Just landed in my e-mail:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will issue a ruling in AFER’s case challenging Prop. 8 tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. PT.

The moment we receive the decision, you’ll be the first to know. Please take a moment and make sure your friends and family know too.

[...]

After a lengthy and thorough trial, the Federal District Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to single out gay and lesbian couples and deny them a fundamental freedom. The anti-marriage Prop. 8 Proponents immediately appealed that decision and now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will issue a decision tomorrow.

At the end of the day, it’s wrong for the government to tell someone they can’t marry the person they love. Couples like our plaintiffs, Kris & Sandy and Jeff & Paul, simply want what other Americans want: to be treated with fairness and dignity.

Marriage is a fundamental American freedom and it’s time our country realizes its promise of equality for all.

Sincerely,

Chad H. Griffin
Board President
American Foundation for Equal Rights

If you’re on that e-mail list, you got it too.

Now it goes to the House, where it’s likely to pass by more than enough:

In the end, it wasn’t even close.

After more than a decade of laying the ground work and fretting that the votes would be just out of reach, state Sen. Ed Murray watched Wednesday night as the Senate easily passed legislation that would legalize gay marriage.

The vote was 28-21.

[...]

While it wasn’t final passage, the Senate always has been viewed as the biggest hurdle for same-sex marriage legislation, as it was for gay-rights bills in previous years.

The measure now heads to the House, where supporters say they have more than enough votes. It’s expected to pass as early as next week. The governor strongly supports the bill as well.

Of course, here comes the bigots with their new and different idea of voting on people’s civil rights, which goes against the definition of “rights,” but whatever.

It looks like it’s going to pass:

The Washington state Senate was expected to vote endorse legalization of gay marriage Wednesday night, which would move the state a step closer to becoming the nation’s seventh to recognize same-sex unions.

[...]

Democratic Senator Ed Murray, its chief sponsor, said last week proponents had secured the 25 votes needed for a simple majority in the 49-seat chamber. Murray has said he hoped to end up with 27 or more votes, though the controversial issue was likely to result in a lengthy floor debate that could last well into the night.

With passage in the state House of Representatives already seen as virtually assured, opponents of same-sex matrimony say they will seek the measure’s repeal with a referendum asking voters to reaffirm marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman.

The House will likely vote on the bill in the coming weeks and Governor Chris Gregoire will sign it.

Of course, Religious Right bigots will then try to repeal the bill through referendum, blaming “activist legislatures,” at which point they just might get handed a nice big loss, in which case they will blame “activist voters.”

Etc.

Take that, bigots.

[h/t Think Progress]

This is priceless. Just absolutely, breathtakingly priceless. Wingnuts in Minnesota are pushing a constitutional amendment to write anti-gay discrimination into that state’s constitution, and here is their strategery:

Minnesota pastors and lawmakers who support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman aim to develop varied strategies to win voter support.

At a strategy session today, a gathering of ministers and politicians known as the Faith and Freedom coalition discussed ways to sell the marriage amendment to people who may not hold their fervent views.

Among their solutions: avoiding arguments over whether gays should have the right to marry, presenting marriage as a vehicle for child-rearing and reframing the issue as an opportunity for Minnesotans to exercise their right to vote.

The first rule of Gay Haters Club is that you don’t talk about Gay Haters Club! Yes, that quote really says that they intend to sell this by not talking about the actual stated intention of the amendment, and by simply trying to get Minnesotans excited that they get to vote! Everybody likes voting!

Many GOP lawmakers who voted for the amendment were at the meeting, but the room came to its feet for a last-minute appearance by Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, who first proposed a marriage amendment when she was a state senator. Before a room full of supporters she described how to sell the amendment more broadly:

“I think if you want to talk to people who are not interested in talking about the morality you can also come at it as “should people be allowed to vote,” Bachmann said.

That’ll get ‘em excited about hurting their gay family members!

