This snappy two-minute video recap of NOM's bus tour stop in Maryland reveals a clever new twist on the hetero marriage defense: "We're asked to believe that a mother, a biological mother, will have no problem sharing the care of her child with another woman!" one speaker announces at the rally. "Moms, do you believe that?" (They do not!) Sure, NOM can understand two women loving each other and wanting to spend their lives together. But once it's time for the couple to share in the child-rearing, the biological mother's jealousy will ultimately destroy them both—along with every American family? That's just science.

When NOM's mandatory heterosexuality tour stopped by Newark on Tuesday, Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) leader Greg Quinlan was on-hand to present the ex-gay position on heterosexual marriage: Desperate! "If you know of anybody, send them my way," said Quinlan, who is totally straight now (and divorced). "I live right here in Roxbury Township, up in North Jersey. I’ll give you my name and number afterwords, if you know of anybody who’s available." He then offered his criteria for a potential mate: "Female. And breathing." Go get him, ladies!

* Alyssa Rosenberg articulates my annoyance with the glamorization of "housewife":

This is a show [Real Housewives] where the term that distinguishes the franchise, "housewife," is pretty much stripped of all meaning. You don't have to be married to be a Real Housewife. You don't even have to be dating anyone particularly seriously. And you're almost certainly not simply a stay-at-home wife or mom if you've been found interesting enough to be on the show. You're running a business, or a charity, or at the very least, stirring up a hell of a lot of trouble semi-professionally. Being an American wife doesn't mean anything in particular these days. That definitional void might be scary, but it's also an opportunity to fill it up with something valuable and interesting and varied.

Interesting. I've always seen the show's title as a shallow attempt to redefine successful women solely by their roles as wives and mothers. But perhaps it works the other way, too—housewives can have it all. Even jobs!

* Via the Washington Blade: D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier has launched an investigation into a satirical flier circulated around the force announcing "D.C.’s First Deaf Mute Gay Marriage."

* Not only will watching porn cause you to get raped, it may also kill you!

* Graph! Canada loves gay marriage. And "Kisses to the 3.5 percent of gay-affirming Jamaicans," Rick Rosendall writes at GLAA Forum.

* NOM tour hits Maryland, attempts to prevent all video evidence of the event:

[youtube:v=qe9QNdcRplw]

Photo via The U.S. National Archives

As promised, the NOM mandatory heterosexuality tour hit Annapolis today at noon. There, NOM leader Brian Brown demanded that Maryland voters have a chance to vote on same-sex marriage. Brown lives in Virginia. Derek McCoy of the Association of Maryland Families was on-hand to lend local support of the idea:

We will fight for marriage in this State until the end!… Our definition [of marriage] is not passe, is not outdated, is not stale; it’s the definition we’ve already had in a state statute, that we’ve all known for years . . . Let’s take this issue to the ballot box. Let the people decide! Let the people vote!

Maryland will truly never be free until its citizens have the right to restrict the rights of other citizens.

Also of concern: Anti-gay doctor lifts nickname from Julius Erving!

Tomorrow at noon, the NOM mandatory heterosexuality bus tour will hit Annapolis. The big anti-gay bus will pull up in front of the Maryland State House, where it will be joined star local anti-gay talent: The Bishop Harry Jackson, described by NOM as a "leader in the effort to take back marriage in Washington DC." Also on-hand at the rally will be Association of Maryland Families president Derek McCoy, an outspoken opponent of marriage, abortion, and gambling. Bring your lunch!

D.C.'s Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance (GLAA) has released its questionnaire for the D.C. mayoral race, quizzing candidates on their thoughts on everything from the D.C. police department's Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit to  "water-based lubricant."

The document surveys the candidates on 26 questions in six categories: marriage, public health, public safety, human rights, education, and business. Some of the queries are pretty pointed: Just try giving the incorrect answer to "Will you support legislation to curb abuses by NIMBYs who are now allowed to file an endless series of baseless complaints to harass or extort bars and restaurants?" or "Will you rein in police officials who respond to legitimate crime concerns with unsustainable, media-centric quick fixes that infringe constitutionally protected civil liberties?" Come on. That's practically a cheat sheet!

Another question of note: Question 26 follows up on the GLAA's push to legalize prostitution earlier this year: "What are your thoughts regarding GLAA’s proposal . . . to mitigate the problems associated with prostitution by legalizing and regulating it? What will you do to provide alternatives to survival sex for at-risk populations like homeless youth and transgenders?"

Participating candidates must file answers to the GLAA by Aug. 17.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

* In her final dispatch on the Buttman trial, porn director and performer Aurora Snow claims that LAPD Det. Michael Ozaki, a witness for the prosecution, is a fan:

[Ozaki] looked all too familiar to me. I heard the detective explain how he had to attend the AVN Expo for the last five years in a row “undercover” in order to research the new material being put out by adult companies. I was surprised to hear how the LAPD spends tax money so consistently on porn related materials in the name of “research” when the city is reeling from recent budget cuts. But mostly, as the LAPD detective answered questions under oath, I began to realize why I was recognizing him; I am almost sure that I have signed autographs for him at adult conventions. That is one dedicated undercover officer! I wonder if somewhere in a police evidence folder is a signed photo of me or if the detective kept that for his personal collection. I hope the latter. I don’t want to be in a file and even detectives should have fun with their porn collections.

* When Maryland man Aaron Burroughs was convicted of "sexually exploiting a minor" for an offense involving child prostitution and child pornography, he was sentenced to 16 years in prison—plus extra restrictions "that required him to keep a daily log of his computer use and to permit the authorities to monitor that use." Last week, a federal appeals court struck those restrictions, as Burroughs' offense wasn't conducted via computer.

* GLAA Forum updates us on the NOM bus tour for hetero marriage, declares it an "epic fail. As it turns out, holding rallies at noon on weekdays isn't the smartest way to drum up support for opposite marriage after all. The tour hits D.C. Aug. 15.

* Figleaf 0n how sex work obscures assault in the Lawrence Taylor case:

the word “prostitution” magically washes away all traces of “statutory rape,” “sexual assault of a child,” “sex offender registry,” “corruption of a minor,” and every other offense prosecutors, judges, and juries are usually (and, I think, correctly) willing to throw at people who have sex with minors

* Via Metro Weekly: Victim of hate crime plans to leave D.C.

Photo via State Library of Queensland.

This summer, the National Organization for Marriage is launching its "Summer For Marriage" bus tour, a 22-stop jaunt around the Eastern united states in the interest of drumming up support for straight marriage. The tour's motto: "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN." Does anyone else get the jeebies looking at that graphic? I'm always amazed at how NOM manages to turn heterosexual relationships into some skin-crawlingly creepy imperative born out of soulless moral necessity. The tour hits D.C. on Aug. 15. [Via GLAA Forum].

* D.C. Mayoral candidate Leo Alexander only has 700 bucks in the war chest, and $200 of it came from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum. That's rough, dude.

* Woman marries her partner in D.C., but is denied a name change in her home of Tennessee, on account of her absurd document from the nation's capital claiming her to be married—to a woman!

* The Bilerico Project takes the temperature of gay online media. Zack Rosen of the New Gay submits: "The state of gay online media is, simply, that it exists."

* In the Washington Post, Mark Judge calls for more male teachers in Catholic schools, for feminism:

[T]his is the kind of feminism that can sometimes be best delivered by a man. This year girls basketball team at St. Mary's won the league championship. As a reward the girls on the team got to come to school out of uniform, wearing whatever ever t-shirts they wanted to. The boys, whose team had not done as well, were sulking around school, bristling whenever the girls would brag. I noticed they were whispering to each other, "Yeah, but girls basketball is not a sport." They would never say in front of any teachers, 90 percent of whom are women. But then the sixth grade came into my classroom in the afternoon and, the boys saw me standing in the front and they let themselves go. "It's not a sport!" they cried. They called out, men to man, for validation—"Mr. Judge, girls basketball is not a sport! Right?"

I was surprised. I grew up in the 1970s, and even in those dark ages we would never have claimed that women's basketball was not a sport. Had thing moved that far backwards? Actually, I answered, not only is it a sport, it's a lot more interesting than men's basketball. Men's basketball has become a lot of dunking. In women's basketball there is strategy, jump-shots, thinking.

The boys looked at me suspiciously for a few seconds. But then they seemed to take it in.

* So sorry to bother you, via Feministe: How men and women pitch stories to the Awl. According to the site: "The emails from men are pretty direct. The emails from women are often kind of . . . apologetic!"

Photo via Nationaal Archief

* Some Thomas Circle neighbors are unnerved by sex workers walking near their Pilates studio. Why I never!

* Metro Weekly interviews the guys behind FUK!T, the safe-sex initiative behind the safe sex gay porn spoofs. FUK!T's Terry Gerace on daring to sexualize sex: "There are a lot of places where it's inappropriate to use sex to sell things, but when you're trying to sell something that you use during sex it's actually appropriate to sexualize it and not make it clinical or a fear-based campaign."

* Via GLAA Forum, a woman has sued D.C.'s Covenant Baptist Church for performing a civil commitment ceremony in 2007, which she attended and found "totally disgusting." She wants her donations to the church back.

* Via Jezebel, why it's OK to shamelessly objectify the men of the World Cup. All right, but is it OK to shamelessly objectify them immediately after the United States suffers a crushing loss to Ghana, everyone in the Black Squirrel is drunk and depressed, the the players begin dutifully removing their shirts, in a sad way? Because my brain was saying "woo!," but my heart was saying "too soon."

* Tonight, Bears Do Yoga moves to the Green Lantern!

