Next Boom Industry in New York: Gay Divorce

All those folks celebrating this weekend are in for a rude wake-up call. Not only will gay pre-nups be a hot commodity, get ready for a booming legal industry: Gay divorce.

Wedding planners aren't the only ones riding the gay-marriage gravy train.

Lawyers, too, are expecting a bonanza -- from gay divorce.

"Other than a divorce attorney, no one goes to a wedding hoping the marriage will fail," quipped Manhattan divorce attorney Daniel Clement.

And a gay marriage is no different. Lost in the euphoria of the historic passage of New York's same-sex marriage bill is the inevitability of bitter break-ups.

There will be support claims to resolve, property to divide and custody issues to settle, as with any other divorce.

"The same issues present themselves with same-sex couples: How do we split assets? What do we do with the children?" Clement said. "The law doesn't change merely because you have same-sex partners."

Mere months after Massachusetts passed its same-sex marriage bill in 2004, gay couples began filing for divorce -- sometimes having to use outdated forms that still listed "husband" and "wife."

Now they shall truly have equality. They'll be as miserable as a lot of straight couples.

Texas Attorney General Tells Gays To Get Divorced Where You Got Married

Texas does not recognize gay marriages and therefore, according to their Attorney General, they also will not allow or recognize gay couples getting divorced. The basic message is if they want a divorce they need to go to a state that recognizes their marriage and get the divorce.

A judge granted the divorce in this case but the Attorney General is contesting the ruling. It will be interesting to track this case because it could establish the rules on whether or not other states will be forced to recognize gay marriages granted in other states or it could deal a blow to the GLBT activists who were hoping that by getting their foot in the door they can now barge right on in and ransack the house.

That left her fighting both the woman she married in Massachusetts and the state of Texas, which says a union granted in a state where same-sex marriage is legal can't be dissolved with a divorce in a state where it's not.

A judge in Austin granted the divorce, but Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is appealing the decision. He also is appealing a divorce granted to a gay couple in Dallas, saying protecting the "traditional definition of marriage" means doing the same for divorce.

A state appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments in the Dallas case on Wednesday.

Once again Texas is in the forefront of defining what limits there are on state's rights and who gets the final say.

NJ Gay Marriage Proponents Find Creative New Way to Endear Themselves to the Public

I guess acting like adults and getting the message from another crushing defeat is out of the question. So instead of persuading those homophobic Democrats to go along with their radical agenda, gays in New Jersey now plan on suing to get their way.

Sure, that'll go over well.

The New Jersey state Senate on Thursday voted down a bill to legalize gay marriage, ending a major legislative battle but setting off anew a court fight.

Minutes after the bill was defeated 20-14, gay rights advocates announced they would file a lawsuit seeking to get the state's top court to order New Jersey to recognize same-sex matrimony.

The state Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the state must provide all the benefits of marriage to committed gay couples. In response, the Legislature legalized civil unions for gay couples.

I guess that's just not good enough and the will of the people must be ignored. And they wonder why they keep losing.

Foiled Again: NJ Senate Rejects Gay Marriage

I'm detecting a pattern here. A month after the Democrat-controlled New York State Senate rejected gay marriage, today the Democrat-controlled New Jersey State Senate followed suit.

The state Senate rejected a same-sex marriage bill today, a major victory for opponents who contend the measure would infringe on religious freedom and is not needed because the state already permits civil unions.

The 20-14 vote defeating the measure followed an hour and a half of public debate inside the packed Senate chamber. The nearly thousand supporters and opponents of the bill held rallies on the Statehouse steps.

Statewide polls have shown New Jersey residents closely divided on same-sex marriage, and leading up to today’s vote, indicators showed a majority of the senators opposing the measure.

Moments after the vote, hundreds of gay-rights supporters filled the sidewalk on West State Street in front of the Statehouse. Christi Surmont, 33, of Hamilton, was near tears.

"We were holding out hope that we'd be able to get married and have full citizenship," she said of her and her partner. "But now we'll have to settle for second-class citizenship. For now. We're not done fighting."

She said they would seek a civil union if the current effort failed in the courts.

Momentum for the bill grew after Gov. Jon Corzine lost the November election. He has promised to sign the measure before Gov.-elect Chris Christie takes office. Christie has said he opposes the bill.

