Let’s start with the “boo” so we can end on a positive note.

Wyoming:

CHEYENNE-The Wyoming Senate narrowly voted Friday to stop recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions from outside the state.

House Bill 74 passed 16-14 after tagging on a last-second amendment guaranteeing out-of-state couples in civil unions access to Wyoming courts.

Because of the amendment, the bill will now head back to the House to approve the changes. The House passed the legislation late last month 32-27.

Supporters of the bill, House Bill 74, said the legislation is needed to resolve a conflict in Wyoming law, which defines marriage as a contract “between a male and a female person” but also recognizes any valid marriage performed outside the state.

But on the other hand, in Maryland:

A Maryland state Senate committee approved legislation allowing same-sex marriage Thursday afternoon, allowing the bill to move to the full Senate floor for a vote.

The Judicial Proceedings Committee passed the legislation in a 7-4 vote.

Already, gay rights activists are rallying state senators in order to gain the 24 votes needed to pass the same-sex legislation in the Senate and move it to the House of Delegates.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) predicted that the bill will pass, although with a close vote, in the Senate.

[...]

Supporters of the bill believe if it makes it to the House, state delegates will approve the legislation and pass it on to Gov. Martin O’Malley.

O’Malley has pledged to sign the same-sex marriage bill into law.

Fingers crossed!

Robert Gibbs is still deflecting every time he’s asked about what changed between 1996, when Barack Obama supported marriage equality, and the present day, where he supposedly does not:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Monday declined to directly address questions about President Obama’s early support for same-sex marriage and whether the president might again embrace that position before the 2012 election.

In response to questions from the Washington Blade on the president’s 1996 statement favoring marriage rights for same-sex couples, Gibbs noted he wasn’t working for Obama at that time and said he could only restate the president’s current position.

“I was not with the president in 1996,” Gibbs said. “I was younger and thinner back then — same shoe size. I would simply say that throughout the campaign of 2004 and the campaign of 2008, he’s made his position clear on that.”

Pressed on whether Obama had a “political motivation” for changing his position on marriage equality, Gibbs deferred to his previous answer.

I wudn’t there, I dunno!

Here’s the video, via John Aravosis:

It’s interesting the way marriage equality is playing out in parts of Western Europe.  In several countries, marriage-like rights/arrangements were granted to same-sex couples long before they came to the United States, but these arrangements were often open to opposite-sex couples as well.  Whereas in the United States, the push is actually toward preserving the institution of marriage by opening it to all committed couples, it seems that in Western Europe, couples, straight and gay, are opting for the more “no-frills” option of civil unions, which is leading to an overall decline in marriage rates.

Here’s what’s up in France right now:

The Constitutional Council, France’s highest court, has agreed to rule on a case of two women who have conceived children by artificial insemination. The women want to call their relationship a marriage and have it recognized as such.

The French have resisted formal legal recognition of same-sex relationships more than other Western European democracies, despite its historic liberalism and anti-clericalism. The women’s lawyer, Emmanuel Ludot, told the newspaper Le Figaro, he is arguing, “It’s not a matter of asking the Constitutional Council if it will make a pronouncement for or against homosexual marriage. It’s necessary to be more subtle.”

Here’s the thing, though:

Civil solidarity pacts, a form of registered domestic partnership, were enacted in 1999 for both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples. Couples who enter into a PACS contract are afforded most of the legal protections and responsibilities of marriage.

As the institution of marriage declines, more and more heterosexual couples are availing themselves of these pacts. In December, the New York Times reported that “French couples are increasingly shunning traditional marriages and opting instead for civil unions, to the point that there are now two civil unions for every three marriages.”

The article goes on to note that the pacts are expected to outnumber marriages before too long in France, which will make it the “first post-marriage Western nation.”

It would seem that, given the inevitable tide of history, our ideological opponents who weep and wail about how they’re “pro-marriage” and not anti-gay should be our biggest champions, if marriage is actually what they give a damn about.

[It is not.  They're simply motivated by animus against gay people.  Oh well.]

Good news if it pans out:

A majority of senators on a key committee in Maryland now favor legalizing same-sex marriage, making it increasingly likely that the state will join five others and the District in allowing such unions.

Membership changes on the panel, where same-sex marriage bills have previously died, are among a handful of shifts produced by last month’s elections. Collectively, they appear to have tipped the balance on the most high-profile social issue the General Assembly will consider during its upcoming 90-day session.

Republican gains Nov. 2 in other state legislatures are expected to lead to more conservative social policies. But Democrats in Maryland bucked the trend, adding two seats to their majority in the Senate. Moreover, when the General Assembly convenes next month, a few senators who lost primaries will be replaced by Democrats more supportive of same-sex unions.

Watch for the hate groups to start bitching about “activist legislatures” and stuff.

