Star Trek Star George Takei Marries Brad Altman

Star Trek Star George Takei Marries Brad Altman

September 17, 2008

Keywords: Star Trek, George Takei, Ellen DeGeneres, Portia de Rossi, same-sex marriage, gay, lesbian, LGBT, Prop. 8, November election



George Takei and longtime partner Brad Altman have joined Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi as celebrity same-sex couples who took advantage of California's legalization of same-sex marriage, People magazine reports. Takei and Altman wed on Sunday in a Buddhist ceremony in downtown Los Angeles. A Scottish bagpiper led Takei, 71, and Altman, 54, to the reception on the grounds of the Japanese American National Museum. On the way, the couple, along with their maid of honor and best man (Takei's former "Star Trek" co-stars Nichelle Nichols and Walter Koenig), flashed the "live long and prosper" hand sign to photographers and friends, according to the article.


"All I can remember is what the priest said," Takei told People after the ceremony. "That this moment will never happen again. It's something to savor."



Same-sex marriage is a fiercely debated issue in California. In November, the state's voters will decide on Proposition 8, which, if passed, would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage

Calif. Utilities Giant Sued for Funding $250K against Gay 'Marriage' Ban| Christianpost.com

Calif. Utilities Giant Sued for Funding $250K against Gay 'Marriage' Ban| Christianpost.com

By Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Sep. 17 2008 12:11 PM EDT
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic The Pacific Justice Institute, which specializes in
"It is outrageous that a mammoth utility used my money to undermine the values of families in my community," remarked Dacus, who is based in Sacramento, in a statement Monday.

The complaint contends that the PG&E contribution to "No on Proposition 8 Campaign" is unlawful and should be investigated by the Commission. It also requests that the "Commission take all appropriate actions to remedy this matter, including fines, available under the law."

"Proposition 8 has no relevance to the supply and distribution of energy services to its customers," the complaint states.

"As a corporation which has been given near monopoly status (CA Public Utilities Code section 451, et seq.), its use of money extracted from customers to influence an item appearing on the ballot that does not promote the welfare of customers relative to energy is an abuse of trust."

Proposition 8, known as the "California Marriage Protection Act," would amend the California Constitution to define marriage in the state as only between a man and a woman. If passed, the ballot measure would essentially reverse the May 15 Supreme Court decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry.

Around 1.2 millions voters approved the petition to place the controversial issue before Californians. Prop. 8 will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Traditional marriage supporters are hoping for a similar outcome in 2000 when over 61 percent of Californians passed Proposition 22, which affirmed marriage in the state as only between a man and a woman.

The vice president of PG&E Nancy McFadden, stated that the company was "proud to join No on 8 and Equality California to protect the freedom to marry for all Californians," according to PJI.

Dacus said people like McFadden can write personal checks to the campaign, "but not on my

Brad Pitt donates money to support gay marriage

The Associated Press: Brad Pitt donates money to support gay marriage

Brad Pitt donates money to support gay marriage
11 hours ago

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Brad Pitt has donated $100,000 to fight California's November ballot initiative that would overturn the state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

It's the first time voters will be asked to decide the issue in either California or Massachusetts — the states where gays have won the right to wed.

"Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8," Pitt said Wednesday.

Trevor Neilson, Pitt's political and philanthropic adviser, told The Associated Press that Pitt was surprised that his colleagues in the entertainment industry had not donated more money to support the battle against Proposition 8.

Earlier in the week, Pitt and Angelina Jolie announced they donated $2 million to help fight HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis in Ethiopia.

Albany G.O.P. Leader Is Guest of Gay Group - NYTimes.com

See end quote by Teresa Saywood

Albany G.O.P. Leader Is Guest of Gay Group - NYTimes.com

By DANNY HAKIM
Dean G. Skelos, the State Senate majority leader and the Albany Legislature’s top Republican, reiterated his opposition to gay marriage on Tuesday night but attended a fund-raiser for a prominent Republican gay and lesbian group as he sought to broaden his party’s appeal for the fall elections.

Mr. Skelos, of Long Island, said he would take up and pass legislation aimed at preventing bullying of gay and lesbian students in schools. The predominantly Democratic Assembly has passed such legislation for several years, but it has long been stalled in the Senate. This month, New York City put similar rules in place for its schools.