After the vote, Corzine said he was appreciative the bill was publicly debated, but was "deeply disappointed by the final tally on this common-sense measure that would have assured equal rights for all New Jerseyans."

Now maybe Corzine will go away. In all likelihood into the Obama administration, of course.

Thirteen Democrats and one Republican voted in favor. Six Democrats voted against along with 14 Republicans. Three Democrats abstained with two Republicans absent.

Vote here.

This was a sneaky last-minute attempt by Corzine to leave some sort of "legacy" after an abysmal four years in office.

It's over, Jonny.

As for proponents, they complain civil union legislation enacted several years ago is flawed. Perhaps their focus should be working with the Senate and new Governor Chris Christie to improve that law. Carping and moaning over another defeat isn't going to help the cause.

Thanks to Drew at AoS for the link.

'Yes, We Could! Yes, We Could!'

Wait until the gay community in San Francisco finds out Mexico City is more progressive than they are. At the same time, the folks in Mexico City should possibly expect a backlash.

Mexico City lawmakers on Monday made the city the first in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage, a change that will give homosexual couples more rights, including allowing them to adopt children.

The bill passed the capital's local assembly 39-20 to the cheers of supporters who yelled: "Yes, we could! Yes, we could!"

Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard of the Democratic Revolution Party was widely expected to sign the measure into law.

Mexico City's left-led assembly has made several decisions unpopular elsewhere in this deeply Roman Catholic country, including legalizing abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. That decision sparked a backlash, with the majority of Mexico's other 32 states enacting legislation declaring life begins at conception.

The conservative Nation Action Party of President Felipe Calderon has vowed to challenge the gay marriage law in the courts. However, homosexuality is increasingly accepted in Mexico, with gay couples openly holding hands in parts of the capital and the annual gay pride parade drawing tens of thousands.

The bill calls for changing the definition of marriage in the city's civil code. Marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman. The new definition will be "the free uniting of two people."

The change would allow same-sex couples to adopt children, apply for bank loans together, inherit wealth and be included in the insurance policies of their spouse, rights they were denied under civil unions allowed in the city.

"We are so happy," said Temistocles Villanueva, a 23-year-old film student who celebrated by passionately kissing his boyfriend outside the city's assembly.

Gay Marriage Overwhelmingly Defeated in NY State Senate

A crushing blow to the gay marriage movement today as the Democrat-controlled New York State Senate resoundingly killed a bill to legalize it that Governor Paterson would have signed. There's no spinning this in any positive way, unless supporters plan to call the Democrats who voted against homophobes. Granted, they'll probably do that but this may well mark the day when they realize the cause is lost.

In a major blow to the gay rights movement, the state Senate overwhelmingly killed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage on Wednesday.

After two-and-half hours of passionate debate, the Senate voted the measure down 38-24.

New York now joins a list of 31 other states, most recently Maine, to shoot down gay marriage.

None of the Senate's 30 Republicans voted for the measure.

Of the 32 Democrats, 24 voted for it, eight against.

Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) noted that the five states that have approved gay marriage did so through legislation.

"When the people had the opportunity to vote [on a referendum], the people have rejected it, " Diaz said.

Advocates called the rejection disappointing but insisted it was just temporary set back. They vowed to continue fighting.

Oh sure, just a temporary setback. Like when a 32-0 defeat is proclaimed a moral victory and you vow to prevail the next time.

It's over, folks. Get over it. The overwhelming majority does not support it. What part of that do you not understand? Coming on the heels on Prop 8 in California, I'd venture to say the behavior of the militant gay community has done more to damage the cause than any perceived "homophobia" out there. Blindly dismissing this defeat will only lead to more isolation. At some point, clear thinking needs to prevail and civil unions need to be accepted as the standard in most of these states. When only a handful of states have passed it in their legislatures and the public defeats it every time, you have a couple of choices: Deal with it or move to those states.

Read the rest of the story if you want the usual hysterical reaction from some Democrats. Again they fail to realize how much they're hurting their own cause.

Atlanta Mayoral Race Building Steam

The race to be the next mayor of Atlanta is heating up. The latest move appears to be pitting the gay and lesbian community against the African-American community.

