Gay Marriage

[Angharad]

For it? Against it? Indifferent? Uninformed?

With NY state legalizing gay marriage, many of us are hoping more states will join Massachusetts, Connecticut, California*, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia, and make these unions legal.

Gay people in committed relationships won't go away any more than will straight people in committed relationships...And dats a faq, Jack!

Tell us or show us how you feel about any aspect of this issue...

 * The California Supreme Court ruled on May 15, 2008, that same-sex couples have the right to marry in California.  Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, was passed on Nov. 4, 2008.  On Aug. 4, 2010, a federal district judge ruled that the same-sex marriage ban in Proposition 8 violated the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Enforcement of that decision has been stayed pending appeal. California does not currently allow same-sex marriages to be performed. Same-sex marriages performed before Proposition 8 was passed remain valid.

 

 

 

[Angharad]

Yahooooooooooooooooooooooo, Chrissy! Nice to see you, Girl!!!

I totally agree with you.

And, as DD said, thank you for your support.

[Angharad]

HUZZAH, RHODE ISLAND  (my home state) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rhode Island Legalizes Gay Marriage

 Rhode Island became the tenth U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage on 4/24/13 with a 56-15 vote.

Just before he signed the legislation into law, Gov. Lincoln Chafee took to the steps of the Rhode Island State House, where he told a jubilant crowd, "Today we are making history ... we are living up to the ideals of our founder."

He went on to note, "When your belief and heart is in something, it's easy work. I am proud to say that now, at long last, you are free to marry the person you love."

Echoing those sentiments was Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox, who teared up noted, "True equality is something that is inherently human."

Fox, who is openly gay, spoke about his longtime partner Marcus. He then added, "We're not going to be talking about same-sex marriage anymore, we're going to be talking about marriage."

As the Associated Press is reporting, the new law will take effect on Aug. 1.

[Angharad]

HOORAY FOR THE TINY FIRST STATE!!!!! Good going little one!

There still needs to be work to get more rights and benefits for same sex couples, and to tweak the legislation around transgendered people; but the legislature moved VERY quickly moving from civil unions to marriage within one year. That's a good thing!!! So there's hope for the whole shebang.

(Photo: Kyle Grantham, AP)

WILMINGTON, Del. -- Delaware became the 11th state to legalize same-sex marriage after a lengthy debate Tuesday in the state Senate and the surprise votes of two lawmakers.

A half hour after the 12-9 Senate vote, Gov. Jack Markell signed the legislation into law on the main stairs in the lobby of Legislative Hall.

Democratic Sen. Bethany Hall-Long and Republican Sen. Catherine Cloutier provided the swing votes in favor of the legislation. Cloutier was the lone Republican yes vote in the Senate and one of two in the General Assembly as a whole.

According to the bill, Delawareans will be able to enter into same-sex marriages effective July 1. The law provides a mechanism for converting existing same-sex civil unions established in Delaware to marriages.

"I think this is the right thing for Delaware," Markell said after the vote, while posing for pictures with supporters outside his legislative office. "It took an incredible team effort."

Gay rights activists and their supporters in the chamber erupted in cheers after the Senate vote.

Delaware's same-sex marriage bill was introduced in the Democrat-controlled Legislature last month, barely a year after the state began recognizing same-sex civil unions. The bill won passage two weeks ago in the state House on a 23-18 vote.

While it doesn't give same-sex couples any more rights or benefits under Delaware law than those they already have in civil unions, supporters argued same-sex couples deserve the dignity and respect of married couples. They also noted that if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which bars married gay couples from receiving federal benefits, civil unions would not provide protections or tax benefits under federal law to same-sex couples in Delaware.

Opponents, including scores of conservative religious leaders from across the state, argued same-sex marriage redefines and destroys a centuries-old institution that is a building block of society.

Under the bill, no new civil unions will be performed in Delaware after July 1, and existing civil unions will be converted to marriages over the next year. The legislation also states that same-sex unions established in other states will be treated the same as marriages under Delaware law.

The bill does not force clerics to perform same-sex marriages that conflict with their religious beliefs. But under an existing Delaware law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, business owners who refuse to provide marriage-related services to same-sex couples for reasons of conscience could be subject to discrimination claims.

Delaware joins neighboring Maryland and the nearby District of Columbia as jurisdictions that have approved gay marriage. Last week, Rhode Island became the 10th state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, with independent Gov. Lincoln Chafee signing the bill an hour after its final passage.

Contributing: The Associated Press

[Angharad]

HUZZAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONE BIG STEP TOWARD SANITY!

Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON -- The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

Justice Kennedy delivered the court’s opinion, and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito all filed dissenting opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia's dissent in whole and parts of Alito's opinion.

