If you don't know Maggie Gallagher...

We all need to appreciate the logic, reasoning and most of all, communication skills of Rob Tisinai (I practically quoted his entire blog post in my piece about religious liberty here). He's able to pick through the mumbo jumbo of Right Wing logic and present it in a way that explains how and why it is said in such a manner. His brilliance can be seen here, where he dissects point by point, an apologetics piece by NOM co-founder and conservative Catholic Robert George (a lawyer, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University). I say this about Rob, because we wouldn't really know Maggie as well without him.

Gallagher and George work tirelessly (on behalf of the Catholic hierarchy and other wealthy, conservative Catholics like themselves) at the state and federal level to stop the inevitable reality that is marriage equality in the United States. They do this by whatever means necessary:  direct ballot like Prop8 in California or Question 1 in Maine; threatening the legislatures like Rhode Island, Maryland and New York; or constitutional amendments at the state level in Minnesota, and at the national level with the Federal Marriage Amendment. (Jeremy Hooper, at goodasyou.org, does a wonderful job of cataloging all that they do. You can find more information here).

Though Gallagher is an ivy-leaguer like George, calling Yale her alma mater, she is less subtle with her inconsistencies.

One thing I have noticed, especially about politicians and especially right-wingers, is they try and stay general and vague about complicated issues. Soundbites and stupid are king. It makes it much easier to sway opinions when the people you are talking to don't really understand what you are saying, but think they agree with you regardless.

NOM-ers tend to use a lot of patriotic, (small d) democratic imagery when massing their hordes. They want to 'Let the People Decide,' (direct democracy) on this civil rights issue, as long as they know the majority of people who can vote, will vote with them. When the state involved does not have a referendum process (purely republican), like New York, they encourage constituents to call their representatives, and call for a referendum anyway. They believe in religious freedom (to discriminate in the public sphere), and liberty (to do as they please without following the law). When fleshed out, this argument works against them. The latest battle ground, New York state, finally gained marriage equality through the legislature, after religious protections (that were already in place) were explicitely stated in the legislation.

In retaliation, our Maggie decided to looked to a revised history of the ancient Roman republic to write an op-ed, stating that because marriage equality passed, our republic is on the decline. Tisinai calls it, "a puff piece, an attempt at high-falutin’ rhetoric with as much substance as cotton candy — no, even less, not cotton candy but flavored air." She starts like this:

“What form of government have you given us?” a lady is said to have asked Benjamin Franklin as he left Independence Hall on Sept. 17, 1787 — that other great day in American history, when the Constitution was promulgated if not yet ratified.
“A republic, madam, if you can keep it,” Franklin is said to have replied.
A republic: What is that? And how do we keep it?

Tisinai then goes on to share her answers and is baffled at how outright contradictary her statements are to her 'beliefs'. Note: I always feel guilty, lifting large parts of pieces I didn't write, so please go to his blog and read it. Needless to say, she goes on about 'saving the republic,' while she herself has played a strong role in undercutting it, when it comes to campaign finance laws, lobbying, and civil rights. Tisinai concludes his post like this:

Who’s worried about the rebellion against restrictive marriage laws?

Maggie Gallagher.

Who opposes dealing with that rebellion by opening marriage to more couples, giving more people its rights and protection?

Maggie Gallagher.

Who wants to deal with the issue instead by amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage?

Maggie Gallagher.

Let’s see if I put this into a single sentence:  Maggie Gallagher earns a great living by denouncing republic-style government, stripping people of their rights, and pushing for a Federal Marriage Amendment, but paused just long enough to write about saving the republic by expanding the rights of the citizenry instead of resorting to Constitutional amendments.

We all our blind spots when it comes to self-awareness. Lord knows I do. But after reading this piece I’ve concluded there’s ordinary blindness, and there’s what we ought to call Maggie-blindness. It’s in a whole different league.

This is Maggie Gallagher. A person trying to prevent civil rights legislation because of religion-based objections by any means necessarily. She and her organization, NOM, are more than willing to break the law, then not comply when they lose in court. She doesn't want to defend the republic. She wants to bring it down. I am thinking that if she really wants to live in a theocracy, she should go ahead an move to Vatican City, or perhaps Iran.