First, let me explain the players. There are no Republicans, and the mayoral race is supposedly non-partisan, meaning that they do not declare party affiliation, but both candidates are Democrats. I think it is illegal to be Republican in Atlanta proper.

On one side is Mary Norwood, the white woman, whom drew a lot of fire during the primary for being, well, white.

On the other side is Kasim Reed, an African-American man.

The gay and lesbian community are not real happy with Mr. Reed's stand on the whole gay marriage issue and are bucking the endorsements he is getting from several prominent Democrats and the Democrat party itself. Atlanta has a large gay/lesbian community. They fight for space next to the wannabe aspiring rap performers.

Kasim Reed’s anti-marriage equality position is not only an insult to the thousands of tax-paying gay and lesbian Atlantans, his position represents a step backwards for a city which is currently led by Shirley Franklin, who favors marriage equality. Like many of you, we are disappointed in this year’s race, and not just for Senator Reed’s position, the party’s intervention, and the lock step support from party faithful.

The Democratic Party of Georgia asks gays and lesbians to compromise on marriage equality in voting for Reed this year, while doing nothing elsewhere to improve the discriminatory treatment we feel from state government. No member of the Democratic caucus has introduced legislation to repeal the 2004 anti-marriage equality amendment; nor to create a parallel structure of civil unions, nor domestic partnerships, nor any other advance.

Is it any wonder gays and lesbians are – for the first time in memory – ignoring the party’s candidate endorsement to support the pro marriage equality, Mary Norwood?

During the primary the Reed camp managed to successfully paint Norwood as a Republican. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the label has stuck and too many people around here are clueless as to the truth.

I know this is all about local events, but having a front row seat I am enjoying the class warfare being waged by the Democrats, pitting various factions of their base against each other. The commercials are priceless, and most of them try to tiptoe around the pink elephant in the room, which is race. They have done everything but come right out and accuse the other side of being racists, but sitting on the outside and watching the news I think at this point even Helen Keller could figure out what this all about.

Earlier this week a local news station captured video of some Kasim Reed supporters removing Mary Norwood signs from people's lawns and elsewhere and taking them to one of Reed's campaign offices and getting paid for them.

I really enjoy watching Dems eat their own.

Anyway, with one more week to go it could get more interesting and it appears this election will revolve around which side gets out their voters more then it will be about any issue.

And, of course, if you are a gay/lesbian African-American, you are really in a bind.

'The Institution of Marriage Has Been Preserved in Maine and Across the Nation'

Time for a temper tantrum up in Maine. No matter where in the country gay marriage has been put on a ballot it has lost every time. No getting around that fact. Deep blue states, red states, purple states, California, you name it. Defeated every time.

So I guess we can call this a narrow victory for Barack Obama, who (allegedly) supports traditional marriage.

The stars seemed aligned for supporters of gay marriage. They had Maine's governor, legislative leaders and major newspapers on their side, plus a huge edge in campaign funding. So losing a landmark referendum was a devastating blow, for activists in Maine and nationwide.

In an election that had been billed for weeks as too close to call, Maine's often unpredictable voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it has been put to a popular vote — a trend that the gay-rights movement had believed it could end in Maine.

"Today's heartbreaking defeat unfortunately shows that lies and fear can still win at the ballot box," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Sorry, sweetie, it's not lies and fear. It's the belief people have that marriage is between a man and a woman. No lies and fear there.

Here's some advice for gay marriage proponents: Stop calling people homophobes and bigots. Some day you might win one of these, but until you grow up and learn to be tolerant of others, you're just going to have your spirits crushed again and again.

Having an endless series of temper tantrums, like those that followed the defeat of Prop 8 in California last year, isn't helping the cause.

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative group that steered substantial funds to fight gay marriage in both California and Maine, was elated by Tuesday's result, saying it shows that "that even in a New England state, if the voters have a chance to have their say, they're going to protect and defend the commonsense definition of marriage."

Traditional marriage supporter Obama was too busy watching a basketball game to offer comment.

The Gay Divorcees

The inevitable result of gay marriage?

Gay divorce, naturally. Some entreprenurial attorneys can make a cottage industry of this.

Of course we have a Democrat judge overstepping boundaries here. Nothing like blithely ignoring the will of the people.

