jaysays.com |

because simon isn’t cool anymore.


December 14, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Headline, Thought of the Gay

As you may recall, Mark Reed-Walkup and Dante Walkup were married this past October. Their marriage was officiated via Skype by a person authorized to perform marriages by the District of Columbia, who was physically in DC at the time of the service. Mark and Dante decided to conduct their vows in their home state so that family and friends could be in attendance without the significant costs and problems of flying everyone to DC.

However, after the Skype wedding made headlines DC officials intervened and nullified the wedding on the grounds that Mark and Dante were not in the District at the time the ceremony was performed.

More recently, and in what can only be an effort to prevent future public relations disasters, a DC Clerk’s office posted this sign:

DC Clerk Posting - Marriages must physically be in DC

However, such provision is not presently included in the District of Columbia’s Official Code governing marital relationships (See: Division VII, Title 46, Subtitle I, Ch. 4). Instead, DC has taken upon itself to enforce a provision of law which does not exist. This means, if you or someone you know obtained a marriage license from the District of Columbia, but conducted the ceremony even inches outside the confines of the District’s border (perhaps for a better view of the ocean), your marriage may be nullified, too.

For example, let’s say you’ve lived and worked all your life in DC as has your future spouse. You and your spouse decide to get married, head off to the clerk’s office, get your license, abide by the 3 day waiting period, plan your ceremony, go to Little Falls Park (5.6 miles from the center of DC) and get married. YOU WERE NOT IN D.C.

Or let’s say you take a look at popular wedding places in the D.C. area and choose one of the top ten venues, Brookside Gardens. You are not in D.C., and therefore your marriage is not valid!

DC retroactively nullified the marriage of Mark and Dante due to this “requirement.” How many more marriages will they nullify? Will yours be next?

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 7

February 11, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

It didn’t take long for the opponents of equal rights to scream “BIAS!” when the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the justice presiding over the Perry case (the Prop 8 case) is a homosexual.  On the blog for the leading anti-equality organization, the National Organization for [Heterosexual Only] Marriage (NOM), its executive director, David Duke Brian S. Brown, had this to say about the justice:

He’s been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee.

The painfully obvious truth is that had the Judge presiding over the trial been a heterosexual, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant (as has been the case in most trials against equality), and had the queers yelled fowl as often and in the same manner that the bias-based organization NOM has yelled fowl, we would be considered radical extremists intent on denying the religious freedoms of all — oh wait, we already are considered that to NOM!!!

Since a straight judge would be biased against the gays, and a gay judge is purportedly biased against the straights, here’s my theory:  Only a bisexual judge can be unbiased and see both sides of the story… of course, even an unbiased person should be able to easily recognize the repugnant lies being told by Hate, Inc. about us queer folk.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: The Prop 8 Trial Series, Part 1

January 09, 2010 By: jaysays Category: Featured, Stupid Things People Say About Gays

The trial that may repeal the disgustingly discriminatory Proposition 8 in California (which denies couples of the same sex from entering into the civil contract of marriage) begins January 11, 2010.  With that trial will come many “stupid things” that people say about gays.  The opposition will be presenting their ridiculous arguments (including one where they claim gay marriage will result in children having sexual fantasies about their same-sex friends).  Thus, it’s a proper time to start the Proposition 8 Series for Stupid Things People Say About Gays.

Let’s get things started (even before the trial begins): Hak-Shing William Tam intervened in the much talked about Perry v. Schwarzenegger case as an official litigant to defend Proposition 8 and continue to oppress same-sex couples.  After doing so, a sad thing purportedly happened, Tam’s family began receiving threats and had property vandalized.

Although I completely understand the urge to beat the living hell out of those that oppress any people, I disagree with actually doing it.  However, that’s a discussion for another time and place – we have to get to the stupid things people say about gays before I run out of typing space.

On Friday, Tam appeared in court and advised the justice:

Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase. [emphasis added]

It sucks, doesn’t it Tam – to feel that people are targeting you and your family because you believe differently than they do or because you feel differently than they do?  It’s a sad way to have to live your life.  No one should ever feel their family is in danger because of their political opinions or social class.