How Far Does Religious Liberty Go?

An argument that people cite against marriage equality where they actually have a point would be religious liberty. People who are unfamiliar with law, politics, or the organized marriage equality movement, are so afraid that their precious churches and pastors will be forced against their will to marry those vile and repugnant gays (this isn't true, as it is already law that churches and clergy are not required to perform any marriages they do not wish to perform). Everyone should be allowed to practice their religious beliefs (within reason of course; we don't human sacrifices), but they should not be used to trod on the rights of others, including their right to not have religion forced upon them.

Author Rob Tisinai of wakingupnow.com, gives a scenario then poses a question.

Suppose an on-duty police officer sees a known homosexual getting stomped to death in an alley by two men shouting, “Die, faggot, die!”  He does nothing to stop it, and he lets the thugs escape, because he believes in Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

His religious beliefs make it impossible for him to intefere with what he views as God’s will, or even to hold the assailants responsible.
Should this officer be penalized?  Or would that violate his religious freedom?

This is such a good line of questioning, because it really gets down to the meat of the issue. There are many people who use 'religious belief' to discriminate against LGBTQ people. Usually, that is legally ok, if you are a private citizen. You cannot be forced to let a gay person into your home, or be invited to a private event. But what if you are not just a private citizen, but a public employee, or you perform a public service? Should you be allowed to let your religious beliefs trump your civic duties?

He then introduces us to the first 'victim' of the marriage equality bill in New York, identified by NOM. I'm going to repost the rest of his post, because honestly, he does a much better job explaining than I do.

Barbara MacEwen, the town clerk in upstate Volney who is responsible for signing marriage licenses in the town, said she’s morally opposed to same-sex weddings and does not intend to affix her signature to any marriage documents for gay or lesbian couples.
“If there’s any possible way to not do it, legally, then yes, I would not want to put my name on any of those certificates or papers,” MacEwen told POLITICO. “That’s their life, they can do it, but I don’t feel I should be forced into something that’s against my morals and my God.”

This taxpayer-supported public servant wants the right to choose which taxpayers she’ll serve. NOM, apparently, sympathizes with her.

That’s why I have to wonder about the limits to NOM’s notion of religious liberty. Personally, I’m no big fan of government coercion. You know that New Mexico photographer our opponents keep talking about? I think he should have been free not to photograph a same-sex wedding. Just as I think a gay photographer should be free not to shoot a wedding in a church that works to strip him of his marriage rights.
But Barbara MacEwen is a public employee. She’s an elected government official demanding the privilege of not following the law.
Who’s asking for special rights now?
What other “rights” does NOM think Barbara MacEwen should have? The right to withhold licenses from interracial couples? From a divorced person who wants to remarry? From a Catholic and a Baptist planning to marry in a Baptist church?
All those unions have been considered immoral by someone’s religion. Where does NOM stand on these items? Because as far as I can tell, NOM conception of religious liberty include the right of public servants to ignore laws they don’t like.
At this point, I was going to bring back the police question I asked at the beginning, but I thought of another I like better:  A number of states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, so…
…if NOM wants to let town clerks pick and choose the laws they’ll recognize according to their religion, then shouldn’t clerks from gay-friendly faiths be able to issue same-sex marriage licenses regardless of state law?
So tell us, NOM. Tell us exactly which religious liberty protections special rights you’d like to have.

Unfortunately, it looks like these 'special rights' have found their way into the Rhode Island Civil Unions bill that was passed by the State Senate this week.

As goes Maine...

Maine repealed marriage equality on November 3, 2009, with Question one. It was absolutely devastating. Keeping marriage in Maine was supposed to be the LGBTQ answer to Prop8 passing in California the year before. We failed, miserably.

Well, marriage equality is going back in front of the people of Maine, possibly as early as November 2012. From Americablog.com

The announcement comes after 18 months of ongoing public education and two new polls showing 53% of Mainers supporting marriage equality. This afternoon Methodist Pastor Michael Gray will submit the following language to the Sec. of State for review:

"Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?"