In a first for Texas, a judge ruled Thursday that two men married in another state can divorce here and that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

Both a voter-approved state constitutional amendment and the Texas Family Code prohibit same-sex marriages or civil unions.

Although the case is far from settled, and the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage is a long way from being thrown out, Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan's ruling says the state prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the federal constitutional right to equal protection.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had intervened in the two men's divorce case, arguing that because a gay marriage isn't recognized in Texas, a Texas court can't dissolve one through divorce.

Callahan, a Democrat, denied the attorney general's intervention and said her court "has jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce filed by persons legally married in another jurisdiction."

"This is huge news. We're ecstatic," said Dallas attorney Peter Schulte, who represents the man who filed the divorce. The man, identified in court documents as J.B., asked that he and his former partner not be identified.

Schulte said that the ruling was a surprise and that he hoped to have a divorce order for the judge to sign in the "next few weeks."

In a prepared statement, Abbott said he would appeal the ruling "to defend the traditional definition of marriage that was approved by Texas voters."

His statement also said, "The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman. Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition – despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters."

Gov. Rick Perry, who pushed for the constitutional prohibition on gay marriage in 2005, expressed confidence that the ban would stand up to this challenge.

"Texas voters and lawmakers have repeatedly affirmed the view that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman," he said in a prepared statement. "I believe the ruling is flawed and should be appealed."

The men married in Cambridge, Mass., in September 2006 and later returned to Dallas.

New Miss California: Marriage Is Between a Man and a Woman

Too funny. Heads are definitely popping over this, and said on Fox News to boot.

Tami Farrell, the newly crowned beauty
queen who is replacing the ousted Carrie Prejean as Miss California, apparently holds the same view as her predecessor, Carrie Prejean, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Fox News host Neil Cavuto asked Farrell, who is Christian, on his show today:

"[Prejean] went out and said that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you share that view?"

Farrell responded in the affirmative with a simple, "Uh huh."

"You do, OK," said Cavuto.

Farrell quickly added: "I don't think that I have the right or anybody has a right to tell somebody who they can or can't love. And I think that this is a civil rights issue. And I think that the right thing to do is let the voters decide."

Uh, which they did already.

Update: Via Hot Air, the video.



Not exactly a ringing endorsement and as noted, maybe she's not reading the cue cards right. Best point of all, and one many have wondered:

“You know, I think it’s hilarious right now that the world is turning to beauty queens for the answers for this. I think it’s an important issue and I think that it’s one that I don’t think I can win a battle. I don’t want to be any more divisive than it’s already become.”

Instapundit links. Thanks!

More thoughts from Don Surber.

Kooky Columnist on Prop 8: Hey, Imaginary Kids Support Us, So We Won!

Trying to pretend everything's coming out swell, hate-filled San Francisco columnist Mark Morford deludes himself into thinking he's on the winning team.

His evidence? Some mythical kids conjured up in his imagination, of course.

Why, it's just a matter of time until Alabama and Mississippi ratify gay marriage as well. I guess he still refuses to believe the overwhelming majority of black voters do not support the radical gay agenda.

Head on down to your local high school -- hell, make it a junior high or even an elementary -- and take yourself an informal survey. Ask the various wary, bepimpled youth of Generation Tweet what they think about those scary gay people getting married.

Ask them, in your most panicky, alarmist, Mormonified voice: Aren't they horrified at the very idea? Aren't they shocked at the very thought of two people in love having their union officially recognized and validated by the state?

Don't they know the musty ol' Bible mutters some barely coherent, mistranslated silliness about it in a single word or two written 1,500 years ago in a long dead language by acidic church elders with powermad political agendas and violently repressed libidos who nevertheless wish to instruct us all how to live and love and screw?

Please note the response. Please observe how the kids merely look at you as though you're more than a little bit deranged and prehistoric, so out of touch you might as well be Dick Cheney talking up the diesel-powered rectal thermometers he so loved back in World War I.

Classy.

Read the rest and pity this pathetic soul. Can't wait to see what he has to say when the next proposition ballot loses by an even greater number as voters rejects the even more strident, in-your-face radicalism of the militant gay left.

Perez Hilton Suicide Watch: California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

Just in from the California Supreme Court. They've upheld Prop 8.

The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.