“I appreciate your inviting me,” Mr. Skelos said during the event, a fund-raiser for a political action committee associated with the Log Cabin Republicans, which was held at a private residence in Manhattan.

“Sometimes the media will say, ‘What are you doing here?’ You’re Republicans and I’m proud of you for being Republicans and I’m proud of being a Republican and standing here with each and every one of you,” he added.

The appearance of a Senate majority leader was unusual. Mr. Skelos took over as majority leader this summer from Joseph L. Bruno, who in his 14 years in the post appeared at only one prominent event held by a gay group — a 2006 lobbying event held by the Empire State Pride Agenda.

Jeff Cook, the legislative advisor to the Log Cabin Republicans of New York State, said, “We do think this is significant, that the majority leader wants to reach out to the gay community.” The group worked closely with Senate Republicans on the bullying law and has long pushed lawmakers to approve gay marriage.

“Our job is to move Republicans in that direction,” Mr. Cook said. “We know that’s the right side of history.”

Edward F. Cox, the state chairman of the McCain-Palin campaign, also attended the event.

“They are part of the Republican Party here and they’re part of what we’ll need to win the state,” Mr. Cox said in an interview before the event.

The Senate is the Republican Party’s last statewide power base, but the party has only a one-seat edge. Both parties are scrambling to find allies and cash for what will be a hard-fought sprint over the next two months. The Log Cabin Republicans committed themselves to spending $60,000 on Republican candidates for the Senate and $15,000 on those for the Assembly.

Senate Republicans have been seen by many Democratic lawmakers as the greatest obstacle to passing legislation of interest to gay and lesbian groups, particularly since the Assembly passed a bill that would legalize gay marriage and Gov. David A. Paterson, a Democrat, has emerged as a forceful advocate for gay rights.

Senator Thomas K. Duane, a Manhattan Democrat and one of a relatively few openly gay or lesbian lawmakers, said, “I do not understand why the Log Cabin people would continue to invest with the Senate Republicans,” adding that the party has been “holding back progress” for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

Senate Republicans, he said, had “impeded progress” and taken years to pass bills related to hate crimes and discrimination.

“How many groups give money to Republicans at election time because hope springs eternal?” he added.

But Patrick Sammon, the president of the national Log Cabin Republicans, said his group could play a major role in tipping the balance on marriage votes across the country by persuading even a few Republicans to change their minds.

“The reason we don’t have a constitutional amendment vote on the ballot in Massachusetts to repeal marriage,” he said, “is because a third of Republicans voted against” that amendment. The repeal amendment lost by five votes, he said, adding that seven Republicans voted against it.

“The progress we’ve seen around the country is where Republicans provide the margin of victory,” he said.

The contrast of views even among Republicans in Albany was on display. Several Assembly members who last year had voted in support of gay marriage were reiterating that support on Tuesday night while Mr. Skelos and Senator John J. Flanagan looked on.

“You can’t do it halfway,” said Assemblyman Joel M. Miller, a Poughkeepsie Republican, adding, “Gay marriage is absolutely right in America and everywhere else, and I’m proud to stand for it.”

Mr. Skelos voted against antidiscrimination legislation based on sexual orientation in the past but in favor of a hate-crimes law. He said in an interview that he had not changed his opposition to gay marriage, but said that “we agree on many other issues.”

One of the most compelling speakers at the event, attended by more than 100 people, was Assemblywoman Teresa R. Sayward, an upstate Republican who emerged as an unlikely champion of gay marriage during the Assembly vote last year. In the most talked-about speech during the dramatic vote, Ms. Sayward, an observant Catholic, described her son’s struggle to come to grips with his gay identity, and how it shaped her views.

On Tuesday night, she called the vote for marriage “a very Republican and conservative one,” and added, “We believe that government should stay out of people’s lives and let them live in quiet dignity.”

Coming from one of the state’s most conservative areas, she said that one of her Republican colleagues told her after the vote that she would never be elected again.

“I stand here to tell you I am running unopposed,” she told the audience.

