But lately I’ve started going to Pink News (UK) … like the BBC, which has more US news and has it quicker than CNN (not to mention it being less biased), Pink News not only has virtually all the US news … it also has gay WORLD news.

Jennifer, you have my sympathies!

I suppose I’ll be embarrassed if I find that Pink News is getting their stories from 365gay.com (chuckle).

Marriage was a union between a man and a woman in US dictionaries.

I saw a dictionary when I was in Canada that defines marriage as a union between two adults without mentioning genders.

The use of the word “marriage” in the more modern Canadian sense of the word suits me just fine.

I have not been waiting for 55 years to get civil unioned or whatever the term might be for being joined in a civil union is supposed to be. Any idea what the ocrrect term for being joined to another person in a civil union might be?
I have been waiting for 55 + years to be married to the person of my choice.
Civil unions are not universally understood as the many same-sex couples who got civil unions in NJ unfortunately found out. Some of these couples testified (at an NJ civil union commission hearing) that they have had to explain again and again about their civil unions to every one they had to deal with who the power to make important decisions about their lives.
By contrast, everyone instantly knows what marriage is, no explanations are needed there. Even young children know what the word “married” means in common everyday speech.
Some said that their employers changed their tune when the same persons who said they were joined to the partners in NJ civil unions and were STILL turned down on employee health plans then mentioned that they were first legally married to their partners in MA. Their employer then put them on the company health plan etc.

And you can (if a straight couple) get married without clergy,etc if desired in front of a justice of the peace, town clerk, mayor or whomever is duly authorized to do so by the state where you reside and I imagine it should no different for a same-sex couple in any of the 4 states where a same-sex couple can currently get married MA and CT or when the day it goes in effect arrives IA and VT.

No thanks, I will wait until I can get legally married. I am not interested in civil unions. And do you know of any married straight couples who want to downgrade from legally clear and unquestioned marriage to “iffy” civil unions that employers and insurers may or may not respect?

…Even if it aint got no good english and its spppelllin’ be tooo damnned hard to understandd! …LOL!

Seriously, keep up the great work Jennifer and “volunteer” staff of 365gay.com

You are unsung heroes & heroines in my book, and you are appreciated.

I have googled around and it’s hard to find another outfit as comprehensive as this one. Most of what I see out there seem to running blogs rather that actual gay news services. The Washington Blade local DC gay newspaper is online but updates its news only once a week as it comes out only once a week both online and in print.
I see some of the same articles appear say in a major and well known city newspaper like The Washington Post that reported the Iowa marriage equality breakthrough. I use to e-mail in spelling, grammar and usage corrections until I found myself making similar type errors that I didn’t realize until it was too late and then I was embarrassed when I read again what I had posted earlier. I will go out and buy a copy of the Washington Post and it will most likely have the Vermont veto override in it and the fact Vermonters can thus now finally marry in Vermont. The Post article and 365gay.com article on Iowa are saying just about the same things.

Jennifer tries very hard to bring you the news in all its variety. Even major city newspapers have errors in them from time to time.

If you know of any other gay news source out there that more than just a running blog that updates the gay news several times a day Monday through Friday, please let me know.

Errors in the article on a new bid to advance Hawaii civil unions include:

that *there was* some interest among senators.

Taniguchi’s committee could *hold* a hearing.

These are simple missing word errors (as shown by these asterisks in these intentionally small examples as these are the only usage errors I could locate after a thorough “combing through”) and only 2 of them in the entire article. The rest of the grammar and syntax is correct. But this is just one of those occasional articles than one cannot read in haste to be sure one is reading it to get the gist right.

Other than the 2 small errors that proofreading would catch, a line by line reading of the article spells out how the civil unions bill has had provisions added to it to make it more appealing to some of the lawmakers to get it out of committee for a vote on the floor of the Hawaii legislature. (By opening up civil unions to unmarried straight couples and apparently not revising the word “marriage” to mean other than a union between a man and a woman)
And changes in the drafting of the bill will be discussed and that the Senate has to act by a set deadline for bills destined of the House.

Except for a few easily fixed errors, the gist of this article is quite readily understood after a couple of a careful readings.

Errors in past 365gay.com news articles like “pouring over” a reading of a bill when “poring over” a reading of a bill was really intended.

If a whole entire paid staff was involved in turning these articles out, then these many errors that have popped up over the years (most of them readily correctable)would be inexcusable to a college-educated mind or to anyone who knows the rules of correct English spelling, grammar and usage.

But I have been more forgiving since it was made clear to me that this staff consists of one person in charge… with access to volunteer writers who contribute to 365gay.com to give it the variety of articles and writers it has. With that, I turn a blind eye to the practically nonexistent travel section, to the errors that are mostly easily correctable ones, (like he acted “discriminatory” when he acted “discriminatorily” describing “how he acted” as is required by correct English grammar.

A rapid re-sorting in my mind of incorrect grammar, usage and spelling, and of an occasionally miswritten sentence that shifts a meaning around to where it doesn’t quite square with the gist of the article allows me to get through the mistakes. Again inexcusable for a paid staff but somewhat forgivable in the light of that this is actually a small shoestring volunteer operation.

There are a very, very few sources of GLBT news of the much of the world out there running 5 days a week throughout the year and updated through the day.

Hope these clarifications help.

Here’s another thought. How much support would the right wing give to changing the name of “marriage” to “religiously joined” in our laws?