Photo via Nationaal Archief

* Seventy-five-year-old Mamie "Peanut" Johnson, the "first and only woman to pitch in the Negro American League," is set to be commemorated with her own field in Northeast D.C.

* The National Area Woman's Foundation doles out some advice to the new cast of "Real Housewives of D.C." "Since I moved to Washington, D.C., I have been incredibly impressed by the number of intelligent, genuine, caring, friendly and strong women I’ve met," writes Mariah Craven. "Those women will not be on the 'Real Housewives of DC.'”

* The Washington Blade factors heavily into the Village Voice's story on the "death rattle" of gay print media:

Making things even harder for gay media—new and old—is the not-unpleasant problem of continuous and thorough examination of LGBT issues in big media like The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Voice. Their coverage threatens to make already-threatened gay community weeklies, with their much more limited resources, redundant. Consider this: The photo that caught notorious professional homophobe George Alan Rekers with a male escort at an airport two months ago wasn’t taken for a gay paper, but for the Voice’s sister paper, Miami New Times.

It's true that LGBT news has gone mainstream, but it's a bit odd for the Voice to lump itself and Miami New Times together with such "big media" dailies as The New York Times and the Washington Post. The Miami New Times, like the gay papers that the Voice declares as dying, is a weekly with limited resources and an equally uncertain future.

* Metro Weekly profiles a "model blood donor" who is ineligible to donate because he has sex with men. Says Lee Storrow: "I think it's powerful that I am someone who … would have been a lifetime donor—and could potentially be a lifetime donor—but isn't eligible because of this policy.''

* LGBT activist Peter Rosenstein on why he's not voting for Adrian Fenty:

Candidate Fenty promised support for marriage equality but Mayor Fenty never spoke up for it. He didn’t testify for it or allow his director of the Office of GLBT Affairs to do so. Compare that to the advocacy of mayors like Gavin Newsom and now even Michael Bloomberg and it really comes up short. He did sign a veto-proof bill and held a signing ceremony to be in on the celebration. He did sign a veto-proof bill and held a signing ceremony to be in on the celebration.

Candidate Fenty promised to fight against hate crimes. Mayor Fenty never even managed to get the words hate crimes out of his mouth. He refused to meet with the community at-large even though these crimes have been increasing. Candidate Fenty promised to hold a GLBT Economic Summit. Mayor Fenty refused to make this an event of the mayor’s office and has never found time to attend one. Candidate Fenty promised to take the message of fighting HIV/AIDS to the community, including the faith community. Mayor Fenty has never spoken to a faith-based group about HIV/AIDS.

Rick Rosendall's take: "This is too long, too one-sided, and too much about Peter Rosenstein."

*Broadsheet's Tracy Clark-Flory reports on an X-ray manufacturer's foray into the pin-up market. Clark-Flory's take: "damn, these skele-girls got femurs for daaays. As the Weekly Vice suggests, I guess the message here is that beauty isn't skin deep, after all. Or something." I think the real message here is that even Skeletors can look "sexy" if we splay them out in a suitably compliant pose and strap the right shoes on their feet.

* At Feministe, s.e. smith declares open season on bikini season.

* Bitch Magazine's Kjerston Johnson aggressively campaigns for the Twilight series to show Bella's vampire-baby birth on-screen, in which "Edward has to deliver the baby Cesarean-style . . . with his teeth." In response to Twilight screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg's claim that "you can do childbirth without seeing childbirth . . . it doesn't mean it's any less evocative of an experience," Johnson replies: "Um, he rips their baby out of her stomach with his mouth! I would like to see what kind of mise-en-scène director Bill Condon conjures up to ensure it's no 'less evocative' without this unnatural natural birth."

* Why is the National Organization for Marriage (NOM NOM NOM) bankrolling a local ANC commissioner to the tune of $60,900? [Via Metro Weekly].

* Vote in Freedom to Marry's blogger scholarship contest; our local pick is The New Gay editor Zack Rosen. (Read his submission here).

This week, I wrote the paper's cover story on the gay wedding business that's popped up in the District since same-sex marriages were legalized in March, and how local businesses are competing for a piece of the pie. Pick up a paper or read it online here.

* The New York Times profiles Eve Tushnet, a "celibate, gay, conservative, Catholic writer" opposed to same-sex marriage:

Marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals, whose “relationships can be either uniquely dangerous or uniquely fruitful,” she explained in an e-mail message. “Thus it makes sense to have an institution dedicated to structuring and channeling them.”

But same-sex marriage, she wrote in The New York Post in 2007, “can bring one of three outcomes: A two-tiered marriage culture, where heterosexual couples are asked to do the hard things (sex only within marriage, marriage for life in most circumstances) and homosexual couples work out their own marriage norms; reshape marriage into an optional, individualized institution, ignoring the creative and destructive potentials of ‘straight’ sex; or encourage all couples to restrict sex to marriage and marry for life, and hope that gay couples accept norms designed to meet heterosexual needs.”

* The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association calls Tushnet "a prime example of the kind of sources mainstream journalists should be talking to when they want to 'balance' a story about same-sex marriage. Rather than dialing up a homophobic talking head from some religious-right-wing group to peddle junk scientific claims or just wildly ignorant statements lacking in any bases of fact, there are sources out there to quote who won’t just spew more anti-gay hate speech."

Really? Because she sounds like standard-issue wingnut to me, floating a wacky essentialist conception about gays and straights and then concluding that only straight marriage "makes sense." What differentiates Tushnet's views from "junk scientific claims or just wildly ignorant statements lacking in any bases of fact"? Is it that she's also gay?

* Heather Corrina addresses the myth that all rape survivors compulsively pursue sex.

* Carnal Nation on the sexual politics of vanity plates: An ecologist's attempt to pay tribute to the "pine genus" on his license plate has been knocked down by Michigan officials who say the word "PINUS" "might carry a connotation offensive to good taste and decency as judged by the Department of State." In other words, it looks too much like the word "PENIS."

* Tiger Beatdown on sexism, Lynn Hirschberg and MIA:

M.I.A. is a fake, the article more or less says; no matter what she says or writes or records about global capitalism being a bad thing, no matter how fiercely she would seem to defend marginalized people, she’s just a shallow, narcissistic, bossy, stupid woman who only wants your attention, only wants to be famous, only wants to be a star. And did you hear that she was having contractions when she sang “Paper Planes” at the Grammys? Shocking! Provocative! Fame-whorey! Regular-whorey! Unfeminine! Selfish! Bad mother!

When same-sex marriage was legalized in D.C. this March, Mike Newman offered himself up to officiate local gay marriages free-of-charge. Since them, Newman has wedded 44 of the District's same-sex couples—and one opposite-sex pair. Here's a taste of the ceremonies he's seen:

* "Most of them I’d describe as sort of guerrilla-style," Newman says of the typical same-sex wedding he's been called to officiate.  "We'll find a public space and do a ceremony that lasts only a minute or two . . . most of the the time it's just the couple says," he says. Newman, 43, says his officiant style is likely to attract more casual couples: "I'm obviously not a wedding professional, and I made it known I'm up for doing this wherever, whenever," he says.

* Also turning to Newman: Couples who don't want to get hassled by mainstream officiants of unknown tolerance level. "A lot of people I’ve spoken to are used to seeing a lot of discrimination. If they just make a blind phone call to an officiant and it comes out that it's a gay wedding, it can turn out to be a big deal," says Newman. "I'm vocal about wanting to perform these weddings, so they know right away it's not a problem."

* Since March, Newman has performed same-sex weddings in front of the Capitol, outside the U.S. Botanic Garden, in various local restaurants, on the roof of the Newseum, and in his own Capitol Hill living room. "A lot of people just drop by my house," says Newman."We've done half-a-dozen or so in my home, either in the living room or in the backyard," he says.

* Since March, Newman has also lent his services to a couple of heterosexuals. "I’ve performed one opposite-sex marriage in the past few months," says Newman. "It was a couple who said they were waiting to get married until their friends could get married, so it was a part of the same trend."

* On the first day same-sex marriage was legal in D.C., Newman performed eight weddings. Now the demand has tricked down to about one wedding a week. As demand has gone down, Newman's rate has increased. "I have recently started charging for the weddings," says Newman. As of a few weeks ago, the current going rate for his services is about $50 a pop. He's also recently taken on an apprentice—Newman recently endorsed his wife to become an officiant, as well.

Photo via Mike Newman

HuffPo's Jason Linkins phrases it bluntly: "This probably isn't a very nice way of putting it, but basically, the most significant segment of the population that opposes gay marriage is the one that's closest to death." As evidence, Linkins presents this nifty chart showing the age discrepancy in gay marriage support across the 50 states. Old-timers in Alabama aren't too keen on the idea; whippersnappers in Massachusetts are all for it. The District, which kicked off same-sex marriage this year, isn't represented on the chart; Maryland and Virginia, both of which currently outlaw same-sex marriage, fall about in the middle of the pack.

Today, the D.C. Court of Appeals will hear arguments over the fate of same-sex marriage in D.C.  In January, the D.C. Superior Court decided that a ballot initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman would violate the District's Human Rights Act; anti-gay-marriage activists appealed the decision.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

I'm home sick today, so excuse me if I have chosen to displace my blogging duties on to adorable little boy Calen (above), who has just learned that his two uncles are "husband and husband" who are married—not to wives!—but to each other. Watch the video to remind yourself that explaining same-sex marriage to the youth doesn't have to be a process marked by legal complaints filed over the child's loss of innocence. A lot of times it just involves some really cute mental gymnastics, followed by a blanket invitation to ping-pong. [via Broadsheet].