As Kennedy read the majority opinion from the bench, cries were heard in the courtroom when the justice delivered the verdict that DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment. A number of same-sex couples sitting in the audience looked up at the ceiling, while others wiped away tears.

DOMA, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, prevented same-sex couples whose marriages were recognized by their home state from receiving the hundreds of benefits available to other married couples under federal law. During the Obama administration, the Justice Department initially defended DOMA in court despite the administration’s desire to repeal it. But the Justice Department changed coursein early 2011, finding that the law was unconstitutional and declining to defend it any longer. (The majority opinion slightly criticized that decision on Wednesday, writing that the "failure to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress based on a constitutional theory not yet established in judicial decisions" had "created a procedural dilemma.") House Republicans have since spent hundreds of thousands of dollars taking over that defense.

Plaintiff Edie Windsor, 84, sued the federal government after the Internal Revenue Service denied her refund request for the $363,000 in federal estate taxes she paid after her spouse, Thea Spyer, died in 2009.

During the March oral arguments in United States v. Windsor, a majority of the court seemed to express doubts about the constitutionality of DOMA. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that supporters of the law seemed to want "two types of marriage," likening same-sex unions to the "skim milk" version of marriage.

On Wednesday, the court’s majority ruled that the power of the individual state in defining marriage "is of central relevance" and the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is "of immense import." The state, the court ruled, "used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community." The court held that DOMA "because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage."

DOMA’s "demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law," the majority ruled. "This raises a most serious question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment." DOMA, the majority said, "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples" and "makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

Roberts, in his written dissent, said he "would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry" without "more convincing evidence that the Act’s principal purpose was to codify malice." He said he believed Congress acted constitutionally when it passed legislation to "retain the definition of marriage that, at that point, had been adopted by every State in our Nation, and every nation in the world."

Scalia delivered his dissent from the bench. "In the majority’s telling," he said, "this story is black-and-white: hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad."

Some, Scalia said, "will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it, that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better."

In his written dissent, Scalia declared that the Constitution "neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the consumption of alcohol." The majority’s opinion, he wrote, declares "open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited."

One of the same-sex couples whose eyes had glistened with tears just moments before chuckled to themselves as Scalia spoke, rolling their eyes when he noted that the majority had characterized DOMA supporters as "unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob."

But Scalia argued the majority's decision "aggrandizes" the Supreme Court for little other purpose than "to buy a stolen moment in the spotlight."

After concluding his dissent, Scalia prepared to deliver the verdict in Sekhar v. United States, a comparatively obscure case questioning whether an attorney's recommendation can be the subject of an extortion attempt under the federal Hobbs Act.

"I'm sorry about that, but this is short," he joked.

The room erupted in laughter, and the court moved on to its next case.

Shortly after DOMA was struck down, President Barack Obama released astatement celebrating the decision. "This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it," he said.

[Angharad]

Go Navy!!! It took them long enough but at least there is progress!

U.S. Naval Academy Hosts First Same-Sex Wedding

The military school marked an historic moment last weekend, hosting the nuptials of graduate David Bucher and his partner Bruce Moats.

BY DANIEL REYNOLDS

Newlyweds David Bucher and Bruce Moats

For the first time in its 169-year history, the United States Naval Academy has rung wedding bells for a same-sex couple.

David Bucher, a 49-year-old graduate of the academy, married longtime partner Bruce Moats Saturday in the Annapolis, Md., military school’s chapel, reports NBC News.

The couple, wearing matching blue suits, yellow ties, and boutonnieres, recognized the momentous nature of their ceremony, which included Bible readings and a recitation of the U.S. Navy Hymn.

“We’re here to break barriers and take advantage of the rights we have,” said Moats, a director of communications at the World Bank.

Though same-sex marriage was legalized in Maryland last year, "not everyone agrees that this should be happening," said Lt. John Connolly, the officiant of the ceremony.

“Not everyone agrees that this should be happening, and it took a significant amount of discernment on my own part as well as this couple’s as they were preparing for the day,” Connolly said, adding, "The more I met with this couple, the happier I was to be presiding today."

The ceremony was particularly significant for Bucher, who said his sexual orientation factored into his unwilling departure from the Navy in the early ’90s.

“As a gay man in the military, the military didn’t want me,” said Bucher, who now works for the Pentagon. “There was some aspect of my personal being that made me less qualified, they thought, so that was why I exited the Navy. There was a certain level of rejection there.”

But after being married at his alma mater to the man he loves, with their two children in attendance, Bucher said he felt vindicated.

“To me,” he said, “that is a triumph.”

[Angharad]

A little comic relief from Key & Peele.

