[lostalex]

Looks like Minnesota might make it 12, they are voting on it today.

[lostalex]

It's basically certain now, the Minnesota House of Representatives just voted FOR gay marriage, and the Senate is sure to follow next Monday. Minnesota will be the 12th state to legalize gay marriage!

[Shaun]

awesome

[Smithy]

Brazil just legalised it too

[Shaun]

it's not quite official in Brazil yet cos senate has to declare it, but it's been made illegal to discriminate against gay marriage which is basically the same thing

aaaand this morning, Minnesota made it official <3

[lostalex]

[Apple202]

uk we are waiting

[Nedusa]

I don't see much difference between the two in the UK ( see excerpt from article below)

A civil partnership is, in effect, a legal marriage between two people of the same sex. Although there are differences between a marriage and a civil partnership, a couple who form a civil partnership have the same legal rights as a married couple.

This is because it would clearly be prejudicial and discriminatory if individuals of different sexes could marry and have more legal rights and protection than two people of the same sex who entered a civil partnership.

However, while a gay couple may form a civil partnership, they are not legally allowed to be married. And, vice versa, straight couples may be married but are not legally allowed to form a civil partnership.

Legal advantages of marriage

The key legal advantages and protection of marriage are widespread. They include significant advantages in relation to inheritance tax such as the provision for a transferable nil-rate band.

What this means is that when you die there is a maximum amount than can be passed without paying inheritance tax. Married couples have the ability to transfer their remaining nil-rate band to the other party. In addition to this, any gifts between each other pass without having to pay inheritance tax.

Each partner is also obliged to pay maintenance to the other party after the couple have split; this affords protection to both parties should they fall on hard times after a marriage split.

Indeed, marriage is seen as such an important relationship that the UK Border Agency is forced to take it into consideration when examining immigration appeals.

All of these legal rights and benefits of marriage are now automatically conferred to a civil partnership.

What is a civil partnership?

The idea behind introducing civil partnerships was not only to recognise the bond between same sex couples but also to ensure that the same legal rights were granted to them as married couples. There is, therefore, very little difference between the legal rights given to same-sex couples and that of non same-sex couples that enter into a civil partnership or marriage.

Civil partnerships have, unsurprisingly, risen in the UK since their introduction as they provide a stable environment and offer certain rights and protection that would not be there if the partnership was not entered into. It does involve significant responsibility, just as marriage does, particularly in terms of financial provisions for the other partner and any possible children; whilst there are similar provisions in place regarding divorce should the partnership need to be brought to an end.

So, what’s the difference?

There is, essentially, very little difference legally between a marriage and a civil partnership except that the former is intended only for heterosexual couples and the latter for homosexual couples.

The difference exists principally due to protests from religious groups about recognising same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in the same way. In fact, religious institutions are not legally permitted to perform civil partnerships.

So really it's only the main religious institutions that object to this ... But they always will so what , never gonna get them to change their doctrine. So it all comes down to a word ?? Marriage or partnership ??

I say we use Marriage for everyone and change the law accordingly ...!!!

[lostalex]

Exactly Nedusa, there is no difference in the practical sense, the only difference is the bigots wanting to segregate gays.

[Nedusa]

In amongst all the progress that is being made in promoting equal rights and freedoms to live without persecution I found one Country that is actively clamping down on gay rights and freedoms for same sex couples. see below

MOSCOW (AP) — The lower house of Russia's parliament has overwhelmingly passed a bill that stigmatizes the gay community and bans the distribution of information about homosexuality to children.

The State Duma voted 434-0 with one abstention on Tuesday to approve the Kremlin-backed legislation, which imposes hefty fines for holding gay pride rallies or providing information about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community to minors.

One step forward and two steps back......!!!!

[Nedusa]

Although regulating what material should be available to children is in itself not a bad thing , what worries me with this action in Moscow is that even for those among the public who dislike gays so strongly it vibrates. I'd say consider this, It always starts with the groups a Government figures society will least rise to defend. Organized suppression. That's always where it creeps out from under that slimy rock to start to show itself. Then, once those groups are suppressed and precedent is established....one by one..slightly less objectionable groups become undesirable. It's not a slippery slope, IMHO. It's a vertical drop akin to the Grand Canyon....!!!