By submitting language to the Secretary of State to put marriage on the ballot, EqualityMaine and GLAD begin the process of a citizen's initiative. Once the Sec. of State certifies the language, Equality Maine will then collect 57,277 signatures to get the question on the ballot in November.

Joining Pastor Gray at a press conference this morning is Betsey Smith, Equality Maine's executive director, as well as Lewiston Mayor Laurent F. Gilbert, and Michelle Mondor, a resident of Fort Fairfield, all of whom have evolved to support marriage equality. Smith explains:
"We changed hearts and minds during No on 1, and since then, many more Mainers have changed their hearts and continue to change their minds. We have been going door to door talking to them and hearing their journey towards support. In two separate polls conducted over the last five months, 53 percent of Mainers surveyed said they support letting gay and lesbian couples marry here."

This same Pastor, Michael Gray, speaks about his evolution on marriage equality in the video below.



With a GIANT win in New York and judiciously thorough religious protections placed in the language, Maine should pull through this time. Let's carry this momentum!

Welcome to the Fold!

Late on Friday night, New York State finally passed the Marriage Equality Bill with the help of four Republican State Senators. One of them, Sen. Mark Grisanti, gave an extremely relevant speech. I believe everyone should hear it.

He is a lawyer, but also a very religious, very devout Catholic, yet he still found reason to support marriage equality. These are basic CIVIL marriage rights. Decisions on religous marriage should be left to those churches who want to make them. (cough... Catholic church... cough cough...). This truth is BLATANTLY obvious for those who understand how the US system of government actually works.

In related news, the American Medical Association has just officially endorsed marriage Equality.

209. MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Introduced by Medical Student Section

Reference committee hearing: See report of Reference Committee B

HOUSE ACTION: FOLLOWING SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION 209 REFERRED IN LIEU OF RESOLUTIONS 209 AND 210

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association recognize that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is discriminatory, imposes harmful stigma on gay and lesbian individuals and couples, and contributes to health care disparities affecting the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) community; and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA support ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage in order to reduce health care disparities affecting those gay and lesbian individuals and couples, their families and their children; and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA support the repeal of the “Defense of Marriage Act” as it discriminates against married same-sex couples and their families and directly contributes to health care disparities among the GLBT community.

210. MARRIAGE EQUALITY TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE DISPARITIES FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES

Introduced by Young Physicians Section

RESOLUTION 210 WAS CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH RESOLUTION 209.

SEE RESOLUTION 209.

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association recognize that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is discriminatory, imposes harmful stigma on gay and lesbian individuals and couples, and contributes to health care disparities affecting the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) community; and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA support ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage in order to reduce health care disparities affecting those gay and lesbian individuals and couples, their families and their children; and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA support the repeal of the “Defense of Marriage Act” as it discriminates against married same-sex couples and their families and directly contributes to health care disparities among the GLBT community.

(AMA)

But anyways. CONGRATS NEW YORK!!

Forbes Magazine says Gay Marriage for Straight Legislatures

This article from Forbes.com is probably one of the best defenses for marriage equality that I have seen in such short and succint form. If anyone had a question on whether or not the 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The author, Lisa Duggan, describes her first marriage from start to finish.

When I got hitched for the first time, in Staten Island’s tiny city hall, I was a naïve twenty-two year old, wearing a dress off Nordstrom’s rack. New York State didn’t ask, so we never had to tell anyone why we wanted to marry, only that we did.  Two signatures and two vials of blood was all that was necessary to be granted the state’s legal blessing.
New York State was there as well, three years later, when we decided to get unmarried—and this time they were asking questions. Cruel and inhuman treatment? Abandonment for a period of one or more years? Adultery? Who did what to whom, and when: it was all material to our legal grounds for divorce.

She then goes on to describe how married couples can completely lose any and all protections once they cross state lines, and how this law was written and passed specifically to discriminate against the LGBT population. It makes me sick to look back and see how complacent our legislators (and most of their constituents) were (and are) when it comes to writing discrimination into our laws, and potentially into our Constitution.

It means that our government will not pay Social Security benefits to the same-sex spouse of any enlisted person, grunt or officer, even if their partner of fifteen years dies while defending this country.
Is it me, or does all this scream civil rights violations? Isn’t it the height of hypocrisy for State and federal legislators to collect taxes from their gay constituents with one hand, while denying their rights with the other?