This is what gay marriage is NOT. :>)

Key and Peele
Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

[Angharad]

HUZZAH!!!!!!!!!!!!  WE WON!!!!

________________________________________

Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide

By ADAM LIPTAKJUNE 26, 2015

WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, theSupreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

“No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic decision. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”

Marriage is a “keystone of our social order,” Justice Kennedy said, adding that the plaintiffs in the case were seeking “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

The decision, which was the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, set off jubilation and tearful embraces across the country, the first same-sex marriages in several states, and resistance — or at least stalling — in others. It came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of the unions.

Vin Testa celebrated Friday after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. “Love has won,” the crowd chanted as courtroom witnesses raised their arms in victory. CreditZach Gibson/The New York Times

The court’s four more liberal justices joined Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. Each member of the court’s conservative wing filed a separate dissent, in tones ranging from resigned dismay to bitter scorn.

In dissent, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the Constitution had nothing to say on the subject of same-sex marriage.

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

In a second dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia mocked the soaring language of Justice Kennedy, who has become the nation’s most important judicial champion of gay rights.

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,” Justice Scalia wrote of his colleague’s work. “Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent.”

As Justice Kennedy finished announcing his opinion from the bench on Friday, several lawyers seated in the bar section of the court’s gallery wiped away tears, while others grinned and exchanged embraces.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010, was on hand for the decision, and many of the justices’ clerks took seats in the chamber, which was nearly full as the ruling was announced. The decision made same-sex marriage a reality in the 13 states that had continued to ban it.

Outside the Supreme Court, the police allowed hundreds of people waving rainbow flags and holding signs to advance onto the court plaza as those present for the decision streamed down the steps. “Love has won,” the crowd chanted as courtroom witnesses threw up their arms in victory.

In remarks in the Rose Garden, President Obama welcomed the decision, saying it “affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts.”

“Today,” he said, “we can say, in no uncertain terms, that we have made our union a little more perfect.”

James Obergefell, center, a plaintiff, sued when Ohio refused to recognize his marriage to John Arthur, who died in 2013. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

Justice Kennedy was the author of all three of the Supreme Court’s previous gay rights landmarks. The latest decision came exactly two years after his majority opinion in United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly 12 years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.

In all of those decisions, Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes.

“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times,” he wrote on Friday. “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

This drew a withering response from Justice Scalia, a proponent of reading the Constitution according to the original understanding of those who adopted it. His dissent was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

“They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment,” Justice Scalia wrote of the majority, “a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”

Supporters of same-sex marriage gathered outside the Supreme Court on Friday.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

“These justices know,” Justice Scalia said, “that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry.”

Justice Kennedy rooted the ruling in a fundamental right to marriage. Of special importance to couples, he said, is raising children.

“Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers,” he wrote, “their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.”

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion.

In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts said the majority opinion was “an act of will, not legal judgment.”

“The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs,” he wrote. “Just who do we think we are?”

The majority and dissenting opinions took differing views about whether the decision would harm religious liberty. Justice Kennedy said the First Amendment “ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” He said both sides should engage in “an open and searching debate.”

Chief Justice Roberts responded that “people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in his dissent, saw a broader threat from the majority opinion. “It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” Justice Alito wrote. “In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

Gay rights advocates had constructed a careful litigation and public relations strategy to build momentum and bring the issue to the Supreme Court when it appeared ready to rule in their favor. As in earlier civil rights cases, the court had responded cautiously and methodically, laying judicial groundwork for a transformative decision.

It waited for scores of lower courts to strike down bans on same-sex marriages before addressing the issue, and Justice Kennedy took the unusual step of listing those decisions in an appendix to his opinion.

Chief Justice Roberts said that only 11 states and the District of Columbia had embraced the right to same-sex marriage democratically, at voting booths and in legislatures. The rest of the 37 states that allow such unions did so because of court rulings. Gay rights advocates, the chief justice wrote, would have been better off with a victory achieved through the political process, particularly “when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.”

In his own dissent, Justice Scalia took a similar view, saying that the majority’s assertiveness represented a “threat to American democracy.”

But Justice Kennedy rejected that idea. “It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic process,” he wrote. “The issue before the court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

Later in the opinion, Justice Kennedy answered the question. “The Constitution,” he wrote, “grants them that right.”

Correction: June 26, 2015 

An earlier version of this article misstated the time period since Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime. It is 12 years, not 10.

[Angharad]

2 women marry after 72 years together

Vivian Boyack, 91, left, and Alice "Nonie" Dubes, 90, began a new chapter in their 72-year relationship when the Rev. Linda Hunsaker presided over their wedding Saturday at First Christian Church, Davenport, Iowa. 