Thanks to the Economist for crunching the numbers on just how significant the legalization of same-sex marriage was for Washington, D.C. Of jurisdictions that currently allow gay marriage (or recognize out-of-state gay marriages, or grant equal rights to gay partnerships), the District of Columbia has the highest percentage of same-sex households by far. In other words, D.C. is likely in for a whole lot of weddings [via Queerty].

Today, the much-anticipated Fred Phelps counter-protest finally came to fruition—albeit a couple of hours after Phelps' homophobia parade got going. City Paper photog Darrow Montgomery was on-hand to document the results. (See all of Darrow's photos of D.C. gay marriage day here).

Below, counter-protesters utilize the Burger King Guy, God Hates [Blank], and unclear messages about vaginas in order to protest Phelps' bigotry.

It's no "REACH AROUNDS FOR JESUS," but it is confusing!

I'm not sure what this message says in full, but it includes "vaginas" and more than one "nom," so it's got to be something important.

Good start.

At this point, most of the press has vacated its spot outside the courthouse; even the Fred Phelps-affiliated protesters have moved on. So, does the excitement wear off a bit after a few hours of just . . . waiting around?

"It doesn't!" insists Baez. "Every time someone comes out of the office, everyone cheers," he says. "They come out and walk down the hall, and it's like they're walking down the aisle."

Then again, Baez and Romshak are still pretty much glowing from their engagement. In the grand scheme of things, the couple hasn't been waiting for this all that long. "To be honest, it was a spur of the moment kind of thing," says Baez of the marriage. "A friend brought up the idea, and we said, 'let's do it!'"

The couple has been together "not very long," says Romshak—"officially, seven months." Recently.t their relationship escalated when Baez, a flight attendant, learned that he might be getting transferred to a new city. Romshak informed a friend of the news; she asked him if he was planning on joining him. "I said, 'Of course!'" says Romshak. "So she asked why we didn't just get it over with and get married. I didn't think anything of it at the time." Then, Romshak got home and told Baez about the conversation. "I said, 'Well, yeah, that makes sense,'" says Baez.

The line outside the D.C. Marriage Bureau will be the only chance Romshak and Baez have to "walk down the aisle" in front of dozens of onlookers—they're planning on registering for an "intimate" civil ceremony at the courthouse.

"With DOMA [The Defense of Marriage Act] in place, we still do not have full rights in this country," says McLaurin. "There will always be hurdles in the federal government. In states across the country, it's the same way."  Adds Crock, "I don't think we would move anywhere that wouldn't recognize our marriage."

Since marriage recognition is a deal-breaker, the current roster of possible homes for Crock and McLaurin looks like this: D.C., Maryland, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York. The couple has an interest in California, but even out-of-state same-sex marriages performed after Prop 8's passing aren't recognized there. Crock's home state is definitely out. That's fine by him. "New York, Maryland, even though you can't get married there, these are places that would recognize us as married, and that's where we want to be," says Crock. "I don't want to live in a place where my government discriminates against me." Says McLaurin, "We want to live in a place where we can visit each other in the hospital."

After Beavers and Outlaw secure their marriage license, they're planning on waiting a little longer for the big bash. "We're just doing a civil ceremony for now," says Beavers. "Up until today, we weren't even sure if this was going to all go through, or if the bill was going to be shut down. So we're going to wait to have our wedding later, when we can plan for everything that we wanted."

In the meantime, the couple is collecting mementos of the time they waited in line. They're planning on saving their #17 marriage ticket they received from the court—complete with a photo of interlocking gold rings. It looks exactly like the image they chose for their save-the-date cards. "It's kind of wrinkled up, but I'm going to iron it out," says Beavers. This morning, Beavers set aside another memento—a copy of today's newspaper. "We were all just laughing about it," says Beavers. "Most people do not get excited to wait in line and apply for a marriage certificate."

It's the debut of gay marriage in Washington, D.C., and the first batch of couples to snake through the D.C. Superior Court Marriage Bureau are ready to step in front of the cameras. But first, they've got to be coached on how to exit the building. Sultan Shakir, organizer for the Campaign for All D.C. Families, huddles around about five couples on the fourth floor of the courthouse, ready to usher them through the next step in their relationships.

"Outside, there are some cameras, and the Michael Phelps people are out there, too," he says.

"Michael Phelps!" one soon-to-be-married guy exclaims.

"Oh, no, sorry, not Michael Phelps. Fred Phelps. I wish Michael Phelps were here," says Shakir.

"Who's Fred Phelps?"

"You know, the crazy, you're going to hell, God hates you people. Don't worry about it. You'll recognize them."

Some of the soon-to-be-married take a bathroom break. Angelisa Young heads back to the cashier's counter to retrieve the box of celebratory cupcakes she had forgotten in the rush. One heads off in search of her partner—"I mean, my wife, I guess!" she says.

One couple receives some individualized instruction. "When you exit the building, you're going to just go straight toward the microphone," another handler informs Young and Sinjoyla Townsend—gay marriage couple no. 1. They will be flanked by two supporters and who will help them walk the 50 feet to the press area, where about 100 reporters, photographers, supporters, and protesters have gathered to ask them a few questions. "Just look at your paperwork. Just concentrate on that. If they ask you any questions, just focus on you. Focus on this moment, and your excitement. . . . just share your stories."

"They're calling us to come out," Shakir says, after receiving a call on his cell. "The Phelps people are out there." The caravan descends down three escalators to the courthouse's ground floor and pauses right outside the glass doors. "Wait, wait, Sultan, how do you want us to walk out?" someone calls out. Inside the doors, yet another handler takes over. He stands in front of the group and calmly introduces them to the scene outside. "As you can see, outside there are a lot of cameras," he says. The Phelps family will be on the left—ignore them. "There's a tripod set up with a microphone. People are going to ask you questions. It's going to be kind of a free-for-all. There's no set way this is going to happen," he says. Young and Townsend are summoned—they want the first couple to go first. "Ready? Let's go."

The doors open. The throng of on-lookers, corralled behind a barrier, lets out an extended cheer. You can't even see the "FAGS WED" sign through the crowd. The couples approach and begin to tell their stories into the microphone as dozens of cameras reach for a shot. Shakir stands at the very back. He is cheering the loudest. Right behind him, the Phelpses are attempting to make their voices heard.

"You will always be miserable!" screams one woman who has two protest signs in hand, an American flag wrapped around her waist, and "GodHatesFags.Com" emblazoned across her chest. A small child stands next to her with a "FAGS DOOM NATIONS" sign and a blank expression. The woman, though, she is smiling. "This is a very important event," she tells me. "Because this is the final straw!" I ask if she means the Apocalypse. "No need to get fancy," she says. "I'm not trying to be rude. That will come later—this nation's DOOM will come first!"

The couples at the front of the crowd can't hear her. Their supporters have begun to sing: "This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine."

She counters: "This little feces pile, it's really gonna stink!"

"This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine."

"You're dragging this nation into your crap!"

Shakir shoots her a look. He claps loudly and turns back to the happy couples. He says: "WOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Photo by Michael, courtesy of the The New Gay

This line is nothing compared to the White House Easter Egg Roll of 2006. Four years ago, Terrance Heath and Richard Imirowicz waited in line overnight, in the snow and the freezing cold, in order to secure tickets for their son, now 7, to roll some eggs on the White House lawn. Imirowicz had come unprepared with little more than a sleeping bag—what was he thinking?—and the couple ended up crawling into a "lesbian tent" in order to stave off the cold (another couple had charitably invited them in). "Thank God for those lesbians," says Imirowicz.

This was under the Bush administration, when even bringing your family to push around a couple of colored eggs on the grass was a political statement for a gay couple. "People were being told so many bad things about our families and who we are, that it was an opportunity for us to show how not scary we are," says Heath. Today, Heath, 41, and Imirowicz, 43, joined the line at D.C. Superior Court to achieve a less symbolic victory—securing all the legal rights owed to them as a married couple in the District of Columbia. "Like the rest of the couples in line, we've built up our family and relationship on our own, and finally the rest of society is catching up," says Heath.

Not that the symbolic victories along the way haven't been fun. Heath and Imirowicz have celebrated their union so many times that they're not even sure what to celebrate as an anniversary. The day they met in June 10 years ago? The day in October of 2001 that they exchanged rings in Hawaii? The day in the summer of 2007 that they renewed their vows—this time, in front of their son—on an LGBT family cruise led by Rosie O'Donnell? Or, now, next Tuesday, when they plan to hold a small ceremony recognizing their legal marriage (finally!) at D.C.'s All Souls' Church? How about the unknown date in the future when same-sex marriages are recognized across the United States?

"We're not as married Mississippi as we are in Massachusetts," says Heath. "There are a lot of families in states across the country that can't do what we're doing now." If gay marriage does become a reality in all 50 states in their lifetime, Heath and Imirowicz aren't eager to add another anniversary to the list. "As much as I love him, this will technically be the third time we've been married," says Heath. "Our hope is that by the time our son is an adult, he'll be able to look back on this week and wonder what the big deal was."

As for the third ceremony, the couple is planning a small service for them and their children—since the last time they've exchanged vows, they've fathered another child, a two-year-old. The affair will be modest. "We might take the kids to McDonald's afterwards, pick up a Star Wars toy," says Imirowicz. "At this point, we don't need a big wedding."

UPDATE: CP photos of the ceremony.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Symbolic victory has never been this easy—three hours later, the couple would exit the courthouse, free cupcakes in hand, just a few bureaucratic stamps away from being legally wed. Really, they've been waiting 12 years for this moment.