[h/t Jeremy]

As we remember Elizabeth Edwards, it’s good to remember what a true advocate she was for equality:

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on a speech Elizabeth gave at the kickoff event for the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco in June 2007. While talking to a crowd at the Alice B. Toklas Pride Breakfast, Elizabeth explained her views and how they differed from her husband and presidential candidate John:

“I don’t know why somebody else’s marriage has anything to do with me,” Elizabeth said. “I’m completely comfortable with gay marriage.”

[...]

The explanation for Elizabeth’s stance was simple: She compared someone’s marriage to the color they painted their house — it was none of her business.

“It seems to me we’re making issues of things that honestly… don’t matter.”

Yep.

RIP

Our opposition essentially believes that any judge who doesn’t hate gay people the way they do is inherently unqualified to preside over any case involving gay people, and they laid that belief bare this week:

Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request that he recuse himself from the Proposition 8 case because he is married to Ramona Ripston, who plans to retire in February as head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Southern California office.

The ACLU is an outspoken opponent of Proposition 8.

Supporters of the gay marriage ban argued in court papers Wednesday that the judge appointed by President Carter would have trouble remaining impartial because of his wife’s link to the ACLU.

Awww.  Too bad.

Oh, this is sweet:

Rhode Island Governor-elect Lincoln Chafee has declined an anti-gay marriage group’s plea to consider putting gay marriage up for a vote, the Providence Journal reported.

Christopher Plante, director of the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), told the paper that a meeting with Chafee aide Michael Trainor gave him the impression that the incoming administration was open to talking with opponents of gay marriage and was shocked when he received a letter nixing the idea.

“The governor elect feels that the issue should be addressed as soon as possible by the General Assembly, and does not believe that the question should be decided by a ballot referendum,” Trainor wrote. Chafee believes that “Marriage equality is a basic right that should be extended to all Rhode Islanders – a question not only of fairness and justice, but of economic development as well.”

Oh, the poor widdle NOM babies.

When will they ever understand that civil rights aren’t meant to be put up to a popular vote?

Yay! Love them both.

President Obama met yesterday with a group of liberal bloggers, including Joe Sudbay of AmericaBlog and AmericaBlogGay, and there was an interesting exchange on the subject of marriage equality:

“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine,” Obama said in response to a question from Joe Subday of Americablog.

“I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents. And I care about them deeply,” Obama continued. “And so while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about. That’s probably the best you’ll do out of me today.”

Later, Obama seemed to suggest that legalization of gay marriage is inevitable. “The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trend lines are going,” he added.

Gay rights activists, many of whom have been deeply disappointed in Obama for failing thus far to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act–and for continuing to defend those laws in the courts, were heartened by Obama’s comments. Some said Obama seemed to be laying the groundwork to change his position on same-sex marriage before a likely re-election campaign in 2012.

“Presidents don’t usually think out loud unless they intend to send a signal that they are shifting a position,” said Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay issues. “I think [Obama] realizes he can’t run as a gay rights advocate in 2012 and be against marriage equality. People see domestic partnerships are separate but equal.”

Socarides is right. Presidents don’t just casually think out loud.

Even if it’s a political move, and you can be sure that it is, it’s a nice change to see political moves in our direction instead of away from the gay community.  And marriage equality is now the mainstream position, so this, in theory, should not be difficult.

This is what happens when people are trained from a young age to fear invisible boogeymen lurking around every corner:

State Rep. Kevin Koester, R-Ankeny, calls the day the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the state’s Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional “the worst day of my life, in service to this state.”

Koester, who is running unopposed for a second term in the Iowa House, said his “knees buckled” when he heard about the court’s unanimous ruling.

“In terms of moral issues, what could be more important than the protection of the family?” he said on a video posted by Iowa for Freedom, a group campaigning to oust three Supreme Court justices up for a retention vote this fall. “The actions of the Supreme Court were certainly within the bounds of what the balance of power would expect, but way out of bounds with ordering 99 county recorders to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses on a given date in April of that same year. I can imagine no way that that is not an extreme abuse of the bench. And therefore, I’ll be voting ‘no’ on all three judges.”

His knees buckled?! Worst day of his life?!

What a sad, sad state of mind he must perpetually live in, for his knees to buckle when a court decides that all people should be treated equally.

I really highlight this, though, to demonstrate the selfish toddler mindset of our opposition. Studies have been done which show that wingnuts [I grant that science does not usually use the word "wingnut"] are a more fear-based people, and that moreover, they tend to be whiny, needy, spoiled brats as children, while confident children tend to skew more liberal as they get older. Grown men having temper tantrums and making granting equal rights to other people all about them is a prime example of this phenomenon.

Watch the man child explaining himself:

His knees? They buckled, y’all.