[h/t Tengrain]

“Repeal the repeal”:

Today, advocates for allowing same-sex couples to legally marry in Maine announced plans for a Citizens Initiative to enact a marriage equality law, delivering more than 105,000 signatures from Maine voters who want the issue on the November 2012 ballot to the Secretary of State’s office. The announcement follows two years of outreach and conversations with Mainers about the freedom to marry, statewide polling showing steadily increasing support for allowing same-sex couples to marry – which now stands at 54 percent – and intensive field organizing in preparation for the campaign. “The number of signatures we gathered and the thoughtful conversations we’ve been having with voters tell us that Mainers are eager to speak on this question again,” said Betsy Smith, executive director of EqualityMaine. “Our polling shows a 54% majority of support for same-sex marriage in Maine. Many Mainers have changed their minds and want a chance to bring equality and fairness to our state.”

Stupid that they have to do this, as civil rights really shouldn’t be subject to a show of hands in the first place, ever, but they must be pretty confident this time around.

Responding to the fact that corporations in Washington state, large and small, are lining up to support the law legalizing marriage equality in that state [because it's good for business], Porno Pete:

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) says, “What we’re witnessing is the continued descent of the American corporation into this pro-’gay’ world of celebrating anything that the homosexual activists want.”

“There was a time when homosexual so-called ‘marriage’ was beyond the pale, even for liberal corporate types,” LaBarbera recalls. “But now we see Microsoft, Starbucks, and other major corporations backing this perverse redefinition of marriage. It’s very sad.”

[...]

“They ignore that the majority of states oppose same-sex marriage — not only oppose it, but they put it in their constitutions to keep marriage by its traditional definition,” the AFTAH president notes. “So if they’re really about keeping up with the majority of states, you’d think they’d side with the traditional marriage side.”

He sounds so dejected. I guess that whole alliance between big business and social conservatives is being exposed as the sham it always was, and the fact that the social conservatives have always been the “useful idiots” in the equation is clearer than ever.

Of course, the “majority of states” that enshrined discrimination into their constitutions did so long before gay activists were really in the fight. Re-fight all of those battles again [and they will be refought] and the results would be quite different.

When Joe posted this from Porno Pete, he added a line to the end of the quote that said, simply, “Wait, is that my gerbil ringing?” I think that’s a marvelous new practice, considering Pete’s friendship with Patrick Wooden, who just might be as weird as he is.

I would suggest that wingnuts boycott Google, but judging by their self-imposed disengagement from reality, I think they already have been for years:

Starbucks, Google and Alcoa are the latest large corporations to endorse legalizing gay marriage in Washington, according to the group Washington United for Marriage, which backs the legislation.

Microsoft, Nike and Group Health Plan have already endorsed the legislation, which picked up the 25th and final vote needed in the state Senate for pass the law.

There’s a whole list of other companies in Washington who are supporting the legislation at the above link. It’s worth a gander if you live up that way and have a need for any of their services.

[h/t Joe]

When I was a little kid, we alternately subscribed to the Arkansas Gazette and the Arkansas Democrat. Back in those days, there was an actual rivalry going on between Little Rock’s two major newspapers, and they were constantly tossing subscribers back and forth, depending on who was doing a better job at that point in time. Then, of course, the papers merged and became the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Regardless, I loved it when the paper came, especially on Sundays. I loved the funny papers, of course, like any kid, but I also had this weird obsession with architecture and real estate, and the papers really delivered when it came to that kind of reporting.

My point is that I have history with this paper. So it’s sad to report that, when given the opportunity to break a little bit of ground and publish the commitment ceremony announcement of a gay couple, they chose failure:

Cody Renegar, 35, of Elkins, Ark. asked the Arkansas Democrat Gazette to publish an engagement announcement for his June wedding commitment ceremony, something Renegar said happens for other couples who would like to announce their impending nuptials.

“I called the newspaper and asked how I can submit our announcement for publication,” Renegar told Yahoo! News. “I was told that they won’t publish them until it’s legal.”

Renegar said the newspaper declined to run the announcement because of long-standing policy.

Lame. It’s worth noting that this seems to specifically involve the Democrat Gazette’s Northwest Arkansas affiliate, the Northwest Arkansas Times. However, it’s all the same company, and it seems all branches have the same policy. Also:

According to newspaper representatives, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette charges a minimal fee and has content length requirements, but does run announcements on a regular basis for heterosexual couples, including mixed race couples.

Oh, that is big of you, Democrat Gazette, considering the fact that Loving was handed down in nineteen-sixty-freaking-seven.