Like many gay couples, Townsendand Young's relationship history hasn't followed the traditional script: meet, fall in love, get married. For them, it was more like meet, fall in love, get married, wait around for half a decade for society to come around, then get married again—this time with all of the legal benefits. Unlike some of the other couples gathered here today, Townsend isn't worried that her newfound right may soon be snatched away from her through legal challenges. "I'm just excited!," she says. "I just wanted to take advantage of the opportunity. It's not in my nature to sit back and wait."

The District couple began considering marriage in 2002, and though they couldn't legally be married in the area, they didn't wait. In 2005, Townsend, 41, and Young, 47, exchanged vows at La Fontaine Bleu in Annapolis, Md., a popular spot for local wedding receptions. "It was full-blast," says Townsend. "Very similar to a traditional wedding—bridesmaids, the maid of honor, tuxedos, the whole deal." Once they claim their finalized marriage license in a few days, Townsend and Young will stage a second ceremony on "a smaller scale."

When the couple leaves the courthouse, a crowd of supporters will be waiting for them. Also gathered outside is a throng of protesters who think that Townsend and Young should never have been granted the right to hold a gay wedding—much less two. "People have their rights," says Townsend of the detractors. "But today, it's about us, and our marriage."

Today marks the first day that the District's same-sex couples can apply for marriage licenses. I'll be down at the courthouse liveblogging the lovers and the fighters.

UPDATES:

LOVERS:

* Couple # 1: Sinjoyla Townsend & Angelisa Young have been waiting 12 years for this, so three hours in line isn't half bad.

* Couple # 8: Terrence Heath & Richard Imirowicz have seen worse lines—for the White House Easter Egg Roll.

* Couple #16: Devin Crock & Chris McLaurin are never moving back to Virginia.

* Couple #17: Nichole Beavers & Stephanie Outlaw are young and in love.

* Couple #93: Manni Baez & Travis Romshak admit that this is a "spur of the moment kind of thing."

FIGHTERS:

* The Happy Couples and the Smiling Bigots, in which the protesters could not be heard through the "woos."

* The Fred Phelps Counter-Protest In Photos, featuring "Vagina Nom Nom Nom."

Photo via apdk, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

One District resident has dared to defy this logic. Bridget Todd is organizing a Phelps counter-protest from 11-12 p.m. tomorrow outside of D.C. Superior Court. Todd also intends to challenge the creative signage of the most flamboyant hate group around ("Bitch Burger"?). Plenty of inspiration for your anti-Phelps materials, after the jump.

UPDATE: Check out the results of the protest and the counter-protest.

PATIENCE, CHILDREN.

Todd, who will have extra markers and cardboard on-hand outside the courthouse, says that crafting a great counter-protest sign often requires you to actually observe the protest first. "I think it'll be more effective to scope out the scene and then come up with a sign based on the situation," she says. But there are a few old standbys you can whip up in advance:

DRESS UP AS A WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH FAVORITE.

"I'm trying to convince my long-haired, bearded boyfriend to come dressed as a kind of 'hipster Jesus' with a sign that says, 'Actually, I love fags,'" says Todd.

GO SELF-REFERENTIAL.

No matter what anti-gay message Phelps & family end up shilling tomorrow morning, you know it's gonna be on a sign.

GOD HATES [BLANK].

At a recent Phelps protest of Twitter HQ (because "God Hates Retweets," one counter-protester theorized), a counter-protester dressed as an ivory-gloved unicorn with a sign that read "God Hates Ponies":

GET PERSONAL.

Just make fun of the way they look! You know they're going to look kind of weird. Remember, these people think you are murdering American soldiers through some sort of ho-mo-sexual voodoo, so rules of decorum are pretty much out the window here. "Of course, a good old fashioned catty remark sign can really never go wrong," Todd says.

EMBRACE ABSURDITY.

You're dealing with people who will likely be carrying around signs showing aborted fetuses served up inside Big Macs, so you're going to have to think outside the box a little bit. "I can't say enough good about funny 'that makes no sense at all' signs that just point out how absurd these people are," Todd says.Protest whatever! A friend, Kyle Stoneman, is a ridiculous protest veteran who has previously staged a successful Phelps-style protest of forks "(Did Jesus DIE for your FORK? NO!"):

Try to be as weird as possible. "I've got one more sign idea that I'd like to do at some point," says Stoneman. "The sign says 'Coat Room,' and the person holding this sign should be wearing half a dozen to a dozen coats."

Jesus image by mike52ad; "Bitch Burger," "I Have a Sign," and "God Hates Ponies" by chada. All under Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

The Archdiocese of Washington has been battling the D.C. government for the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians since D.C.'s same-sex marriage legislation got rolling last year.

One major point of contention: Once gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, the Archdiocese—which employs plenty of locals through Catholic Charities—will be required to provide health benefits to same-sex spouses, an act which it says would fly in the face of the Catholic church's teachings on homosexuality.

The solution? No spousal benefits for anybody.

Today, Catholic Charities President and CEO Edward Orzechowski sent out a memo to staffers informing them of the change to the health care coverage, which will go into effect tomorrow.

In short: If you and your spouse are already enrolled in Catholic Charities health coverage, your spouse will be grandfathered in. Starting tomorrow, however, new employees (or newly married employees, hint hint) will not be allowed to add spouses to the plan. So: Longtime employees will receive the spousal benefits they've always had; Catholic Charities will get to keep its pool of covered spouses gay-free; only fresh employees and gays will feel the sting on this one.

Here's the memo:

I am writing to you to inform you of an important change to our group health care benefit plan that will take effect on March 2, 2010 due to a change in the law of the District of Columbia. It is important to note that the existing health coverage of current employees will not be affected by the change. New employees and current employees requesting revisions in benefit coverage will be affected by this change.

Catholic Charities will continue to honor the health plan coverage that current employees have as of March 1, 2010. As of March 2, a new plan will be in effect that will cover new employees and requests for benefit changes by current employees. The new plan will provide the same level of coverage for employees and their dependents that you now have, with one exception: spouses not in the plan as of March 1, will not be eligible for coverage in the future. If your spouse currently has coverage in our Plan, he/she may continue to be covered by the health benefit plan, even if you later add a dependent or decide to change your option level (e.g., change from low option to high option). Please see the attached formal Plan Amendment.

We sincerely regret that we have to make this change, but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith.

A summary of the Plan modification has been mailed to you at your home address. If you have any questions on this matter, please e-mail your Human Resources manager or, if you do not have access to email, call. Please remember, this change does not impact your current coverage in any way.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter, and let me again express my appreciation for your support and patience over these past months as we have worked hard to arrive at a decision that allows us to continue to serve others in a manner that is consistent with our religious beliefs.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Given the ambivalent history of same-sex marriage in this country—in 2008, gays in California only had a five-month window to get hitched before their newly-minted rights were revoked—many gay couples are understandably eager to redeem their marriage rights at their earliest convenience. If you're one of those gays, Mike Newman is your guy.

This Wed., March 3 is the first day that same-sex couples may apply for marriage licenses in the District of Columbia. For some, the rush to secure a legal license may have overshadowed more ceremonial concerns—like locating an officiant to solemnize the wedding. In order to apply for a marriage license with D.C. Superior Court, applicants must first list the name of the person who will be officiating the wedding ceremony. For those couples who want to get married ASAP but are still short a judge or minister, Newman has volunteered himself to do the deed.

Newman, 43, was ordained through World Christianship Ministries, an online church which caters to men and women who want to "become an ordained minister almost immediately" through "legal ordination by mail." Whatever—since Newman completed his paperwork in 2007 in order to perform the wedding of a friend, he's grown into the ceremonial role. Last October, Newman and his wife—an interracial couple—attended the National Equality March with a picket sign that read, "Our Marriage Was Once Illegal, Too" (The couple met in 2002 through a City Paper personals ad that read, "Every time you answer someone else's ad, God kills a kitten. Tall urban hipster urges you to please, think of the kittens"). "There were people hugging us and crying. It was a very emotional moment, and it was so uplifting for us personally," says Newman. "I thought, well, maybe I can go a step further and directly contribute to people’s marriages."

As for the logistics of your shotgun ceremony, Newman says he's flexible. "I could meet people out somewhere, or we could form a line going out the door of my house," says Newman. If you're in a rush, he can get you in and out the door in five minutes: "Technically, all I really have to say 'you’re married' and sign my name on your license," he says. If you interested in staging a more involved ceremony, Newman says he may be able to work something out, too.

Since Newman is a guy who was ordained over the Internet who has expressed interest in officiating a mass wedding, perhaps a disclaimer is in order—he's not looking to get any cash out of this. The service, Newman wrote in a blog post, will be entirely "pro bono, of course." If you'd like to enlist Newman as your officiant, go ahead and shoot him an e-mail.

Photo via Mike Newman

Gay and itching to get married? On March 3, 2010, same-sex couples will be legally allowed to marry apply for marriage in the District of Columbia, and the D.C. government has just issued some guidelines on how it's all going to go down. Here's how to get hitched as soon as possible [This post has been updated to reflect the latest info from D.C. Superior Court]:

* On the morning of Wed., March 3, head to D.C. Superior Court's H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse at 500 Indiana Avenue NW. The courthouse marriage bureau will open at 8:30 a.m., but couples will likely be gathering outside beforehand in order to secure their place in line. God knows at what hour the most marriage-eager couples will arrive.

* Fred Phelps' anti-gay brigade plans to show up as well to district you from your mission, but Phelps is planning on a late start, around 11 a.m. Show up early and you may only catch their protests on your way out the door. Join up with these folks if you want to participate in the counter-protest.

* Once inside, know how to get through security quickly. You'll have to take off your coat and feed all of your belongings through a metal detector. If you have a camera or recording device, you may be asked to tag it with your name and leave it at the front door. You're wasting precious time! After you get inside, head up the escalators and find the D.C. Superior Court Marriage Bureau at room #4485. UPDATE: D.C. Superior Court says that in order to accommodate the rush, applicants will be asked to line up outside 4485.