[Z]

Russia is horrendously homophobic.

[lostalex]

Children do need to be exposed to homosexuality from an early age. part of the problem is that all children ever hear about homosexuality is the stereotypes, so it's no wonder the bigotry persists.

When i ws young, i didn't know i was gay, because all i'd ever heard about gay people were horrible things., gay people are perverts, pedophiles, rapists, losers. so of course i thought... well if that's what gay people are, i'm not that, so i must not be gay.

I grew up in the 80's and 90's before the internet, before there were any positive representations of gays on TV.

I can speak from personal experience that it is VERY important for children to be exposed to homosexuality and homosexual relationships from as early an age as possible. It is absolutely VITAL to equality that children are taught about homosexuality from as young as possible.

It's very important that children are taught about love in all of its forms from the very beginning.

[Z]

I agree Alex. I think for a lot of people of a certain age on here, Paul O'Grady dressed up in drag as Lily Savage was probably their first encounter with homosexuality/queer culture in the media, and because it was such a camp, comedy act, I suppose that forms a certain image in people's heads about what gay men are. It's a truism that gay men can get away with a hell of a lot more misogyny than straight men can. If a gay guy says a woman's outfit is ugly or she ought to wear more make up, there's a much higher chance it'll elicit laughter as a response than if a straight man said it. Gay men are often treated as a novelty friend, if they're not victims of homophobia, and I think it's important that gay men are represented in a serious way in the media too. Portraying gay men in a stereotypical way is as damaging as it is helpful - the fact they're being represented is important, but showing gay men to be over the top caricatures isn't helping anyone.

[Shaun]

The US Supreme Court has struck down a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only, in a landmark ruling.

The court's 5-4 vote said the Defense of Marriage Act, known as Doma, denied equal protection to same-sex couples.

The court also declined to rule on a California ban on same-sex marriage known as Proposition 8. The decision paves the way for gay unions there.

Opinion polls show that most Americans support gay marriage.

Wednesday's decisions do not affect the bans on same-sex marriage enshrined in the constitutions of more than 30 US states.

Twelve US states and the District of Columbia currently recognise gay marriage.

The Doma decision means that legally married gay men and women are entitled to claim the same federal benefits available to opposite-sex married couples.

On Wednesday morning, crowds gathered outside the Supreme Court hours before the rulings were due, in the hope of getting a seat inside the courtroom.

The legal challenge to Doma was brought by New York resident Edith Windsor, 83.

She was handed a tax bill of $363,000 (£236,000) when she inherited the estate of her spouse Thea Speyer - a levy she would not have had to pay if she had been married to a man.

"Doma writes inequality into the entire United States Code," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Wednesday's ruling.

"Under Doma, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," the decision added.

"Doma's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal."

Lower courts also ruled in Ms Windsor's favour, saying that Doma did not treat all married couples equally.

In the wake of the ruling on Doma, US President Barack Obama, who is on a state visit to Senegal, tweeted: "Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality #LoveIsLove"

The challenge to Doma did not address the question of whether same-sex marriage is constitutional.

Proposition 8 is a ban on gay marriage passed by California voters in November 2008, just months after the state's supreme court decided gay marriage was legal.

Two same-sex couples then launched a legal challenge against Proposition 8. But as the state of California refused to defend it, the group that sponsored the measure stepped up to do so.

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court said a private party did not have the right, or "standing", to defend the constitutionality of a law.

"We have no authority to decide this case on the merits," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion, which was also decided by a margin of 5-4, though not along ideological lines.

The court also said the party defending the ban could not demonstrate that they would suffer injury if the law were to be struck down.

The four dissenting justices said they believed the court should have addressed the constitutional question of same-sex marriage before them in the Proposition 8 case.

Further litigation could lie ahead for the California ban, analysts say.

