Delaware's News Journal captured one such moment, when, on Monday, state Sen. Karen Peterson and Vikki Bandy became the first same-sex couple to be married in Delaware.

Except the photo features one apparent interloper.

Among a group of people holding poster boards donned with messages like "I love my 2 moms," stands a smiling man holding a pink sign declaring "I'm here for the gang bang."

It's hard to say what motivated the photobomb. Was the sign-holder part of the small anti-gay rights contingent protesting outside of the courthouse? Did he use Apple Maps to get directions to a group sex rally and simply wind up in the wrong place? Is he a clueless young guy trying to insert petty homophobia into an otherwise happy event?

Significantly, no one in the photo seems to much notice him or care that he's there. They're too busy celebrating to be bothered by one man's stupidity.

Continue Reading...

Within hours of the appeals court's action Friday, the four plaintiffs who in 2009 sued to overturn the ban had exchanged vows during hastily arranged ceremonies that drew crowds of well-wishers as the news spread that the weddings were back on.

"I was at work," lead plaintiff Kristen Perry said, adding that she rushed home to Berkeley to change into a gray suit so she could marry her now-wife Sandra Stier at San Francisco City Hall.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris declared Perry and Stier "spouses for life" as hundreds of supporters looked on and cheered from the balconies ringing the couple's perch under City Hall's rotunda. The other couple in the Supreme Court case, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, was married at Los Angeles City Hall 90 minutes later wearing matching white rose boutonnières and with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa presiding.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

The Twitter account for SCOTUSblog, a site run by a group of law professors and lawyers and sponsored by Bloomberg Law, has been taking some of the heat and having fun with it:

[embedtweet id="349995851759894529"]

[embedtweet id="350019671208112130"]

[embedtweet id="350029841602584576"]

[embedtweet id="350062911777013760"]

[embedtweet id="350250286503313408"]

The Supreme Court doesn't have an official presence on Twitter, but perhaps those angry at SCOTUS can commiserate with parody Antonin Scalia.

Continue Reading...

FLASH BACK

Fifty years ago, gay sex was a crime in almost every state, homosexuality was designated a mental disorder, federal workers could easily lose their jobs for being gay and only the outliers were out of the closet, a risky if not dangerous place to be.

FLASH FORWARD

Gay marriage is legal in a dozen states and the District of Columbia, and could soon be again in California after the court's ruling Wednesday.

Gays can serve openly in the armed forces and do so in high office, including Congress. Eight people who have served as a U.S. ambassador or been nominated for that post are openly gay. Openly gay entertainers are commonplace, athletes less so.

It can still be dangerous to be out of the closet, which is why Congress expanded federal hate-crimes legislation in 2009 to cover crimes motivated by bias against gays, lesbians and transgender people. The law is named after Matthew Shepard, a gay college student tied to a fence, beaten and left to die in a 1998 case that sparked hate-crimes laws around the country.

Continue Reading...

Colbert's advice for those who feel that the institution of marriage is now threatened: "Traditional marriage is as defenseless as a freshman frat pledge about to go through the spanking machine. So straight people listen up: If a gay charges your marriage, you're gonna want to puff yourself up -- make yourself seem bigger -- try to frighten 'it' off by talking in a firm loud voice about pleated denim or Jimmy Buffett."

Continue Reading...

Gohmert steered clear of his old standbys of anti-gay rights panic while talking to the press, instead saying, rather somberly, that gay marriage in the United States signals the "end of a great civilization" and scolding the high court for going against "the laws of nature and nature's God."

Embedding on the video has been disabled, but you can watch the full thing here.

Continue Reading...

This morning, Americans are celebrating the SCOTUS ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act, a huge win for marriage equality.

[slide_show id=13337443]

Continue Reading...

Perry and Stier were soon joined on air by fellow plaintiffs Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami to listen in on the celebratory call.

You can watch the surprising moment here:

Continue Reading...

In the immediate wake of the Supreme Court's rulings striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 in California, the right-wing media remained relatively silent. At around 11 this morning, National Review led with a piece on President Obama's "radical climate agenda." Over at the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol was on the news with "Comprehensive immigration reform? Just say no."

The National Organization for Marriage didn't appear to have updated its site, focusing instead on suing the IRS and a "major victory" for marriage supporters" in Illinois, a comparably minor incident that happened last month. The professional homophobes over at the Family Research Council were similarly mum. [Ed.: They've now responded. See below.]