In fact, I shouldn’t have to feel that way either.  Unfortunately, I’ve felt that way the bulk of my life. I can recall very specific situations where my sexual orientation has nearly killed me.  I can recall each and ever death threat, each hate email, and more particularly I recall the day I discovered the word “FAG” scrawled in the paint of my car door.  I live with that fear every day because of people like you who think you deserve more than I deserve.

Now, please accept my most sarcastic apology if your tyrannical behavior has caused you to feel, even for such a brief period of time, the way you  and those like you have made me feel since I was a young, scared little “sissy” boy.  But there is a key difference in what is happening to you and what has happened to me.  You have put yourself out there to attack and oppress a group of people; whereas, I just came out as a gay man.

Oh, and did I mention that Tam is the one making the claim that the kids will fantasize about their same-sex friends?

NOTE: For more of the column, Stupid Things People Say About Gays, click here.

Massachusetts Sues United States for Marriage Equality.

July 09, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Featured, LGBT News, Marriage Equality

massachusettsIt’s easy to see why so much attention is being given to the lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, is getting so much attention.  Massachusetts was the first of the now six states to provide marriage equality to its citizens.  It now seems Massachusetts will lead the way as the State challenges the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”).

But before the wahoos in Texas and other jurisdictions get their Bibles all up in people’s faces, the challenge presented by Massachusetts doesn’t challenge Section 2 of DOMA which allows states not to recognize unions performed in other jurisdictions, but instead challenges Section 3 which defines marriage on the federal level as being between one man and one woman.

One of the many, many problems with DOMA is that it contradicts itself.  On one hand, it provides that states define marriage for themselves; however, it then defines marriage under federal law which isn’t always the same definition allocated by states to such contractual relationships – thus, although it attempts to make it appear that the states have the power, it strips power from the state.  Essentially, the federal lawsuit attempts to make the United States recognize that, if the states have the power to define marriage, the United States must recognize the state’s definition.

Think of it this way: If a man and woman were to get married anywhere in the United States, they receive a federal entitlement for Social Security benefits, tax benefits and so forth, even though the federal government is not the agency which issued, approved, filed or otherwise regulated the marriage.  However, if you are in a state where same-sex couple can marry, the federal government does not recognize that marriage.  Same-sex couples in those jurisdictions can therefore file state income tax records as “married,” but the United States taxes are filed as “single.”  This creates a confusing and ludicrous double standard.

As the federal lawsuits keep piling up in an effort to expose discrimination in legal matters, consider this: the economy is still in a recession.  The federal government, in its zeal to protect the erroneous Christian philosophy that marriage is a vow before G0d between one man and one woman, is wasting hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to make it appear as though the discriminatory policies are legal – similar to the other horrifying human rights violations like detention without representation, domestic wire tapping and torture.

Related News Articles:

Massachusetts sues U.S. over gay marriage rights | U.S. | Reuters.

State Suit Challenges U.S. Defense of Marriage Act – NYTimes.com.

Mass. to challenge US marriage law – The Boston Globe.


UPDATED: Maine Governor O.K.’s Bill Allowing Gay Marriage

May 06, 2009 By: jaysays Category: LGBT News, Marriage Equality

Marriage RallyMaine Governor John Baldacci has signed a bill which makes Maine the fifth state [along with Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa] in the United States to allow same-gender marriages.  The Maine Legislature gave the bill over to Baldacci, who had been undecided on the measure.

Three cheers for Maine for joining the right side of the issue!

Here’s the text of the Governor’s speech after signing the legislation:

I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully. I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.

I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue. This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.

In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.

Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’

This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State.

It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.

Even as I sign this important legislation into law, I recognize that this may not be the final word. Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people.

While the good and just people of Maine may determine this issue, my responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and do, as best as possible, what is right. I believe that signing this legislation is the right thing to do.

It is nice to see that the governor has addressed the fact that the State, in allowing and recognizing same-gender marraiges, is not forcing any church or religious organization to perform such marriages should they choose not to.