About 18,000 same-sex couples were married in California in the less than five months that same-sex marriages were permitted there.

Critics of the measure said Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took away previously granted rights from gay and lesbian couples.

Doma was signed into law in 1996 by former President Bill Clinton after it was approved in Congress with bipartisan support.

But it was subsequently struck down by several lower courts.

In 2011, President Barack Obama said that while he would continue to enforce Doma, he ordered his administration not to defend it in court. So Republicans from the House of Representatives argued in favour of the measure.

Last year, President Obama became the first sitting president to publicly endorse same-sex marriage.

Excellent.

[Ryan57]

Fantastic news. Homophobia in 2013, SMH. Sums up this planet really.

[Shaun]

Same-sex marriage in England and Wales is a step closer to becoming law after the House of Lords approved the change.

Peers backed a government bill paving the way for gay couples to marry. It is set to become law by the end of the week, with the first weddings in 2014.

Labour's Lord Alli said its passage meant "my life and many others will be better today than it was yesterday".

But Tory peer Lord Framlingham said the "ill-thought through" change had been "bulldozed" through Parliament.

Peers approved the principle of same-sex marriage last month, despite efforts by opponents to "wreck" the legislation.

MPs had earlier done the same, in the face of opposition from many Conservatives, the Church of England and other faith groups.

Supporters of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill wore pink carnations during Monday's proceedings in the Lords, during which a series of minor amendments - including one relating to pension benefits for same-sex couples - were proposed.

Government minister Lady Stowell said the bill "puts right something which is wrong" and had been improved by detailed scrutiny in the Upper House. "I can't claim to be a gay rights campaigner, but I am a firm believer in justice and fairness," she said.

But the Gay Marriage No Thanks group claimed it had been prevented from mounting an advertising campaign around Parliament after its truck was vandalised and its driver threatened.

After clearing the Lords, the bill will return to the Commons for a short debate on government amendments before the Commons begins its summer recess on Thursday. The bill must then receive Royal Assent before it becomes law.

[Z]

This is pretty much law now then; HoL is pretty much a formality and bills can be forced through it anyway and it's the same with the Royal Assent procedure, that's just for show. As soon as it made it through Commons it was going to happen; just need to see what happens regarding amendments and if it's left as it is it should become law immediately. Good news!

[_Seth]

Feels amazing to see this happening. <3

[Z]

Question: if a gay couple has entered into a civil union, can they get married? Or to phrase it better, if a gay couple has entered into a civil union, can they apply to get that turned into a marriage, do they have to go through a separate marriage ceremony or do they have to get the civil union dissolved before they can get married?

[Shaun]

I'd imagine they have to marry again (which must be annoying if they've forked out for a lavish civil partnership ceremony).

Pretty much done now:

The bill allowing same-sex couples to marry in England and Wales has passed its final hurdle in Parliament.

The government legislation is now due to get royal assent, after which it is likely to become law later this week.

The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat leaderships all backed the bill, after the Lords approved the changes on Monday.

It is expected that the first gay and lesbian wedding ceremonies will take place by summer next year.

Under the terms of the the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, religious organisations will have to "opt in" to offering weddings, with the Church of England and Church in Wales being banned in law from doing so.

[Shaun]

I'd imagine they have to marry again (which must be annoying if they've forked out for a lavish civil partnership ceremony).

Pretty much done now:

The bill allowing same-sex couples to marry in England and Wales has passed its final hurdle in Parliament.

The government legislation is now due to get royal assent, after which it is likely to become law later this week.

The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat leaderships all backed the bill, after the Lords approved the changes on Monday.

It is expected that the first gay and lesbian wedding ceremonies will take place by summer next year.

Under the terms of the the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, religious organisations will have to "opt in" to offering weddings, with the Church of England and Church in Wales being banned in law from doing so.

[Niall]

Thank God that it's pretty much legal here now.

[Benjamin]

I must be the only gay guy that doesn't care at all if we can get legally married.

[bbfan1991]

Good luck to those who are fighting for equal marriage!