Evangelical pastor: Straight couples should refuse to sign Calif. licenses | 365 Gay News

Evangelical pastor: Straight couples should refuse to sign Calif. licenses | 365 Gay News

Sacramento, California) An evangelical pastor is advising couples not to sign California’s gender-neutral marriage licenses as a protest.

Send / ShareAdd CommentAfter the California Supreme Court struck down the ban on gay marriage in May, the state amended its marriage licenses, replacing “Bride” and ‘Groom” with “Party A” and “Party B.”

Following a wedding, the license must be signed and sent to the state for registration.

The Sacramento Bee reports that the first couple to follow the advice of Pastor Doug Bird of the Abundant Life Fellowship is Bird’s own daughter.

Rachel Bird married Gideon Codding last month, but they have not signed the license nor sent it in to be registered.

Rev. Bird has called on other churches to follow hid daughter’s lead.

“I would encourage you to refuse to sign marriage licenses with ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B,’” Bird said in a letter to area churches. “If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.”

Bird tells The Bee that he has received positive reactions from other clergy. A state spokesperson told the paper that as far as he knows, no other married couple has refused to sign their license.

Unless a marriage is registered, partners are unable to take advantage of rights accorded to married couples - including a bride taking her husband’s name.

In the case of Bird and Codding, Rachel Bird is unable to be added to Codding’s medical benefits.

Bird told The Bee that the decision not to register their marriage was “personal – not religious.”

“We just feel that our rights have been violated,” she said.

She also said she and Codding are exploring their legal options.

A proposed amendment to the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage will appear on the ballot in November. Recent polls suggest it will not win approval.

Uncertainty of Marriage Recognition Stalls Probate of Gay Man’s Estate

This case awaits the outcome of our case int he second appellate department.

Leonard Link: Uncertainty of Marriage Recognition Stalls Probate of Gay Man’s Estate

Uncertainty of Marriage Recognition Stalls Probate of Gay Man’s Estate


Queens County Surrogate Judge Robert L. Nahman has decided that the lack of a definitive ruling by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on whether same-sex marriages contracted in Canada are legally recognized in New York requires delaying the probate of the will of Alan Zwerling, under which the sole beneficiary is his surviving husband, until Zwerling’s parents, who also survive him, can be made parties to the case.


Nahman’s ruling, published in the New York Law Journal on September 9, makes no mention of the decision by the Appellate Division, 4th Department, in the case of Martinez v. Monroe County Community College, decided in February, which ruled that same-sex marriages contracted in Canada are recognized under New York’s common law rule for recognition of foreign marriages, even though under New York practice the Martinez decision is, for now, a statewide precedent. Monroe County tried to appeal the Martinez ruling prematurely, and the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings, but it is likely that the County will eventually seek to appeal again to the state’s highest court. In the meantime, however, Martinez is supposed to be respected by trial courts as a state-wide precedent, at least until a different department of the Appellate Division produces a contrary ruling.


Instead of following Martinez, Nahman cited Funderburke v. New York State Department of Civil Services, a 2nd Department ruling from late March that did not take a position on whether such marriages must be recognized under New York law, but vacated a trial court decision that had refused to recognize such a marriage. The trial decision was vacated on the ground that it became moot when the defendant agreed to extend spousal benefits to the same-sex spouse of a retired Long Island public school teacher as a result of a change of policy. The 2nd Department panel agreed to vacate the trial court ruling because subsequent events rendered it a mere “advisory opinion” and leaving it in place might cause problems in later cases. But the Zwerling Estate ruling now shows just such a problem.


The rules governing probate proceedings differ depending upon whether somebody dies leaving a legal spouse behind. Because New York law entitles a surviving spouse to receive a share of the estate, regardless whether the spouse is named in the will, the surviving spouse is a necessary party to the probate of the will. In this case, Zwerling’s brother was designated to be the Executor of the estate, and he submitted to the court a petition for probate attaching the will (which names Zwerling’s husband as the sole distibutee) and a copy of the marriage certificate from Ontario. Normally, that would be the end of the story, and assuming all the papers were in order, the Surrogate would take the necessary steps to probate the will and authorize distribution of the assets.


However, if an unmarried person dies leaving a will, the law specifies that the person’s legal heirs are “necessary parties” to the probate proceeding, even if they are not named as beneficiaries in the will, since they would have the right to inherit as a matter of law if there is some reason to invalidate the will. For a person who dies without leaving a surviving spouse or offspring, surviving siblings and parents are legal heirs who are “necessary parties.”