There is a petition at Change.org, asking the paper to, instead of being dragged into history as it happens, be a pioneer and refuse to discriminate against any of their readers, regardless of what state law says. Sign it.

[h/t Towleroad]

Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign was rocked last week when his second ex-wife, Marianne, revealed to ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross that in 1999, the former Speaker confessed a six-year affair with a staffer and asked her for an open marriage so his relationship with his mistress could continue:

“I said to him, ‘Newt, we’ve been married a long time,’ and he said — ‘but you want me all to yourself. Callista doesn’t care what I do’ … he was asking to have an open marriage and I refused … that I accept the fact that he has somebody else in his life… No. No. That is not a marriage.”

Naturally, since a GOP presidential debate was being held that same evening in Charleston, South Carolina, the moderator, CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, opened the debate with a question for Gingrich about the sensational allegations (which, being a human being with a pulse and functioning brain, Newt should have seen coming a mile away). When King asked Gingrich if he’d “like to take some time to respond to that,” Newt smarmily replied “No, but I will.”

The crowd roared its approval.

Gingrich continued:

“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.”

Now the crowd was on its feet, cheering and hollering like churchgoers at a revival.

“Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it, two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign, is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine… and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.”

When King tried to cut in to explain that a.) it was not his network that broke the story, and b.) the question was a valid one as it had become a topic of conversation for many Americans, the crowd booed and Newt excoriated King with finger-wagging sanctimony:

“John, it was repeated by your network, you chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start the debate with it.”

He then emphatically denied his ex-wife’s allegations, adding that his campaign offered to send personal friends to vouch for his innocence but the network wasn’t interested because “they would like to attack any Republican… I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.”

That’s right: pay no attention to the jaw-dropping hypocrisy. This is all a massive anti-GOP conspiracy conjured up by that evil, elite, liberal media.

The sheer arrogance dripping from Gingrich’s response is nearly beyond comprehension. Sure, Newt’s planet-sized ego has been well documented (even by members of his own party), but Thursday’s display propelled the former Speaker to new heights of political narcissism. After all, when he spoke of the “decent” people who heroically choose to campaign for public office in the face of a “destructive” media onslaught, Mr. Gingrich — a thrice-married philanderer who served two wives with divorce papers while they were dealing with major medical problems — surely counted himself among them.

As I watched King’s question and Gingrich’s response, my head began to spin. What happened to the “personal responsibility” so fetishized by American conservatives? Is this self-victimizing, blame-the-media blowhard the same Newt Gingrich whose so-called “Contract with America” included a “Personal Responsibility Act” that denied welfare assistance to mothers under eighteen, blocked additional aid for dependent children if they were born while their mother was on welfare, and ended aid for dependent children entirely after five years? Is this pompous politician who kisses up to women outside his marriage the same one who pays lip service to the Religious Right’s “values” and travels the country speaking and peddling dozens of books about God, virtue, and the importance of family (including, unbelievably, a “God and the Founders”-type speech to a Republican women’s group in Erie, Pennsylvania just two days after his open marriage ultimatum to his wife)? Is this defiant, habitually non-monogamous sexual reprobate the same former House Speaker who demeaned married same-sex couples in lifelong committed relationships as “friends,” pledged to advance a constitutional amendment excluding same-sex couples from marriage, and funneled $200,000 into the successful effort to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices whose ruling allowed LGBT couples the freedom to marry?

Mr. Gingrich clearly fails to grasp the irony in the fact that he, a self-proclaimed “family values” man, was schtupping a staffer at the same time he was pharisaically pontificating against President Clinton for sexual immorality and leading the charge to impeach him for his extramarital activities. Newt’s ego is so monumental that once he could no longer conceal the affair, he had the temerity to demand in all seriousness that his wife “share” him with his mistress. And his self-righteousness is so epically proportioned that it blinds him to the dissonance between his apparent belief that he should have whatever kind of marriages, open or otherwise, that he wants and his stated conviction that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Americans should be forbidden from marrying at all.

Perhaps the only thing more disconcerting than last evening’s histrionic display? The fact that when Newt Gingrich abdicated his personal responsibility and blamed everyone else — ABC News, the media at large, his ex-wife — for his serial adultery and the troubling flaws in his character, the audience in South Carolina leaped to its feet and cheered.

Heaven help us.