The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists said they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

By a 52-48 margin, voters approved the measure reinstating a ban on same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling last May, approved such marriages. Left in limbo were about 18,000 couples who got married in California between May and November of last year.

The case for overturning the initiative was widely viewed as a long shot. Gay rights lawyers had no solid legal precedent on their side, and some of the court’s earlier holdings on constitutional revisions mildly undercut their arguments.

Expect that battle in 2010 to get very ugly, especially if the behavior of the losers since last November is any indication.

This ruling cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Perfect excuse for a Carrie Prejean photo.

Heh: Freaky Boy calls it institutionalized discrimination. I guess this makes the California Supreme Court a bunch of homophobes.

Update: Some thoughts from Ed Morrissey.

Confirming the marriages also appears to be the correct decision. When the couples got their licenses and had the ceremonies performed, the law in the state (as dictated by the court) allowed for those marriages. Proposition 8 changed the law, but it cannot apply ex post facto. Since those licenses were valid and backed by the state at the time they were issued, the court had little choice but to approve them — and their unanimous judgment speaks to the common sense conclusion.

However, that does set up an interesting point for a federal appeal. If the plaintiffs in this case argue against this dichotomy on an equal-protection basis, a federal court might find that intriguing enough to consider. Even if that doesn’t work, the plaintiffs plan on a new referendum that will reverse Proposition 8. Something tells me that this will be a more or less permanent feature on California’s ballots for the foreseeable future.

Michelle Malkin wonders if the mob will be able to control themselves.

I doubt it.

Some advocacy journalism from the San Francisco Chronicle.

For those not in San Francisco or LA to celebrate/mourn Tuesday's Prop 8 ruling, the progressive techies over at CREDO Mobile offer a way to find the nearest pro-same sex marriage rally by using SMS.

Rather than mourning, how about acting like adults?

Nice comment from something called sfprogressive.

sfprogressive5/26/2009 10:35:38 AM

The Republicans are probably planning to make people of color against the law next. We need to pass a law that makes all churches and the Republicans "hate groups" and put them in jail so they can't vote in 2010 when SSM is back on the ballot.

Why would the Republicans do that when it was the black vote that ensured passage of Prop 8?

Comments like this are sure to win over opponents of gay marriage.

ted25/26/2009 10:27:22 AM

Way to go Christian Taliban! Whoo-Hoo! They'll be swilling dem sum communion wine tonight.

Do these nitwits even realize the Taliban would behead them for being gay?

Well, it looks like the mob is ready for battle.

secede2succeed5/26/2009 10:26:30 AM

Prop 8 will be made invalid. This IS going to happen, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!

Guess some aren't taking this well. And another:

harostrait5/26/2009 11:18:37 AM

"I'm feeling my resentment for the Mormons and Catholic Church rising again."

Do something about it. Take some action tonight, be it legal or not.

Just killing their cause.

Update: Some responsible thoughts from GayPatriot. A shame the media runs to the militant, angry gays for comment instead of those in the gay community who act like adults.

Linked at Michelle Malkin. Thanks!

Thanks also to Legal Insurrection for the link.

'We May Have a Civil War'

Looks like former DC Mayor Marion Barry isn't down with gay marriage, much like the black voters in California that helped Prop 8 pass overwhelmingly.

D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), the only council member to vote against the bill today to legalize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, predicted today there could be a "civil war" in the District if the Council decides to take up a broader gay marriage bill later this year.

"All hell is going to break lose," Barry said while speaking to reporters. "We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this."

Therein lies the dirty little secret the left and gay marriage proponents don't want to accept. But since they take the black vote for granted they really have nothing to worry about. Besides, the media won't be much interested in pursuing this angle inasmuch as they'd prefer to focus on destroying a beauty pageant contestant.

"What you've got to understand is 98 percent of my constituents are black and we don't have but a handful of openly gay residents," Barry said. "Secondly, at least 70 percent of those who express themselves to me about this are opposed to anything dealing with this issue. The ministers think it is a sin, and I have to be sensitive to that."

Since both Barry and the other Barry, President Obama, are both opposed to gay marriage, why do not I hear condemnation of their stance on the issue by the same stormtroopers busy trashing Carrie Prejean?