It's almost as if the right collectively realized that fighting marriage equality is not a winning issue in the 21st century. If so we wouldn't have anything to post. But they didn't completely disappoint.

Continue Reading...

There's nothing unusual about preparing press statements in advance. What is strange, however, is releasing them all at once -- before the high court announces its rulings.

Naturally, that's exactly what the institute did.

After breaking possible outcomes into the categories of "win-win," "partial win" and "lose-lose," the group went ahead and published all of them at once.

Here's what the group's director Joseph Backholm thinks of as a "win-win" scenario ("SCOTUS upholds natural marriage"):

…“I applaud the United States Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of the.  They were correct to rule that the U.S. Constitution does not include a “right” of same-sex couples to have their relationships officially affirmed as “marriages.”  We agree that the public’s interest in promoting responsible procreation provides a rational basis for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  The Court did the right thing by permitting the debate over the definition of marriage to continue through the democratic process.”

Continue Reading...

“There’s a sense of anticipation,” Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (FRC) told NBC News. “It’s likely the decisions will determine the landscape for where we go  from here, so I certainly don’t believe that the debate is going to be over, but the terms of the debate and sort of the lay of the field, will probably be very different at the end. "

National Organization for Marriage (NOM) chairman John Eastman met with FRC to discuss a political and public relations strategy if the court rules to strike down DOMA and Prop 8; though he wouldn't confirm details, he did say that "every possible scenario and outcome and gambit are being considered because this fight is critically important. If the Supreme Court … manufactures a right to same-sex marriage out of the Constitution, then the remedy would be a constitutional amendment."

Continue Reading...

If the court strikes down the DOMA provision defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, gay spouses will become eligible for immigration benefits currently only available to straight married couples.

"For the first time in immigration equality's history, our legal team is now assisting couples in preparing their green card applications," Steve Ralls, the communications director at the advocacy group Immigration Equality, told NBC News. "We're definitely preparing couples. The court ruling and the backup plan of congressional legislation make us confident more so than at any other time."

Continue Reading...

After looking at nearly 500 news segments on gay marriage, researchers found stories with more statements supporting gay marriage outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1.

More from Pew:

Almost half (47%) of the nearly 500 stories studied from March 18 (a week prior to the Supreme Court hearings), through May 12, primarily focused on support for the measure, while 9% largely focused on opposition and 44% had a roughly equal mix of both viewpoints was neutral. In order for a story to be classified as supporting or opposing same sex marriage, statements expressing that position had to outnumber the opposite view by at least 2-to-1. Stories that did not meet that threshold were defined as neutral or mixed.

Many of the events themselves during the period studied, such as announcements by politicians and state legislation, reflected movement towards same-sex marriage. Polls show the nation's views have been shifting as well, though there remains significant opposition with 51% of the public in support of legalizing same-sex marriage versus 42% opposed, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

Continue Reading...

The court decision in Roe did not "short-circuit" a political process at the state level to legalize abortion, nor did it "get too far ahead of public opinion." Instead, the Times argues (emphasis mine):

Continue Reading...

When asked about possible outcomes for the two high court cases, Savage predicted a short-term loss but long-term win for gay couples and families, explaining equal rights opponents are "running out of excuses."

And in rare Savage form, the clip is entirely SFW. No headphones necessary.

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

A roundup of the very best of the very worst they had to say.

Pat Robertson

Allowing gay couples to access the same rights and benefits as straight couples is an attack on “the foundation of our society" led by “a few people [who] want to have their way of doing of sex affirmed by everybody else,” Robertson warned on the "700 Club" on Wednesday.

“They say it’s homophobia to believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God. God is not a homophobe, God is almighty. He’s in charge of the world and this is the way he made it. Why? Because there isn't any other way to have children. Two men do not have children, two women do not have children. That is the way God made it."

Continue Reading...

There were several laugh breaks during Tuesday morning's oral arguments, which lasted just over an hour.

Let us yuk along with them:

Justice Elena Kagan gives Charles Cooper, the lawyer arguing in favor of Proposition 8, some real talk about having babies over age 55

Continue Reading...

The two couples challenging the ban are calling on the justices to strike down Prop 8 because they say it violates their constitutional rights of equal treatment and due process.

One of the couples named in the case, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, had their 2004 marriage invalidated by the California Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8. They have been together for 13 years, and have four children. In an interview with the Associated Press, Perry said that in the four years since the case began, her family has “lived our lives in this hurry-up-and-wait, pins-and-needles way."

"It's such a weird road we've been on," Perry added.

The second couple, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, have been together for 12 years.

Continue Reading...