* Once inside room 4485, be prepared with the necessary documents to get hitched. Both One party to the marriage must bring proof of ID for both parties (acceptable forms include a driver's license, passport, or government-issued I.D.). You also must have also decided on an officiant for your marriage ceremony. You must list the name of the person who will be performing the marriage—acceptable officiants include D.C. judges and "anyone who is authorized by a religious organization to officiate marriages, such as a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, so long as he or she is registered with the Marriage Bureau to officiate marriages."  UPDATE: D.C. Superior court says that marriage applicants can also request a civil wedding at the courthouse with their applications, but you'll have to wait a bit longer for that—the ceremony will be scheduled at least ten business days later.

* Familiarize yourself with the application [PDF]. This version, from Dec. 2008, specifies a "Bride" and "Groom." Presumably, there will be an updated version of the application available that doesn't specify the partners' gender once same-sex marriage becomes legal in D.C. UPDATE: The court has since updated its application in gender-neutral language.

* Come with $35 cash or money order made out to “Clerk of the Court, D.C. Superior Court." Bring along an extra $10 if you want a "certified copy of the marriage certificate." If you're already registered as domestic partners in D.C., don't worry about the $35 application fee—it's waived, as long as you bring your certificate proving the partnership. UPDATE: If you want, you can also pay the fee on another day before the license is issues; you can pay anytime, you just won't get your license without the receipt.

* Ask yourself: Are you already part of a domestic partnership or civil union from another state? If so, make sure you've checked up on your state laws to see if you need to have that union dissolved before you get hitched in D.C. Are you and your partner already legally married in another state? Go home! According to the D.C. gov, "If you are part of a same-sex couple that has been legally married in another state or country . . . there is no need for you to register your marriage or domestic partnership with the city."

* Save your receipt. You'll have to come back down to court to pick up your license. UPDATE: If you can't make it to the courthouse yourself, you can also have a friend pick it up for you!

* Wait. After you file your application, you're legally required to wait three full days before a license can be issued. So if you apply for a marriage license on Wed., March 3, your license cannot legally be issued until Tues., March 9.

Photo via nerdcoregirl, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Conservative stunt journalist James O'Keefe—of alleged Mary Landrieu wiretapping "misunderstanding" and ACORN pimp fame—joined forces with another straight guy in 2008 in an attempt to enter into a Massachusetts same-sex marriage. The secretly-videotaped shotgun wedding was cooked up in order to score one of O'Keefe's more bizarre wingnut points: To prove that government bureaucrats in charge of administering marriage licenses don't care about love.

"What if two straight men wanted a same-sex marriage?" the video asks to a stock investigative soundtrack, before running the tape of O'Keefe and friend informing Massachusetts government officials that they are 100 percent hetero, dating women, and interested in getting hitched. For the insurance benefits. Here's the "Gotcha!" moment: The officials don't appear to give a shit. Probably because no American couple, gay or straight, has ever had to prove to their state government that they really, truly want to fuck each other in order to secure their official paperwork.

O'Keefe and his stunt fiancee take this to mean that same-sex marriage is bad because . . . maybe gay guys who don't really love each other can get married, now? Or something? Meanwhile, gay men and women have been cornered into opposite-marriages far before the institution of marriage edged away from the strictly heterosexual.

When asked why, exactly, the totally straight O'Keefe and his totally straight friend tried to get gay married, O'Keefe told the Washington Examiner that he was "investigating the way soulless government bureaucrats treat the institution of marriage in Massachusetts."

Exactly! This is why the government should concern itself solely with administering legal benefits of its citizens' partnerships, and not at all with the moral business of determining what sorts of people should be allowed to couple up. Thanks for reminding us, O'Keefe.

In her online "The Barras Report" column this week, Jonetta Rose Barras accused "undercover gay reporters" of undisclosed bias in their coverage of the D.C. same-sex marriage bill.

"Some opponents of same-sex marriage wonder why they couldn’t get coverage in the press similar to proponents," Barras wrote. "Stand4Marriage coalition members . . . have been cast as backward, homophobic, discriminatory crew."

Well this crew of forward-thinking non-homophobes need wonder no further! According to Barras, "undercover" gay reporters engaged in a gay media conspiracy to unfairly characterize people who oppose civil rights for gay people as homophobes.

Okay. But where's the proof? Who are these closeted gay saboteurs? Oh . . . "they know who they are":

Opponents believe they have received the raw deal in the media because the deck was stacked against them. Several of the individuals who reported on the legislation are themselves gay. None revealed their status in the gay community, which surely created in TBR’s mind a bias. TBR doesn’t want to out anyone. They know who they are.

So if you're a gay reporter who has failed to out yourself as gay in every story you write that concerns gay people, Barras thinks you're a "disgrace" to the profession:

Standard practice in journalism is for reporters to publicly announce, whether in print, on the radio, on television, on the Internet, when there is a conflict of interest. But not one of the reporters made such an announcement. And that is a disgrace.

If gay reporters are expected to publicly announce on television that they're gay whenever they're involved in reporting out a story that concerns gay marriage in D.C., I'd hope that Barras would pepper every absurd column she writes about undercover gay media conspiracies with unneccessary disclaimers concerning her sexual orientation, and any other possible conflict of interest. Here's what Barras' column would look like, with the necessary modifiers:

UNDERCOVER GAY REPORTERS [Full disclosure: TBR is not an undercover gay reporter, but then again, if she were, how would you know? The whole point of being an undercover gay reporter is that you don't tell people you're an undercover gay reporter!]; IS IT FAIR? Some opponents of same-sex marriage wonder why they couldn’t get coverage in the press similar to proponents [Full disclosure: the TBR story you are reading is published in "the press"].

The press [Full disclosure: Again, TBR constitutes a member of "the press," but will nevertheless excuse itself from the following judgment it has made on other members of "the press"] repeatedly referred to Rev Harry Jackson as an outsider come to the District to create trouble. Hundreds of District residents are involved in the movement. But few in the press made an effort to reach out into the city to discern what are the real concerns of opponents. Instead, Stand4Marriage coalition members, who continue to fight District officials on the marriage equality bill [Full disclosure: TBR has been married and divorced] even after the DC Council approved it last week (11-2) and after the mayor signed it into law, have been cast as backward, homophobic, discriminatory crew [Full disclosure: TBR was later accused of being homophobic itself in the comments section of this column].

Opponents believe they have received the raw deal in the media [Full disclosure: TBR is a member of the media] because the deck was stacked against them. Several of the individuals [Full disclosure: TBR is an individual] who reported on the legislation are themselves gay [Full disclosure: TBR is not gay]. None revealed their status in the gay community [Full disclosure: TBR has no status in the gay community], which surely created in TBR’s mind a bias. TBR doesn’t want to out anyone. They know who they are [Full disclosure: TBR is not a member of the closeted gay media conspiracy].

Standard practice in journalism is for reporters to publicly announce, whether in print, on the radio, on television, on the Internet, when there is a conflict of interest. [Full disclosure: TBR is disclosing something]. But not one of the reporters made such an announcement. And that is a disgrace.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Margaret C. Hemenway, identifying herself as a D.C. Public Schools parent, claims to have filed a complaint with Chancellor Michelle Rhee over her seven-year-old child's "sense of innocence." At what exact moment was the first-grader's innocence whisked away from her, never to be returned? The moment little Hemenway's teacher at Tenleytown's Horace Mann Elementary allegedly announced to her first-grade class that she was planning to marry a woman. Think. Of. The. Children.

Hemenway recounts the horror for Parents and Friends Of Ex-gays (PFOX):

Our first-grader astonished her father at the end of the past school year as he dropped her off at our local Washington DC public school, Horace Mann Elementary, where he had attended school in the early 60s. She relayed to him that her teacher announced her impending marriage—to another woman—to the class. Following her revelation, this teacher encouraged questions from the children.

Our daughter also mentioned a book the teacher read aloud, "Uncle Bobby's Wedding,” about two male “gay” guinea pigs, promoted by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender Lobby for children. Since homosexual activists cannot reproduce their own children, recruitment to their cause (especially at a young age, before parents have raised such sensitive and controversial topics with their children) is essential to the political agenda of promoting homosexuality and “gay” marriage.

Nowadays, most parents are resigned to the fact that a gay guinea pig will inevitably steal their daughter's sense of innocence, and there's nothing they can do about it. Not Hemenway. Hemenway began the slow bureaucratic process of getting innocence restored:

Most parents would not consider a Q&A session with first-graders about homosexual marriage as an "age-appropriate" discussion.  After our daughter’s revelation, we lodged a complaint with Chancellor Rhee's office, requesting an investigation, and asking what department in the DC Government we can appeal to for restoration of our child's sense of innocence?   We are still awaiting feedback from the school on whether there is a Teacher’s “Code of Conduct” and what D.C. policy is on “age appropriate” sexuality education.

By the way, when does "sexuality education" finally become "age appropriate" for D.C. schoolkids? According to Hemenway, "There are sound reasons that sexuality topics are not generally introduced in school until fifth grade, at an age when some children begin to ask how babies are made."

Image via Blue Stone Graphics, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Despite the snub, CUAllies has carefully attempted to conform its advocacy work to the teachings of the Catholic church. The Post story notes that CUAllies has formulated a "self-imposed list of topics that are off-limits: pre-marital sex, gay sex, birth control, gay marriage and behavior not permitted by the Catholic church." With sex, marriage, and "behavior" off the table, what can CUAllies talk about?