Blue State Blues: Democrats Likely To Kill NY Gay Marriage Bill

Damn Latino bigots, how dare they get in the way of David Paterson's pandering?

Comparing his crusade to legalize gay marriage to the country's epic civil-rights struggles, Gov. Paterson yesterday hitched his falling star to a controversial, and likely doomed, bill to allow same-sex unions in New York.

"We have all felt the pain and the insult of hatred. That is why we are all standing here today . . . We stand to tell the world we want marriage equality in New York state," he said.

If the measure passes, New York would become the fifth state -- after Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont -- to allow gay marriage.

But that's a very big if.

Religious leaders will fight hard to defeat the bill. Archbishop Timothy Dolan spoke against gay marriage Wednesday -- the very day he was installed as head of the powerful New York Archdiocese.

The bill also faces an uphill state Senate battle. Several members of Paterson's party have come out swinging against it, including Ruben Diaz of The Bronx.

"It's a challenge the governor is sending to every religious person in New York, and the time for us has come for us to accept the challenge," said Diaz, an evangelical pastor.

Several other Senate Democrats -- whose party has only a two-vote majority -- have said they oppose a same-sex marriage bill.

Even some supporters have questioned the wisdom of bringing it to a vote, fearing failure would ruin chances for future legislation.

They should do like the other states and find some judges to just thwart the will of the people. That's how we roll in modern-day America, isn't it?

As for the tired canard of comparing this to the civil rights struggle, I'd say blacks find that more than offensive, and when you consider they overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage in California, that notion bears itself out.

Considering Paterson's pitiful approval ratings, he'd probably back inter-species marriage if it got him a few votes.

Hugely Unpopular Governor Pushing Gay Marriage Bill

Well, considering he has a 19% approval rating, he doesn't have anything to lose.

Gov. David A. Paterson on Thursday will announce plans to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, according to people with knowledge of the governor’s plans.

Mr. Paterson’s move, which he first signaled last week after Vermont became the fourth state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, reflects the governor’s desire to press the issue with lawmakers in Albany as other states move ahead with efforts to grant more civil rights to homosexuals.

The action in Vermont, where state legislators overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, came less than a week after the Iowa Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry.

Mr. Paterson has said in recent days that the State Legislature should move ahead now with the legislation regardless of whether it can muster enough votes. His reasoning, which some gay rights advocates have challenged, is that New York should make a statement that it is committed to treating same-sex couples the same way it treats opposite-sex couples.

Cute word games from the Times. Married couples are now "opposite-sex" couples.

How clever.

The Agitation Continues: Gay Couple Sues for Federal Tax Status

I imagine by April Barack Obama will be announcing the abolition of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Mary Ritchie, a Massachusetts State Police trooper, has been married for almost five years and has two children. But when she files her federal income tax return, she's not allowed to check the "married filing jointly" box.

That's because Ritchie and her spouse, Kathleen Bush, are a gay couple, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act makes them ineligible to file joint tax returns.

Now Ritchie, Bush and more than a dozen others are suing the federal government, claiming the act discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as pensions and health insurance. Plaintiffs also include Dean Hara, the widower of former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of the House of Representatives.

In Ritchie's case, she and her spouse say they have paid nearly $15,000 more in taxes than they would have if they had been able to file joint returns.

"It saddens us because we love our country," Ritchie said. "We are taxpayers. We live just like anyone else in our community. We do everything just like every other family, like every other married couple, and we are treated like less than that."

The lawsuit was being filed Tuesday in federal court in Boston by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the anti-discrimination group that brought a successful legal challenge leading to Massachusetts becoming the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage in 2004.

Only Massachusetts and Connecticut allow gay marriage. Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire allow civil unions.

Californians voted in November to overturn a court ruling that allowed gay marriage, but the state still offers domestic partnerships that guarantee the same rights as marriage. Hawaii is considering a bill that will allow same-sex civil unions.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The new lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording Social Security and other benefits to same-sex couples.

President Barack Obama has pledged to work to repeal DOMA and reverse the Department of Defense policy that prevents openly gay people from serving in the military.

Fabulous! NJ Judge Makes Up Gay Divorce Law

I guess we should just overlook the fact New Jersey doesn't even recognize gay marriage, or the fact this "marriage" wasn't even performed in this country. Why, these are judges! They're accountable to nobody and can just make it up as they go along. Heck, they imposed gay marriage on Massachusetts, so why not be allowed to create new law from the bench and allow a gay divorce?