Especially when you consider that this legal landscape is neither an oversight, nor a murky interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which manages potential conflicts between various states’ rules.  In fact, the US Congress had to go out of its way to create this “marriage apartheid.”

She then goes on to attack DOMA and the potential Federal Marriage Amendment directly.

The 1996 law that unfairly singles out some American citizens based solely on sexual orientation is called The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  The law was inspired when several gay couples from Hawaii sued for the right to legally marry. (DOMA was signed into law by that hero of marital fidelity, Bill Clinton.)

DOMA doesn’t prohibit individual states from allowing gay marriages, but it denies federal recognition of these marriages and grants each state the right to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages issued by other states.  Keeping gay families unequal and separate.  As legal scholar Andrew Koppelman observes in his book, The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law, DOMA:

“Create(s) a set of second-class marriages, valid under state law but void for all federal purposes. The exclusion of a class of valid state marriages from all federal recognition is ‘unprecedented in our jurisprudence.”

And the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment will forever seal this separate status by defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. We’ve been here before, although some refuse to see the parallels: it wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional every miscegenation law in the country.

Land of the Free? Home of the Brave? Please read the article. The rest is really good. Let me know what you think.

The Commitment: an AMAZING read by Dan Savage

I LOVED The Commitment, by Dan Savage. First, a little about him. Savage is the author, Savage Love, an advice column about love, sex and relationships published in the Seattle Stranger. He, with his husband, Terry Miller, started the It Gets Better Project, so far to great success. The first video and amazing google chrome commercial posted below.

Original Video

Amazing Commercial. I get chills every time I watch it!

Anyways, I love his advice, and I love his writing. (The Kid was fantastic!) Back to The Commitment.  The (true) story is about his reminiscing about the marriages of his parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, all which happened on the north side of Chicago. (Which is one of my favorite areas in the world.) Back in Seattle, this leads into his struggling to figure out with his boyfriend the whys and hows of getting married, and if they want to or not.

Neil and I had this book recommended to us as something we should read before we get married. He already read it, and I'm so glad I did. I would recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in great storytelling, and might want to rehash the purpose of marriage.

UPDATE: News from New York

Over the last 24 hours, we have picked up another Republican state Senator, Roy McDonald, stating:

“I think I’m doing the right thing, it’s the appropriate thing, and if the public respects that, I’m grateful,” Mr. McDonald said as reporters pressed him in the Capitol for his decision. “If they don’t, then I move on.” (NYTIMES)

With his vow of support, we now have 31 of the 32 votes needed for a simple majority. (If you want to help, you can call a New York State Senator with my friendfactor account. It's easy, since they give you a prompt of what to say!)

Republican state senators caucused for four hours yesterday, without coming to a decision about a vote. According to the New York Times:

Anguished Senate Republicans held a four-hour meeting on Wednesday at which they were unable to decide even whether they would bring same-sex marriage to a vote, stalling a last-minute drive by supporters of the legislation.

The long-debated marriage measure, which has overshadowed all other issues in the final days of this legislative session, remained one vote shy of the number they needed for passage in the Republican-controlled Senate. The Democratic-controlled Assembly approved the legislation late Wednesday, by a vote of 80 to 63, and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is a strong supporter.

Dean G. Skelos, the Senate majority leader, emerged from his caucus’s meeting on Wednesday afternoon to say that Republicans had not decided how to proceed on the marriage bill, but would continue discussions on Thursday.

(my emphasis added)

We need ONE MORE GOPer. One more. I wrote earlier how Alesi, the first GOP defector stated that 6-7 others in his camp might join the side of equality. Here is a list of Senators still on the fence. If you believe in equality, CALL THEM!

Big News in the Empire State

This is a big week for New Yorkers. Yesterday three Democrats from the State Senate, Addobbo, Huntley and Kruger flipped their votes to Yes for marriage equality! That's every Democrat except for the homophobic senator from the Bronx, Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr.

