallmark not produce same-sex wedding cards.
Click below to read the full AP story.
Gay Marriage Cards
You can email Hallmark by clicking on the link below
Hallmark
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
A War We Have Already Won
From time to time the question is raised as to whether there is a "Gay Agenda". Whether or not it would be considered a Gay agenda, or merely a declaration of a goal achieved, the following quote is interesting.
“A solid majority of young people under the age of 24 believe that same gender partners should have the right to marry. So the Supreme Court is just one more battle in a war we have already won, be it for the next generation.” (emphasis added)
With the outcome of same-sex marriage in California still to be determined this November by Proposition 8, it would seem clear that the claim of victory is not in reference to legal victory, but rather to having won over the opinions of the coming generation.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Protecting Marriage or Limiting Marriage
The battle of same-sex marriage in California continues.
Earlier this year, those in favor of traditional marriage were able to place on the November 2008 ballot a measure to amend the California Constitution to include the statement, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This measure, if passed, would be titled the "California Marriage Protection Act." This is proposition 8 on the ballot.
However, taking into account the Supreme Court of California decision in May of this year to allow same-sex marriage, the California Secretary of State gave proposition 8 the label "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couple to Marry," and gave as the first line of the description of the initiative as, "Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
Those in favor of traditional marriage felt that this wording was biased and challened the wording in court. Their concern is that with this ballot wording, voters would be less likely to vote in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. On August 8, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the Secretary of State. Although the proponents of the proposition plan to appeal, it is quickly becoming unlikely that the wording will be changed.
To see the official ballot label, click here and scroll down to Proposition 8.
Earlier this year, those in favor of traditional marriage were able to place on the November 2008 ballot a measure to amend the California Constitution to include the statement, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This measure, if passed, would be titled the "California Marriage Protection Act." This is proposition 8 on the ballot.
However, taking into account the Supreme Court of California decision in May of this year to allow same-sex marriage, the California Secretary of State gave proposition 8 the label "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couple to Marry," and gave as the first line of the description of the initiative as, "Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."
Those in favor of traditional marriage felt that this wording was biased and challened the wording in court. Their concern is that with this ballot wording, voters would be less likely to vote in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. On August 8, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the Secretary of State. Although the proponents of the proposition plan to appeal, it is quickly becoming unlikely that the wording will be changed.
To see the official ballot label, click here and scroll down to Proposition 8.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Gay Marriage in Massachusetts
On July 31, 2008, Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts signed a bill which repealed the 1913 law which until now had prevented many same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts.
This law prohibited anyone from marrying in Massachusetts if that marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The state house and senate recently passed this bill to repeal the 1913 law. This bill was unusual in at least two respects:
This law prohibited anyone from marrying in Massachusetts if that marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The state house and senate recently passed this bill to repeal the 1913 law. This bill was unusual in at least two respects:
- most legislation passed in Massachusetts does not take effect for 90 days, giving the voters time to call for a referendum on the bill. This process was circumvented in this case (see http://citizenlink.org/content/A000007917.cfm)
- the bill granted medicaid benefits to same-sex couples in Massachusetts. Because Federal law does not give benefits to same-sex couples, the benefits will be paid from from state funds. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/01brfs-SAMESEXCOUPL_BRF.html?ref=us)
PG&E Supports Gay Marriage
On July 30th, 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that the California utility PG&E had donated $250,000 to the No on Proposition 8 campaign. The proposition would define marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Times reported that PG&E was working to form a business advisory council to encourage other California businesses to work toward defeating the initiative.
That businesses are entering this initiative battle is a change from the initiative battle in 2000 in which businesses generally did not participate.
The full story can be found at - http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs30-2008jul30,0,5258899.story
The Times reported that PG&E was working to form a business advisory council to encourage other California businesses to work toward defeating the initiative.
That businesses are entering this initiative battle is a change from the initiative battle in 2000 in which businesses generally did not participate.
The full story can be found at - http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs30-2008jul30,0,5258899.story
Gay Marriage in California
On May 15th, 2008, the California Supreme court issued a ruling effectively legalizing Same-sex marriage in California. Upon initial reading, the 120+ page decision appears to rely principally on California state law, and the California state constitution.
In the case titled In re MARRIAGE CASES, the California Supreme Court concludes that 1) marriage is a fundamental right protected by the state constitution (p. 5), and 2) that marriage is so important it should not be denied to any loving couple (p. 120).
Although many have decried the decision of the Court as the work of a liberal activist court, even a casual reading of the decision uncovers the history of legislative action which granted same-sex couples virtually all the rights of married opposite-sex couples. Given the actions of the legislature, the Court could find no compelling state interest in prohibiting same-sex couples to marry. The legislature laid the groundwork for this decision.
For those opposed to Gay Marriage, their work on an amendment to the California State Constitution becomes that much more critical. If this amendment had been in place prior to the California Supreme Court addressing this current case, the Court’s decision would likely have been different.
In the case titled In re MARRIAGE CASES, the California Supreme Court concludes that 1) marriage is a fundamental right protected by the state constitution (p. 5), and 2) that marriage is so important it should not be denied to any loving couple (p. 120).
Although many have decried the decision of the Court as the work of a liberal activist court, even a casual reading of the decision uncovers the history of legislative action which granted same-sex couples virtually all the rights of married opposite-sex couples. Given the actions of the legislature, the Court could find no compelling state interest in prohibiting same-sex couples to marry. The legislature laid the groundwork for this decision.
For those opposed to Gay Marriage, their work on an amendment to the California State Constitution becomes that much more critical. If this amendment had been in place prior to the California Supreme Court addressing this current case, the Court’s decision would likely have been different.
Purpose of the GLBT Blog
The purpose of this blog is to quickly note and create an archive of events taking place in the legal, political, and social battle over Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)