Vivian Boyack and Alice "Nonie" Dubes say it is never too late for people to write new chapters in their lives.

Boyack, 91, and Dubes, 90, began a new chapter in their 72-year relationship Saturday when they exchanged wedding vows at First Christian Church, Davenport.

Surrounded by family and a small group of close friends, the two held hands as the Rev. Linda Hunsaker told the couple that, “This is a celebration of something that should have happened a very long time ago.”

The two met in Yale, Iowa, where they grew up, and moved to Davenport in 1947.

Boyack was a longtime teacher in Davenport, directing the lives of children at Lincoln and Grant elementary schools.

“I always wanted to be a teacher,” Boyack said Saturday after the ceremony. “My plan at an early age was to teach in the school where I was then going, and my teacher would move on to another school.”

Dubes worked for the Times and Democrat for 13 years in payroll. “I signed the paychecks for everybody, including Bill Wundram,” she said. After leaving the news business, she worked for Alter Corp. for 25 years.

Over the years, the two have traveled to all 50 states, all the provinces of Canada, and to England twice.

“We’ve had a good time,” Dubes said. Boyack added it takes a lot of love and work to keep a relationship going for 72 years.

Jerry Yeast, 73, of Davenport, has known the couple since he was an 18-year-old landscaper working in their yard.

“I’ve known these two women all my life, and I can tell you, they are special,” Yeast said. “This is a very special day for all of us.”

[Angharad]

This picture of two lovely, happy young ladies about to get married in NYC just makes me happy!!! 

[Angharad]

Here's a happy, life-affirming story!!

Former Senator Prepares to Wed Man — At Age 90

Harris Wofford, who represented Pennsylvania in the Senate, finds love with a man after being wed to a woman for nearly 50 years.

BY NEAL BROVERMAN

APRIL 24 2016 3:52 PM EDT

After losing his wife 20 years ago and then finding love — and soon marriage — with a man 50 years his junior, former Pennsylvania senator Harris Wofford shares his story in The New York Times.

Writing an essay entitled, "Finding Love Again, This Time With a Man," Wofford talks of the deep love and commitment he shared with his wife, Clare. Both husband and wife were committed to the cause of civil rights, with Harris Wofford working with both President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., to further racial equality. 

Harris and Clare were fiercely loyal to each other, Wofford writes, and he was devastated to lose her to leukemia two decades ago. 

The Democrat, who served Pennsylvania from 1991-1995, says he expected to spend the rest of his days alone. That all changed 15 years ago, when he met 25-year-old Matthew Charlton at a Fort Lauderdale beach. The two would become friends, travel the world, and then, to Wofford's surprise, fall in love.

"Twice in my life, I’ve felt the pull of such passionate preference," Wofford, who doesn't identify as gay, straight, or bisexual, writes. "At age 90, I am lucky to be in an era where the Supreme Court has strengthened what President Obama calls 'the dignity of marriage' by recognizing that matrimony is not based on anyone’s sexual nature, choices or dreams. It is based on love."

Wofford and Charlton will marry on April 30.

[Angharad]

The Forgotten History of Gay Marriage

Editor’s note: This post was originally published on March 14, 2012. Since then, there have been many changes and advancements in LGBTQ rights around the world. The information in this post still holds true, though, and is an important reminder. Enjoy!

Republicans and other opponents of gay marriage often speak of marriage as being a 2,000 year old tradition (or even older). Quite apart from the fact that the definition of marriage has changed from when it was a business transaction, usually between men, there is ample evidence that within just Christian tradition, it has changed from the point where same-sex relationships were not just tolerated but celebrated.

In the famous St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai, there is an icon which shows two robed Christian saints getting married. Their ‘pronubus’ (official witness, or “best man”) is none other than Jesus Christ.

The happy couple are 4th Century Christian martyrs, Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus — both men.

Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that “we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life.” More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, Saint Serge is described as the “sweet companion and lover (erastai)” of St. Bacchus.

Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

Yale historian John Richard Boswell discovered this early Christian history and wrote about it nearly 20 years ago in “Same Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe“ (1994).

In ancient church liturgical documents, he found the existence of an “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century Slavonic).

He found many examples of:

A community gathered in a church
A blessing of the couple before the altar
Their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages
The participation of a priest
The taking of the Eucharist
A wedding banquet afterwards
A 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union,” uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell documented such sanctified unions up until the 18th century.

In late medieval France, a contract of “enbrotherment” (affrèrement) existed for men who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse.

Other religions, such as Hinduism and some Native American religions, have respect for same-sex couples weaved into their history.

When right-wing evangelical Christians talk about “traditional marriage,” there is no such thing.