Catholic University senior Robby Diesu, one of the group's founders, explains how to cultivate an LGBT group while keeping it Catholic: Avoid "advocacy," distract administrators from the dreaded combination of gays and food, and invent some clever condom wordplay.

"The three goals of CUAllies are to make Catholic U. a safe, welcoming, and affirming place for GLBTQ peoples," Diseu wrote to me. The purpose of CUAllies is hardly controversial: The group is devoted to preventing gay-bashings, providing some visibility for gay students on campus, and affirming the "dignity of the human person" for gay and straight students alike. Diseu insists that the group's goal is "not to change the Church," but rather to find a safe space within church teachings for LGBT students. In order to make life at Catholic University better for CUA's LGBTs, Diseu has found that it benefits the group to keep quiet on the political front. "We as a group do not have an official position on issues like gay marriage or birth control, so the group never diverges with the administration on those types of issues," he writes.

CUAllies has reason to step carefully: The group was formed in the aftermath of Catholic University's first gay-straight alliance, which ultimately conceded to university pressure. The first iteration of the CUA gay group, the Organization for Lesbian and Gay Student Rights, operated as an official student organization from 1988 until several years ago, when "the group was forced to dissolve . . . because it became an advocacy group," Nakas told the Post. "The university has chosen not to go down that path again," Nakas said.

Diseu says that CUAllies' strictly apolitical activities are an attempt to avoid the dreaded accusation of "advocacy." "The reason why we have 'self-imposed' off-limits topics is to show the ridiculous nature of the fact that Catholic is refusing us official status as a group," Diseu writes. But no matter how much CUAllies members censor themselves, Catholic University will always raise the bar for inclusion: "Their definition of advocacy is to have food at your meetings or wanting to talk about hate crimes! Ahh the horror!!" According to Diseu, Catholic's former gay group was hardly controversial. "They were having food at their meetings, and if the gays have food you know what happens. . . . The school put a stranglehold on the group, and we were not going to let them do that to us." (Despite the evident controversy of gays serving food, Diseu says CUAllies does have refreshments at meetings).

Besides fighting off dissolution, what can CUAllies do? Plenty, as long as they frame it right. "We went to the National Equality March as a group because we support full equality for all people," Diseu writes. "In the spring we are having a 3-week series on GLBTQ health and safety and we have a whole week set aside to talk about HIV/AIDS." Diseu says that last subject may take a little bit of verbal acrobatics. "It's basically a word game, we find the loopholes and use them to our advantages," he writes. "Will we talk about condoms? Most likely. But will we directly say, 'When you have sex, use a condom'? No. It will more likely be, 'One of the ways to prevent getting HIV/AIDS is to use a condom.'"

Today's Economist graph ran the numbers on the prevalence of same-sex households across the United States. According to the data, collected by the Williams Institute, Washington, D.C. has the highest concentration of gay households—14 out of 1,000. If that number sounds small to you, keep in mind that the data excludes single gay men and women. This study is only concerned with American households run by gay couples.

D.C. far outstrips the national average. In America, only 4.7 per 1,000 households are run by gay couples who identify each other as either "spouse" or "partner." D.C.'s number are nearly double the second-highest jurisdiction, Maine, which boasts a rate of 8.3 per 1,000. Compare those numbers to the roster of states that can't even muster up three gay households per 1,000: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

I'm sure that plenty of fundies (do fundies read the Economist?) will look at this graph and say, "I knew it. All the gays are concentrated in those godless coastal areas, but at least they're staying away from good 'ol Alabama." But what the graph actually indicates is how many closeted gays are living lives of quiet desperation (or having hot, anonymous sex) right in the conservatives' backyards. As one commenter writes:

Unfortunately this graph can easily mislead. A distribution map of gay couples is really showing where gay relationships are more socially (and legally) acceptable, not where 'gayness' itself resides. A social conservative in Idaho may see this graph and comfort himself that he and his state are "safe" and that there is no need to acknowledge, much less accommodate homosexuality. The tragic story of Senator Craig demonstrates how mistaken this can be.

The Economist notes that the very action of legalizing same-sex marriages or civil unions tends to encourage coupling up. "Those states where gay marriage is legal or where same-sex partnerships are recognised have a higher proportion of same-sex couples than the national average of 4.7," says the magazine. If a state recognizes same-sex coupledom, it either inspires an influx of out-of-state gays, or encourages locals to come out as couples. Which means that if D.C.'s gay marriage legislation is passed, our fair city may stand to get even gayer. Take that, haters.

(You can read the full Williams Institute study here [PDF]).

At ChurchOuting.org, you're invited to scroll through a list of every Achbishop, Bishop, and Reverend in the Archdiocese of Washington, zero in on one you know is gay, and then submit your "detailed account of how you know the priest in question is being hypocritical through his silence." (Alternately, get at them via Twitter or Facebook).

ChurchOuting.Org is the brainchild of self-described "netroots organizing pioneer" Phil Attey. To Attey, publicly detailing your homosexual tryst with a priest is practically a charitable contribution: "Thank you for helping to liberate a closeted gay or romantically involved heterosexual priest from the oppressive anti-marriage equality agenda," the Web site reads. Wait a minute: Since when was a homosexual witchhunt meant to free people from their political agendas?

The intention of the Web site is not to bust gay priests out of the closet (and their jobs)—it's to coerce them into changing their official positions on gay marriage from inside the priesthood. ChurchOuting.org, then, will not technically involve any outings:

Disclaimer:  The goal of this site is not to force Catholic priests out of the closet against their will.  The goal of this campaign is to aggregate reports of the every gay priest in the Archdiocese, so that we can work with them, one on one, and help them stand up to the the church hierarchy's stand on this important issue.

So: Attey is going to approach priests he thinks are gay, and warn them that they better stop lobbying against gay people, seeing how gay they are . . . or . . . else? As Queerty notes, it sounds like it's not gonna work:

What's the fun in that? There is none! Sure, we get the noble mission: Find the gay priests and then engage in dialogue with them. But no single (gay) priest is going to convince the Archdiocese's leadership, including topper Don Wuerl—who is threatening to abandon the Church's social services program if marriage equality legislation passes—to give up on its anti-gay crusade just because a website has the name of an allegedly gay priest.

The authors of the D.C. gay marriage bill are sensitive folks. While they’re eager to grant gays and lesbians the right to get hitched in the District, they don’t want to upset conservative churches in town. So they threw an exemption into the pending gay-marriage bill [PDF]: No church will be obligated to wed same-sexers. It’s a ceremonial loophole that’s not nearly wide enough for the D.C. arm of the Catholic Church. “The language of the bill only protects us on the day of,” says Susan Gibbs, communications director for the Archdiocese of Washington. “But for us, that day is the launching point for the rest of your life. It’s not a day-long event. It’s a life-long journey.”

Translation: The Archdiocese wants to discriminate against gays and lesbians for much longer than just 24 hours. And that’s their problem with the legislation—same-sex spouses must be treated equally over the course of that life-long journey, for purposes of hiring practices, employment benefits, and adoption.

Yet for that one glorious day, when those bells chime, discrimination rules! The legislation says any “religious society, or a nonprofit organization which is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious society” may deny same-sex couples any “services, accommodations, facilities, or goods for a purpose related to the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage.”

So just what sort of “services, accommodations, facilities, or goods” can be safely withheld here? The following is your guide to Legal Same-Sex Wedding Day Discrimination.

• PIANISTS. The “facility” exemption prevents a church opposing same-sex marriage from providing its religious sanctuary for the wedding. But what goods and services are we talking about? The goods and services provision prevents a crafty same-sex couple from walking into a house of God and demanding everything but the church hall for the purpose of their ceremony: From the in-house organist playing “Here Comes the Bride” to the Bibles used to recite Colossians 3:18: “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”

Russell J. Weismann, Georgetown University’s director of music and liturgy, serves as the organist for all weddings performed on campus. The Yale-, Duquesne-, and Carnegie Mellon–educated pianist doesn’t play for just anyone: Besides not being gay, couples who march down the aisle to Weismann’s tune must also be Georgetown students, alumni, faculty, or staff. The religious exemption, then, ensures that Weismann’s services won’t need to be legally extended to a couple of Catholic, Georgetown-educated gays who are either serious Weismann fans, or are just trying to make a point.

Councilmember Phil Mendelson, who chairs the committee that finalized the bill’s language, says that goods and services are included in the religious exemption in order to prepare for just such unlikely scenarios. “If a same-sex couple went to a Catholic church, the bill says the church does not have to perform their wedding,” says Mendelson. “But what if the same-sex couple says, ‘We won’t hold our wedding in your sanctuary, but we want to use your Bibles and candles’? If ‘goods and services’ were omitted from the language, the church could be sued over the Bibles and the candles.” And the pianist.

• SOUL FOOD. Saint’s Paradise, a divine cafeteria-style restaurant located at 601A M St. NW, is the perfect spot for a rehearsal dinner in the heart of overpriced, overcrowded downtown D.C.: It’s got family-sized tables, free cornbread, and a very pleasant view of the baptism fountain of the United House of Prayer for All People. The church, true to its name, doles out its extra-sweet candied yams to churchgoers and the general public alike.

That “all people” invitation doesn’t extend to weddings. Pastor Herbert Whitner clarifies the church’s position on gay marriage: “We don’t agree with that,” Whitner says. Same-sex celebrations aren’t exactly welcome on United House of Prayer property.

Rehearsal dinners, however, aren’t strictly a day-of event—they’re more of a night-before kind of thing. Mendelson says the cafeteria’s physical proximity to the church—the restaurant is at 601A, the house of God is at 601—allows the United House of Prayer to deny all wedding-related celebrations, regardless of their timestamp. “I think they could turn away the rehearsal dinner,” Mendelson says. “That’s because it is in the church. It’s a part of the church facility. And since the rehearsal dinner is part of the celebration of marriage, they would be able to say no.”