Later in the early evening, the first Republican, James Alesi, broke from the ranks and joined the side of equality! He is now predicting up to six other Republicans will join him. What a turn around from two years ago!

Andrew Cuomo, New York's Governor, vowed to make marriage equality one of his main priorities, but with the legislative session ending June 20th, I didn't think he could make it happen. It looks like I was wrong! There have been tons of big names (and small ones too), that have made videos through the HRC's New Yorkers for Marriage Equality.  Thousands have joined Friendfactor.org, a new type of advocacy website, where you can show your support for your LGBT friends and call state and federal legislatures. (My friendfactor page is here). Everyone is doing some last minute lobbying, including Cynthia Nixon (Sex in the City) and Sean Avery (New York Rangers). After some major disappointments in Maryland and Rhode Island, I have my fingers crossed for this one.  Come on New York! Let's make it happen!

UPDATE: Push Back

I posted last week about Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., a pastor and state senator for New York from the Bronx. He is about as vocal an opposition leader to marriage equality in a position of power, considering he can actually cast a vote for or against it in the legislature.

He has sad many hateful things about LGBTs, and opposes marriage equality SOLELY on his religious beliefs. He also claims to be the church, and the state.

Besides all these things, he is a family man. He is a father, and also a grandfather. One of his grandchildren, Erica Diaz, is a partnered lesbian with two children. On May 15, 2011, she held a opposing rally in support of marriage equality, while her grandfather and several others spoke against gay people. (Many continued to spread falsehoods of and anti-gay stereotypes) Before her grandfather finished his speech, Erica wanted to stand beside him. To show him that his family was watching.

After she returned to her side of the plaza, after her girlfriend greeted her with a jubilant kiss and her friends raised her arms in victory, like a triumphant boxer who had just left the ring, Ms. Diaz said she believed her grandfather, particularly at this moment, needed to be reminded that his family was watching.
“It was important,” she said of her decision to go onstage. “I wanted him to know that I’m here, and that as long as I am alive, I’m going to stand up for what is right.”
How did she expect all this to go over at the next family dinner?
“We don’t really mix politics at the dinner table,” Ms. Diaz said, allowing herself a smile. “Family is family.” (NYTIMES)

She later responded to her grandfather, and his rally through an interview with the NY Post.

When I was younger, marriage equality was not an issue for me. But now, as my grandfather ceaselessly and callously comments on the issue, each and every word stings, since I live with my girlfriend of 2½ years, Naomi Torres, and our two sons, Jared and Jeremiah Munoz. This fight is personal.

My family deserves the same benefits as others. Naomi -- whom I would like to marry -- should be able to do things that straight married people take for granted, like make a decision for me if I'm sick.

And my grandfather has witnessed our love. At Christmas he lovingly played with our children.

But as he continued to ratchet up his rhetoric, something in me snapped. I decided to show up at his rally last month on the steps of the Bronx County Courthouse so that he could face a person he loved, a person who was gay, as he spoke against us.

That day I waded through the religious crowd and saw children as young as mine say hateful things. "You're not God's child. One man, one woman. You're not living by God." I was so nervous that morning that I threw up. I spoke against him across the street, directly within his view. But then I approached a police officer who escorted me to the podium where he spoke. My grandfather introduced me to the crowd and kissed me on the forehead. "This is my granddaughter," he said. "She chose her way of life, but I chose God's way, but I love her." Grandpa even called me after the rally, to say that he was proud of me for "respectfully speaking up for what you believe in." You cannot tell someone that you love them and stay silent when people call for their death. "Love" is empty when you say someone's life isn't natural.

He could quietly vote "no" if that's what he believes is right. But I want him to know that every word he utters hurts his own blood. (NYPOST)

Her question is one I can mirror myself. How someone play with the life of a family member so easily?

Push Back Against Homophobia

This is an important story. It is my understanding that the Spanish-media in the US allows for a lot more homophobic comments and viewpoints without any rebuttal or push-back.

Not this interview.

New York state Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr (more info here) has been the voice and face of opposition to marriage equality in New York, where between 51% and a historic 58% favor allowing same-sex couples the rights and protections that marriage provides. During his career as a pastor and politician, he has made many outrageous claims, like comparing homosexuality to drug addiction and bestiality and lying about marriage legislation, stating that churches would be forced to marry same-sex couples or have their tax-exempt statuses revoked.