In this case, Zwerling’s brother is the proponent of the will, and presumably has no objections to it. He filed an affidavit of heirship, required by probate procedures, indicating that Zwerling’s parents also survive him.


Surrogate Nahman stated, “Ordinarily, where a decedent is survived by a spouse, the decedent’s parents are not parties to the probate proceeding. It appears, however, that the validity of same-sex marriages has not been definitively determined by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. In order to ensure that the decree in this proceeding is final and not subject to a subsequent jurisdictional attack, the Court finds that the parents of the decedent are necessary parties.”


Nahman’s decision does not mention where the parents reside, and says nothing about whether Zwerling was estranged from his parents, or whether they have a friendly or hostile relationship to his surviving husband. Depending on these factors, Nahman’s ruling may present a serious barrier to Zwerling’s husband receiving his inheritance, because it gives the parents an open invitation to make trouble about probating the will. The opinion also does not mention the amount of assets in the estate. If they are sizable, there might be a real temptation for parents – especially estranged parents – to make trouble. On the other hand, if Zwerling’s parents are kindly disposed, they could simply consent to be joined as parties, submit to the jurisdiction of the court, and let the proceeding go to its conclusion without making any fuss.


This decision reinforces the importance of settling the question of recognition for same-sex marriages in New York once and for all, especially as many same-sex couples from New York have married in Canada, California or Massachusetts, or may be expected to do so, and this ruling clouds the ability to obtain routine probate of their wills. The easiest solution would be for the state Senate to take up and pass the marriage bill that has already cleared the Assembly, allowing same-sex marriages in New York and make recognition of foreign same-sex marriages routine. The legislature could also pass a more limited bill providing for foreign marriage recognition. Or the Court of Appeals could, at the first opportunity, approve the 4th Department’s interpretation of the common law marriage recognition rule from the Martinez case.

We Remember... But Does John McCain?

We Remember... But Does John McCain?

We Remember... But Does John McCain?

9/11/08 Labels: 9-11, Mark Bingham 6 comments
Mark Bingham was an openly Gay American.

On September 11, 2001, when Mark Bingham, boarded United Airlines Flight 93 in Newark, NJ, little did he know that United Airlines Flight 93 would be one of four planes hijacked as part of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Nor did it ever cross Marks mind that he would become a hero that day, even though throughout his life he had always been a heroic man.

We are positive he never thought he would save a future presidential hopefuls life.

But when Todd Beamer finished reading the 23rd psalm and uttered the now famous phrase “let’s roll”, Mark stood up from his seat and was there to be counted among the hero’s that day. He was among those who stormed the cockpit of United Airlines Flight 93 and prevented the hijackers from using the plane to kill perhaps even thousands more additional victims that day.


But on United Airlines Flight 93 on September the 11th 2001 there were no Gays, there were no straights, there were only Americans…

Jesus of Nazareth said, “Greater love hath no man than this… that a man lay down his life for his friends”…

Mark Bingham, Gay American, paid the ultimate price when he gave his life to save others, others he did not even know, others that still work hard to deny full rights to Gays American Citizens like Mark.

Bingham was a very rare breed indeed.

A selfless American hero.

Speaking before a crowd of 500 people who gathered at the University of California at Berkeley for the memorial service for Mark Bingham, Senator John McCain, who supports California Prop. 8, voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation, voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes and voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation, praised Mark's heroic sacrifice saying,


It is now believed that the terrorists on Flight 93 intended to crash the airplane into the United States Capitol where I work, the great house of democracy where I was that day… It is very possible that I would have been in the building, with a great many other people…

I may very well owe my life to Mark and the others who summoned the enormous courage and love necessary to deny those depraved, hateful men their terrible triumph.

Such a debt you incur for life.”

One would think an" honorable" man like John McCain, would honor his life debt to Mark Bingham by honoring the things Mark held dear, but so far McCain has opposed everything Mark stood for.

On September 11th 2001, Mark Bingham stood up for John McCain...

When is John McCain going to stand up for the Mark Bingham's of this counrty?