• “SOMETHING OLD.” The Salvation Army’s sole District shop, located in Northeast’s H Street corridor, wouldn’t be high on the list of any couple’s wedding destinations. Its aisles are a bit cluttered for a procession, seating is limited, and the place smells kind of weird.

What some engaged couples may not know: Beyond its work recycling consumers’ castaways, the Salvation Army is a real functioning Christian church with a penchant for military jargon. Their ministers—“officers” in the Army’s ranks—can be ordained to perform marriages for both Salvationist and non-Salvationist couples. Salvationist marriages are less than traditional. Ranking Salvationist officers are allowed to marry only other officers. Cake is allowed, so long as the couple says grace before the meal, but alcohol is forbidden. Some Salvationists choose to marry in full Army regalia, but the traditional white wedding dress is acceptable, as well. And since the Salvationist moral code is all about giving back, it’s not unlikely that one of these Salvationist ceremonies will lead to one slightly worn, dirt-cheap white dress gracing the racks at 1375 H St. NE.

Since a wedding dress is a good that’s used in the celebration of a same-sex marriage, and the Salvation Army’s religious beliefs clarify that “sexual intimacy is understood as a gift of God to be enjoyed within the context of heterosexual marriage,” would the Army’s thrift store be forced to sell a wedding dress for a gay wedding?

Mendelson says that a religious-owned thrift shop is too removed from the actual church, and a wedding dress purchase too removed from the ceremony, for the exemption to apply to wedding-related retail: “The bill is intended to establish equality for same-sex marriage. If we have exemptions in the sale of wedding dresses, in the baking of wedding cakes, in catering, in photography, then we have a separate and not equal situation.”

Besides, how would the Salvation Army know that the wedding dress is to be used for a same-sex ceremony? “For wedding dresses to be covered, we’d have to allow the checker at the store to say, ‘I’m offended that you’re homosexual so therefore I will not sell you the wedding dress,’” says Mendelson. “A wedding dress could be a part of a Halloween costume. You can’t just stop anyone who is a part of a same-sex couple and say, ‘No, you can’t buy that.’”

Since the Salvation Army hasn’t adopted “don’t ask, don’t tell” as a part of its military shtick, it’s possible that the organization’s thrift shops will not hold their peace in the face of a same-sex marriage dress-fitting. This situation—the Salvation Army making policy out of denying white dresses to same-sex couples—is about as likely as a couple of gay men suing Georgetown over its pianist. Then again, in 2001, the Salvation Army privately called upon the Bush administration to help the organization discriminate against gays and lesbians in hiring. Who’s to say the Army won’t take this opportunity to deny an affordable wedding dress to a lesbian?

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

In committee, the bill's religious exemptions were finalized to ensure that no religious organizations—including churches, schools, and nonprofits—would have to "provide services, accommodations, facilities, or goods" to aid in the solemnization, celebration, or promotion of same-sex marriage. Boo.

I can't imagine that you folks are as interested in the implications of the religious exemption than Mike Riggs and I are, but the full language [PDF] of that portion of the bill is after the jump.

No priest, imam, rabbi, minister, or other official of any religious society who is authorized to solemnize or celebrate marriages shall be required to solemnize or celebrate any marriage.

Each religious society has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine, teachings, and beliefs regarding who may marry within that particular religious society’s faith.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious society, or a nonprofit organization that is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities, or goods for a purpose related to the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage, or the promotion of same-sex marriage through religious programs, counseling, courses, or retreats, that is in violation of the religious society’s beliefs. A refusal to provide services, accommodations, facilities, or goods in accordance with this subsection shall not create any civil claim or cause of action, or result in a District action to penalize or withhold benefits from the religious society or nonprofit organization that is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious society.

For those of you who would rather do away with this whole marriage business instead of incorporating new groups into the institution, Canadian group Hidden Cameras have got your anthem: "Ban Marriage." Recently, eight of them squeezed into the Rock and Roll Hotel to perform the song for The New Gay. The traditional-marriage-averse lyrics include references to fingering, "fag hags," and drunk ministers. What, no shout-out to the patriarchy? Full lyrics are after the jump.

I was late getting to church on the morning of my ceremony

Ban marriage
Ban marriage
Ban marriage
Ban marriage
Ban marriage
Ban it all

AshleyMadison.com, an online dating site that facilitates extramarital affairs, has never been too popular among moral conservatives. Earlier this year, Deroy Murdock argued on Human Events that Ashley Madison has edged out gay marriage as the number one threat to traditional matrimony. Now, cluck-clucking conservatives won't have to choose between the cheaters and the gays: Ashley Madison has begun marketing itself as a place where the married can pursue their same-sex attractions, too.

Ashley Madison's gay (and bi-curious) population is modest, but growing. Worldwide, the agency hosts 4.7 million members seeking extramarital affairs. Of those, only 143,427 are seeking some same-sex action. About two-thirds of Ashley Madison's same-sex seekers are women looking for women; one-third are men seeking men. Noel Biderman, Ashley Madison's CEO (married, two kids), says that his service provides a necessary sexual outlet for gay men and women who are trapped within the confines of traditional marriage. "There are men and women who, for whatever reason, might have been motivated to pursue a traditional marriage because they did want to build a family," Biderman says. "Unfortunately, in our culture, their sexuality is still at odds with that arrangement."

In an age when marriage equality is gaining serious steam, helping closeted gays escape their repressive straight marriages seems downright altruistic. But Ashley Madison isn't so progressive as to encourage gay men to marry each other. "They're not looking to leave their families," Biderman says of the same-sex contingent. "They're looking to have this on the side." Ashley Madison is not here to release gays from the closet—it's here to offer them a peek outside before returning them safely to nuclear family life. Meanwhile, it invests in the repression. "I don’t want to call it ironic, because people who find this ironic assume that we're a home-wrecking service," Biderman says. "We're not. We are a marriage preservation service."

Nobody relies on the preservation of traditional marriage like Ashley Madison. Ashley Madison's motto, "when divorce isn't an option," seems strange in a country where no-fault divorce makes it easy to reset one's relationship status to single. But Ashley Madison is not designed for folks willing to ruin their home lives so transparently. The service relies entirely on secrecy and discretion—what skeptics might call "lying" and "self-delusion." "This is not a service for people in open marriages," says Biderman. "There are sites out there for the courageous ones—the swinger couples who have found the courage to say, 'I love you, but I need to do something different in the bedroom,'" he says. Ashley Madison, on the other hand, is for people who "can't voice their sexual concerns to their spouses, because they are terrified of the repercussions," he says. "There's this notion that people who engage in infidelity are lying and deceitful," he says. "But people wouldn’t have to lie if these more realistic sexual options were socially acceptable."

As soon as those "realistic sexual options" are accepted, though, Ashley Madison goes kaput. The service wouldn't be making any money if people weren't terrified of communicating with their spouses. Besides, secrets are hot. Ashley Madison's branding centers around the service as a sexy, hush-hush taboo. Ashley Madison may have built an empire out of facilitating transgressions, but its continued success lies in reinforcing the traditional. Biderman's business will only remain viable so long as its members continue to invest in conservative, heterosexual marriages which reinforce monogamy. "People have told me, 'Oh, you should open Ashley Madison in France,'" says Biderman. "I tell them, 'You know, I don’t think they need me.'"

To date, Ashley Madison has only identified a need in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. In order for the service to expand, Biderman has got to locate other cultures that are currently struggling between the repressive and the progressive. "Places like Brazil offer an interesting dynamic, where infidelity among men is extremely high and among women it's much lower," he says. "There’s no reason to believe you can’t be wildly successful there. There is an incredible opportunity for a global phenomenon."

Biderman's latest campaign to make this an Ashley Madison world has, so far, failed to reach its full potential. "We always thought there would be a marketplace for same-sex affairs, but it's been difficult to cultivate it," says Biderman. "We could probably stretch those legs further, but there are so many obstacles to advertising our brand. We have enough difficulty advertising infidelity—think about the problems we'd have marketing to same-sex infidelity. I cant even tell you one avenue where I could effectively market that."

Ashley Madison's target demographic —people who lead conservative lifestyles but secretly yearn for a transgressive kick—is difficult to target. Social conservatives, remember, are obligated to respond to businesses like Ashley Madison with concern, outrage, and calls for banning. Ashley Madison claims to support the institution of marriage. Other American institutions have proven less than supportive of Ashley Madison. Recently, police kicked a tanker truck advertising Ashley Madison affairs out of the city of Philadelphia. Earlier this year, an Ashley Madison commercial was deemed too hot for the Superbowl. "We've got the Parent Television Council saying these ads are reprehensible," says Biderman of the Web site's conservative backlash. "There's this huge fear to have any sort of conversation about sex."

[youtube:v=EwJSD46JSoM]

As a result, Ashley Madison's marketing strategy has attempted to awkwardly straddle the divide between the conservative and the progressive. In one television spot, targeted toward women, Ashley Madison is offered as an alternative to a life married to a sexist pig. This husband arrives to an anniversary dinner late, leaves early, and in the meantime, ogles other women and implies that his wife is fat. Cheating on this guy practically constitutes a feminist act. The ad targeted at men contains no such progressive bent. In this version, the poor man's wife isn't a jerk—but she's fat, and she snores, too! This man is encouraged to cheat on his wife for more, shall we say, traditional reasons: he just wants to fuck someone else behind her back. And there's nothing progressive about dudes doing that.