New Yorkers, and others, if you feel so inclined, spread the word! Read the article, then write/call Ruben Diaz and let  him know how you feel about his opposition to marriage equality, and check out Marriage Equality New York to see what can be done to help bring marriage equality to the Empire State.

To put you in the mood:



Or for the Gleeks:

Bi-national Couples: DOMA

Americans who are married to citizens of a different country are able to sponsor their spouses for residency, and ultimately citizenship, if that is what they choose. I have been able to witness the process first-hand (second-hand?), as my sister's husband is from Canada. It is logical and legal way to keep families together. Not all Americans have the opportunity to sponsor their spouses for residency or citizenship. The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was pushed through Congress by social conservatives due to fears that Hawaii might be the first place in the modern world, let alone state in the Union that would allow people of the same sex to be united with a marriage contract. It was signed in 1996 by President Clinton, who has since denounced the law. The third article of the act defines the federal recognition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. This is a difficult situation when it comes to citizens of states where marriage equality is a reality. As of this writing, five states and the District of Columbia allow people of the same sex the same rights and responsibilities of marriage as people of the opposite sex. Eleven other states offer civil unions, which are similar to marriage in all but name (in most states). Citizens in a legal marriage cannot sponsor their spouse for residency or citizenship under federal law. These are some of their stories.



Out4Immigration - Binational Couples for Immigration Equality in the US from Devote Campaign on Vimeo.

There have been several lawsuits challenging DOMA on the third article.  Eric Holder, the Attorney General has decided that his department would no longer defend it in court, as he and President Obama both agree that article three is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the deportations of foreign spouses has not been halted. Please listen to their stories. Let's keep these families together!

Marriage Equality Update

Friends who fight the good fight! For a couple months now, a guy from California named Matt Baume has been updating the world via two youtube channels, first the Prop8-centric Stop8org, then the more inclusive Marriage News Watch. If you were ever curious as to how gay marriage rights are doing across the nation, Baume does an excellent job collecting the stories, presenting them, and then explaining what can be done to help move the country towards equality. Here is this week's video:

This issue is huge for me, for hopefully obvious reasons, if you know me. Right now I live in a state where I am allowed to get married to the person I love, but those protections and responsibilities will not follow me down Florida, where I am going to school. When you do not have marriage equality, simple things become ridiculously difficult. If we're married, Neil should be covered under my health insurance provided through the school. They are unwilling to do that, and we have to go down to Florida, crossing our fingers that he can find a job so we don't have to spend a fortune on insulin supplies (more on this issue later). That problem isn't as big as potentially losing a legal spouse due to deportation. Watch the video, follow along; this is one of the most important civil rights movements going on in the country. I hope that you care.

more to come

Friends. I've been extremely busy trying to get myself ready for school in the fall. This includes doctor's visits, figuring out health insurance, moving, timing, other prior commitments (like an amazing relay race to the Cape)etc. There are a couple topics. I want to write about, including centralized health care, mental health and marriage protection rights, but they are going to have to wait for a bit while I catch up on work (which I also want to blog about). I will try and fit them in as soon as I can. In the meantime, please enjoy this glee cover of one of my favorite songs by one of my favorite artists: Rolling in the Deep by Adele.



I LOVE THIS SONG!

A story that should be more public

Friends, this is a story that warms my heart. A couple decides they want to help take kids out of the system and give them a better life. Because they want to keep siblings and family together, they end up with 12 children before they closed their foster license. Here is a little of bit of their story:




Their home state of Arizona just passed a law giving preference to legally married couples, over just what is best for the child(ren). This is an honorable family; one who seeks to provide love, care and protection to all its members. Unfortunately, a majority of states do not provide protections to families like this. Only five states and the District of Columbia provide full state marriage benefits, where 10 states provide benefits similar to marriage called civil unions. Families like these are so strong, yet so fragile. Only two of Roger and Steve Ham's children are legally adopted by both. If something ever happened to Roger, what would happen to their children? Marriage rights are important, for many reasons.