I am a gay man in NYC.  My partner Rusty and I have been together for 8 years.  I use the term "partner" because, here in New York, we are not allowed to marry. That may change if we can ever get the Republicans out of power in the State Senate, but for now, it is the reality.

I often see it asked, however -- and this, by persons whom I know to be well-meaning and supportive of recognition of same-sex relationships -- why it is necessary to push for "marriage".  Why, it is said, aren't civil unions, or domestic partnerships, or some other arrangement sufficient?  Why must we antagonize people by pressing for full entry into the institution of marriage?

I could answer this is many ways.  We could talk about the inherent repugnance of "separate-but-equal."  We could talk about the absurdity of creating new legal institutions just for the purpose of marking same-sex relationships as different.  But today, I'd like to talk about the actual, real-world, practical issues.  As a court decision of yesterday demonstrates, the denial of same-sex marriage rights affects our lives in real ways.

Meet John Langan.  
(Let me tell you more after the jump.)

FYI, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in employment, is about to be voted on in the House.  A motion to recommit just failed.  While I wish that ENDA had included gender identity protection, and would have rather waited until it could, now that it's up for a vote let's hope the House gets it right and votes for it.  Could be a historic day.

Some folks have wanted to see the text of the amendment to S. 1042 introduced by Lindsey Graham (R-Nuremberg) yesterday.  I thought I'd put it in a diary for easy reference. (After the jump.)  Here's a link to the Congressional Record page.

I just checked my email and found an alert from the Center for Constitutional Rights, stating that Sen. Lindsay Graham of SC intends today to offer an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over challenges to indefinite detention by prisoners at Guantanamo or elsewhere.  

God, that title sounds boring, doesn't it? Well, this is for the legal wonks out there.  Most of you have probably heard by now that DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, filed a motion arguing for dismissal of last week's indictment for conspiracy to violate the Texas Election Code because, allegedly, the crime of conspiracy wasn't made applicable to the Election Code until 2003 -- i.e., after the events alleged in the indictment (which took place in September 2002) -- and can't be applied retroactively to make that conduct criminal.  I thought I'd provide a little bit of the actual statutory law involved so you can understand why this argument is probably bogus (in addition, of course, to the fact that it is Tom DeLay making it).  

For the information of anyone who's interested (and is looking for an alternative to Bush's spectacle), the Canadian House of Commons is nearing a vote on the bill, C-38, to legalize same-sex marriage.  Probably in the next few minutes or so.

You can watch by going to the Canadian House of Commons webpage.

I was reading Justice Kennedy's decision yesterday in Granholm v. Heald, in which the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot allow in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers while at the same time banning out-of-state wineries from doing likewise.  (OK, it's true, I have no life.)  Anyway, as I started reading the introductory fact section, I was struck by what seemed like an unusual number of cites to the internet -- three in the first couple of pages, to be exact. (More after the jump...)

The Washington Post has the text of the bill passed by the Senate today and that will be debated tonight by the House.  I just thought I'd post the text here because I know many of you are interested in it. (Below the jump.)

It's a shame that not even one Senator could be bothered to stop this travesty.  That's all it would have taken: one.  Shame on all of them.

In my thinking about Tuesday's results, it struck me that, even with the fact that the turnout was strong, it was still only about 60%.  So if you think about it, Bush voters only represent about 30% of the population.  Of course Kerry voters are only about 30% too.  The 40% who didn't vote represent a bigger group than either of us.  

Anybody know what's going on with icasualties.org? I usually rely on it for the latest Iraqi casualty figures, but lately I can't access it. I read recently that the Pentagon is blocking soldiers from accessing it, but is it possible <adjusting tinfoil hat> that the Pentagon's blocking is, shall we say, slightly overinclusive?

Those of you who marched last Sunday will no doubt remember that, upon reaching 34th & 7th, we were treated to a display of Fox News Channel on the Macy's jumbotron. (I guess that's what you call it, although it's nowhere near as big as the "real" jumbotron in Times Square. Anyway, it's a big freakin' video screen.) At least in my little section of the march, this brought out a chorus of "Fox News Sucks!" -- not the cleverest chant, perhaps, but it does get points for accuracy.

Anyway, I thought that Macy's decision to display Fox News on that particular day seemed, shall we say, a tad inappropriate. Indeed, one might say deliberately provocative. (A disclaimer: I don't know if perhaps Faux News is on that screen often, but everytime I've passed by, it's some ad for Macy's. Also, lest anyone get the wrong idea, this is NOT like the big billboards in Times Square, where you really can't hold the building's owner responsible -- this video screen has "MACY'S" on it in big letters.) So, I decided to pay a visit to the Macy's/Federated website and send them some customer feedback...

As is being reported by several sources today, the US is close to a deal to release Yaser Esam Hamdi from the Naval brig where he's been confined for the past 3 or so years. From today's Times: (more after the jump...)