[youtube:v=mZLjwhEp7nU]

Ashley Madison's new PR push advertising same-sex affairs may further alienate the conservative base it requires to stay relevant. Then again, perhaps the gay element is just what Ashley Madison needs to keep conservatives abreast of its services—and curious about exploring its taboos. Every time a religious conservative declares a sexual practice an affront to human decency, a new conservative kink is born.

Illustration by Bonnie Kennedy

Responding to criticisms of the provision, Catania Chief of Staff Ben Young said that domestic partnerships will be "unnecessary in a world with marriage equality." Young told the Blade, "Domestic partnerships were developed as a substitute for civil marriage for gays and lesbians, and could continue to serve as a vestige of an era of inequality." But as Harrice-Lacewell details, the institution of marriage itself is a vestige of centuries of sexism, racism, classism, and heteronormativity. Will incorporating same-sex couples into the institution manage to fully strip marriage of its problematic history?

In D.C., domestic partnerships afford same- and opposite-sex couples "nearly all of the rights, benefits and obligations of marriage." Here, the difference between partnership and marriage is largely symbolic. Marriage equality advocates across the country are fighting for that symbolic cultural recognition as much as they are the hospital visitation rights and the tax breaks. But for some couples, both gay and straight, the symbolic implications of marriage are precisely what  turn them off to the institution. For these people, domestic partnerships have functioned not as a vestige of inequality—a poor substitute for marriage—but rather as a welcome legal alternative, minus the cultural hang-ups. These couples should be allowed the option to secure the rights and benefits of marriage without associating with what has been, for centuries, a bigotry shit-show.

Even when everyone who wants to get hitched is allowed to, a "world with marriage equality" may still leave unmarried gay men and women outside the fold of this new-found social acceptance.  "I think that the more gay life can become legitimized (which is usually just code for "heteronormafied"), it will create a further subclass within the gay subclass," says Zack Rosen, editor of The New Gay. "[The current movement's] school of thought is that we can win rights by being the best damn gay people we can. That means getting married, washing behind our ears, etc. The problem with that, though, is that if it only rewards gay people that want to get married and have kids, the gay people that decide not to do that will become further marginalized."

Those gay people who do want to couple up for the long-term shouldn't be forced to opt into this problematic social institution in order to secure their legal rights. By denying couples the ability to enter into domestic partnerships, the District of Columbia tells its gay population that the road to legal and social equality must end in marriage. For those couples, gay and straight, who see marriage as an institution historically dedicated to inequalities, that reasoning is hard to swallow.

According to a recent Pew Research study, the District of Columbia has the lowest marriage rate in the country. Only 23 percent of women and 28 percent of men and in D.C. are married, compared to 48 and 52 percent nationwide. The rates in D.C. are so low that they lie entirely off the Pew map's color key. The closest states to D.C.'s numbers are Rhode Island, where 43 percent of women are married, and Alaska, where 47 percent of men are married.

Why aren't D.C. residents getting hitched?

The Pew poll offers up one possibly related figure: residents of D.C. get married significantly later in life than do the residents of the 50 states. In D.C., the median age at first marriage is 30 for women and 32 for men. In contrast, the median age for a first marriage in the state of Idaho is 24 for women and 25 for men.

Additionally, marriage rates are generally lower in urban areas than they are in rural areas. A quick review of the Pew map shows that states like Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas have the highest concentration of married couples, whereas the states which host the nation's biggest cities—like New York and California—generally have a lower percentage of married people. D.C., which is all city, all the time, would clearly trend toward singledom.

But the District also has another demographic issue working against high marriage rates. In the 2000 "gay census," the District of Columbia ranked first in the nation for its percentage of same-sex couples. Same-sex couples, of course, cannot currently be married in D.C., and their out-of-state marriages became recognized in the District only recently.

If D.C.'s gay marriage bill is successful, it won't just ensure equality for all. It will also, strangely enough, make D.C. look a lot better in the eyes of conservative defenders of traditional marriage. When those people glance at a report on the strength of marriage in this country, they probably think that us heathens in the District of Columbia are singlehandedly rejecting the institution. But in a couple years, D.C. may appear significantly more married. I'm not a big proponent of the institution myself, but I can appreciate the irony there: in D.C., at least, the tradition's remaining relevance may just depend upon same-sex couples wanting to opt-in.

According to the official rules:

Sixth & I warmly welcomes interfaith couples and same-sex couples*; however, the couple must provide a rabbi or other ordained Jewish clergyperson to participate in the officiation.

* The District of Columbia does not currently recognize same sex marriage under its laws.

Sixth & I private events coordinator Matt Goldenberg—who will be accepting video submissions until 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, Aug. 23 (wmv format please)—explains. If a same-sex couple wins the contest, the wedding ceremony won't be legally binding in Washington, D.C. However, Sixth & I will be available to consult the couple on a rabbi who will perform the ceremonial duties. "They way that will work is, an ordained rabbi will come in and say, 'between the three of us, we are married,'" he says.

While Sixth & I doesn't require a legal marriage to result from its wedding give-away, it does require a Jewish ceremony. "At least one half of the couple has to be Jewish," says Goldenberg.

The cast of Broadway's "HAIR" has canceled its scheduled performance for Oct. 11 in order to voice its support same-sex marriage. The faux-hippies will be bringing their sexual liberation message to Washington, D.C. that day in order to participate in the National Equality March. The Sexist, too, wishes she could play hooky in the name of marriage equality, but she'll probably be spending Oct. 11hard at work . . . live-blogging about the cast of Broadway's "HAIR." Listen, somebody's gotta keep tabs on the likes of Steel Burkhardt.

Well, close to the nation's capital, anyway: NOM's Twitter feed suggests that the office is actually located in nearby Hyattsville, Md.:

Which brings the fight against gay marriage within a 20 minute drive of the Capitol Building (up to 25 minutes in traffic):

On the bright side, NOM can drop off some fight-against-gay-marriage in Greater Landover and Cheverly on its morning commute!

Now that out-of-state same-sex marriages are officially recognized in the District of Columbia, we can all finally behold the full testimony of Oxon Hill Minister Leroy Swailes, who attempted to shut down the legislation with an anti-gay tour de force. Arguments include: the positivity of discrimination; the missing link between homosexuality and bestiality; how gays will destroy the world by dismantling the process of photosynthesis [via Pandagon].

The highlights from the transcript after the jump:

* "Now when I, when I was growing up here sex was only between a male and female. Now it’s between Adam and Adam Eve and Eve which I can’t understand."

* "If a man get with another man a woman get with another man. That’s it it’s inhuman."

* "Cause discrimination’s a negative and a positive. Me as a black men when they discriminated against me I came out of my mother’s womb like I didn’t have a choice. That was a negative discrimination. If you discriminate against a homosexual that’s a positive. Why? Cause of the children."

* "And you’re going to look in the eyes of a child and you’re going to tell a child that sex is between Adam and Adam Eve and Eve. You become a pedophile."

* "These books here. These books here. When they talk about King and King. And this and this Prince (unintelligible) Prince is a pedophile book. This book here that says Heather and Heather is a pedophile book. Pedophalia. Pha-Phaillia."

* "Everybody should have human rights but you have to be human."

* "That’s just like oxygen comes from plants. It goes up into the air. It mix with molecules with others in the air. It comes down hit Mother Earth. When they penetrate inserts Mother Earth we have what? What. We have life. Homosexuality’d destroy us."

* "The same sex. Which is a form of bestiality. Why is it a form of bestiality? Because a beast has four legs and one gender. If you put two men together they have four legs and two penises and still one gender. That’s a form of bestiality. That’s what we’re accepting here. If you put Adam Eve and Eve together two vaginas are still one gender. That’s a form of bestiality."

* "We have to separate it. And when you separate something you’re discrimination. If I put a glass of water here and a glass of poison, which one you’re gonna choose? You’re gonna choose the water. That’s discrimination. If you put a heterosexual girl here and a homosexual girl here I’m going choose a heterosexual. That’s discrimination."

UPDATE: :(

"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Mr. Steele told Republicans. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."

Finally exposed: the storied oppression of small business owners by teh gays. Oh what will he think of next!

Since recruiting adults to spout its homophobia didn't work out so well, the National Organization for Marriage has decided to feed its lines to adorable children instead! Let's see how they did:

CHILD ACTOR 1: Blonde, ruddy-cheeked, adooooorable
LINE: "Grandma? My teacher says, if Grandpa was a girl, that's okay. You can still be married."
BELIEVABILITY: What teacher contextualizes this debate in terms of grandparents? What kids talk about what they do at school? To their grandparents? Does this kid even look at the script before he takes the part?

CHILD ACTOR 2: Redhead, braces, adooooorable
LINE: "God creating Adam and Eve? That is so old-fashioned."
BELIEVABILITY: High. The liberals, they are teaching our children the tools of sarcasm.

CHILD ACTOR 3: The tiny bro in the popped-collar polo
LINE: "He should have created Anna and Eve."
BELIEVABILITY: Ugh. Definitely the producer's kid.

CHILD ACTOR 4: Blondie redux
LINE: "If my Dad married a man, who would be my Mom?"
BELIEVABILITY: Better material to work with here: a reasonable question, along the lines of "Why won't Snoopy wake up from his nap?" or "If there is a God, why does he make us sit still for an hour every Sunday?" This kid could grow up into a bonafide homophobe some day—or a guy who really, really resents his parents.

CHILD ACTOR 5: Loooook at that faaaaaaace!
LINE: "I'm confused."
BELIEVABILITY: I buy this: a small child, when placed in front of a video camera and asked to comment on government policy on same-sex marriage, reacts with confusion! This kid will be heading to Hollywood some day (the day all the gays are purged from Hollywood).