By comparison to the Star Tribune's puff pieces on the state anti-marriage amendment issue, the Saint Paul Pioneer Press ran a relatively informative article last Monday:
The Pioneer Press discusses the 'legal equivalence' language present in the various proposed constitutional amendments, asking mumerous legal scholars what the effect of such language might be. The article points out that ramifications extend beyond same-sex couples to potentially include all unmarried couples — gay and straight.
Some of the areas were unmarried partners might be impacted or face legal challenges include:
- Health care and other domestic partner benefits (from state employers)
- Health care and other domestic partner benefits (from private employers)
- Domestic partnership registration (City of Minneapolis)
- Health care directives
- Insurance claims
- Adoption rights
- Nondiscrimination in employment
- Child support
- Other financial arrangements
- Other contracts between unmarried couples
Apparently she's been fooling us all this time, but Barbra Streisand's not really Jewish. At least not according to Don Feder, founder and president of
Would it matter if acceptance of gay marriage did lead to acceptance of polygamy (either socially or legally)? Should civil marriage be separated from the religious rite of matrimony, with the former being guaranteed by the state regardless of the gender of the two partners? Shouldn't GLBT couples have the same rights as different-sex married couples?
I wonder if it's directly in response to the flood of complaints the Star Tribune must have received following Katherine Kersten's recent
I was inspired today by the following passage, from 
GLBT rights movements across the nation are beginning to discover what many of us gay Christians have known all along - God matters.