Seems to logical to me that without valid gay marriage in the state there should not be any gay divorce.

Gay marriages performed outside New Jersey are recognized in the state for the purpose of divorce, according to a ruling Friday by a judge deciding whether a lesbian couple married in Canada can split.

The wider implications weren't immediately clear, but Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson said New Jersey has a long history of recognizing marriages that are valid where they were performed.

I'm sure it was just coincidence Jacobson heard this case.

The state doesn't let gays marry but does allow civil unions. The state Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples have the rights to the same legal standing as married heterosexual couples.

The women — La Kia Hammond of Trenton and Kinyati Hammond of New Castle, Del. — were married in Victoria, British Columbia, in March 2004 and lived together in North East, Md. In 2005, La Kia, then 29, was found to have a terminal form of muscular dystrophy. She said doctors gave her two years to live.

About three years ago, she left Kinyati and moved with her daughter from a previous relationship to Trenton.

Now, she says, she is in love again and wants to marry before she dies. But without a divorce that's recognized in Canada, her lawyer says, she cannot wed again there.

The lawyer, Stephen Hyland, who is working on the case along with lawyers hired by the American Civil Liberties Union, said his client couldn't simply file for divorce in Canada because only residents can be granted divorces there.

Well isn't that just too damn bad. Maybe they should have thought about that before they got "married" in the first place.

Surprise! Obama Backed Gay Marriage in 1996

Yeah, so he lied about it while he was running for president. Hey, they all lie, right?

So the man has zero core convictions and will do anything and say anything to get elected. What's the big deal? It's all about hopenchange, baby!

A document has emerged suggesting that Obama had taken more public, liberal stands in the past than had been revealed in the digging of reporters and opposition researchers over two years of campaigning, the latest of several pointing to a rightward shift as he moved into national politics.

In a 1996 questionnaire filled out for a Chicago gay and lesbian newspaper, then called Outlines, Obama came out clearly in favor of same-sex marriage, which he has opposed on the public record throughout his short career in national politics.

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” Obama wrote in the typed, signed, statement.

There was no use of “civil unions,” and "no compromise whatsoever," the Windy City Times story today notes.

On another questionnaire the same year, Obama said he would support a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

I'm sure the angry gay left still flipping out over Prop 8 and all the Obama supporters who voted for Prop 8 won't be the least bit confused by this news.

Shock Poll: Religious People Oppose Gay Marriage

Anything they can do to avoid blaming Obama voters for abolishing gay marriage.

Voters' economic status and religious convictions played a greater role than race and age in determining whether they supported the Nov. 4 ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage in California, a new poll shows.

The ban drew its strongest support from both evangelical Christians and voters who didn't attend college, according to results released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Age and race, meanwhile, were not as strong factors as assumed. According to the poll, 56 percent of voters over age 55 and 57 percent of nonwhite voters cast a yes ballot for the gay marriage ban.

After Two-Week Temper Tantrum, California Supremes to Hear Challenge to Prop 8

If anything, it'll give the children a time-out two weeks in coming.

Question: If they do not rule in favor of the gay mob, what then? Considering how nasty the insane rage has been, who knows what the psychotic reaction could be.

California's Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a legal challenge against the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage and let the ban stand in the meantime.

A decision by the same court in May had opened marriage to same-sex couples in America's most populous state, one of a handful of states, provinces and mostly European countries where such unions are recognized.

When state voters passed the ban on November 4, social conservatives celebrated, but nationwide protests by gays and other ban opponents since then have given the debate new life.

The court case also pits two fundamental concepts of U.S. democracy against one another, with gay marriage advocates saying the proposition would open the doors to systematic repression of minorities and opponents saying courts must recognize the will of the people under separation of powers doctrine.

"I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will affirm that separate is not equal," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said in a statement. "This is a great day for the rule of law and the voters of California," said Andrew Pugno, counsel for the gay marriage ban proponents.

Let's all hope the out of control, radical gay community will now enjoy a few months downtime and stop harassing ans intimidating people, though if I were in the California Supreme Court, I'd probably be prepared for all sorts of antics.