1. I’m behind the curve on this one, but I’m not getting the whole Twilight thing. But that’s good, no?

2. Any opinions on the couple, Aiyi-nah Ford and Torian Brown, that were kicked out of a diner for too much PDA? No fan of PDA but have you ever heard of a straight couple being asked to leave for holding each other?

3. For those convinced Henry Gates was arrogant and  got what he deserved, what do you say about this video? Did the woman get her comeuppance? Will you defend the police? Or wonder what this story has to do with a gay news site? Nothing at all. Nothing at all.

4. I have a new boyfriend. He just doesn’t know it  yet. That’s something I need to work on. None of my former boyfriends knew we were going out.

5. Anyone who throws a sex toy at an Adam Lambert concert is an idiot.

6. If you are going to go on a show and spread disinformation about death panels, at least have the decency to have the page marked.

7. I want to visit Buenos Aires, the city of Jorge Luis Borges.

8. Happy 100th birthday Lester Young.

9. Guess who is blogging now? Beau, baby? Why do you never call?

10. An unassisted triple play!? The Mets season is now officially  over. 2010 baby!

Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler is a Democrat and a strong advocate for equal marriage. Maryland defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but it also has a “longstanding tradition” of recognizing marriages performed in other states, the Sun said.

 While Gov. Martin O’Malley and the General Assembly have extended a number of rights and benefits to gay and lesbian couples, they have stopped short of endorsing same-sex unions, the Sun said.

“You can’t understate the significance of being married,” said openly gay Sen. Richard S. Madaleno. “People in our state get married every day, and to be denied the ability to do that is very dispiriting.”

Maryland would be following the example of New York, which recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, though gays and lesbians can’t get legally married in the state.

Sctario Tia Edwards, 25, and the suspect bumped on the dance floor of Coconuts Cafe early Saturday morning and an argument ensued.

The dispute continued outside the club when Edwards and another woman left. The suspect began beating the two women with a metal pipe and then pulled a gun, shooting Edwards multiple times. 

At one point, Edwards attempted to run after being hit by the first shot, police said, but the suspect chased her down and shot her again several times. She died later in hospital.

Edward’s friend was hit in the hand by another shot, and a women on the street heading to the club was struck by stray gunfire. Both were treated in the hospital and released.

The suspect escaped but police said they have a good description.  So far, though, there have been no arrests.

Outside the Capitol, hundreds of supporters demonstrated, calling on lawmakers to approve the measure.

Called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, the bill would allow civil marriages for gay couples while permitting churches opposed to same-sex marriage to refuse to perform weddings.

The bill is sponsored by openly gay Sen. Richard Madaleno Jr.. Madaleno and his partner have adopted two children.

In 2007, the state’s highest court upheld the law barring same-sex unions. 

In a split ruling ,the majority opinion said that while the court agrees that marriage is a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex. The court ruled that defining marriage should be up to the legislature.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) has proposed giving health, dental and prescription drug benefits to state employees’ domestic partners and their dependents in his Fiscal Year 2010 budget. 

Last year, O’Malley signed two bills that benefit same-sex couples in the state.

The first gives domestic partners – gay or straight – medical and funeral decision-making rights. The second exempts domestic partners from paying property transfer taxes when one person dies.

But O’Malley has said he is opposed to same-sex marriage.

Republicans also oppose the marriage bill.  Several GOP delegates have said they will attempt to bring in a proposal to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

O’Malley’s proposed budget requires General Assembly approval by April 13, when the legislature adjourns for the year.

The governor’s plan fulfills a campaign pledge to the LGBT community.  O’Malley previously was mayor of Baltimore where he passed a similar benefits plan.  A number of other local governments in the state also provide partner benefits.

The governor previously attempted to introduce benefits in 2006 but that and other LGBT bills failed in the legislature.

Republicans continue to oppose providing benefits.

House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D) and Senate Budget and Taxation Committee Chair Ulysses Currie (D) have voiced support, though Currie said that it is still early in the budget process.

Maryland would join fifteen other states and the District of Columbia in offering health benefits to state employees if the bill is enacted.

“This opportunity to expand health care will only require a minimal state investment, since Maryland can expect a less than 1 percent increase in enrollment, based upon other states’ experiences,” said Equality Maryland Executive Director Kate Runyon. 

“While Maryland’s investment will be small, it will have a huge impact on the health of many state employees who have been struggling to make ends meet and find quality, affordable care for their families.”

O’Malley’s proposed budget went to the legislature as hundreds of gays lobbied lawmakers for marriage equality legislation. A proposed bill failed to gain traction last year, despite having 49 cosponsors. A similar bill is to be introduced this year.

Among those joining the demonstrators was Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire who was invited inside to deliver the prayer in the Senate.

Robinson asked God to bless the legislators with “anger at discrimination in all its forms.” and for lawmakers to be blessed with “freedom from fear,” including fear of their next election and criticism from unpopular votes – both thinly veiled references to the marriage bill.

New York

Forty years of Republican rule in the New York state Senate came to an end in November with Democrats now in control of both houses in the Legislature and the governor’s mansion.

But whether that is enough to see a marriage equality bill enacted in the Empire State remains unknown.

A bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in New York passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly last year, but Republicans who then controlled the Senate refused to consider the legislation.

At least three Democratic Senators say that when the bill is reintroduced this year, they will vote against it. That could be enough to defeat the bill.

In 2006, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the Legislature.

Gov. David Paterson has said he would sign the measure if it passes.

Last year, Paterson issued an executive order recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples who were married in areas where they are legal. That has resulted in a large number of gay and lesbian couples going to Connecticut, Massachusetts or Canada to wed and then returning to New York to have the marriages recognized.

New Jersey

New Jersey also could see passage of equal marriage legislation.

In 2006, the state Supreme Court ruled same-sex couples must have all the rights of marriage.

The Court gave the New Jersey State Legislature 180 days to act on the decision to grant same-sex couples the rights and benefits enjoyed by different-sex married couples, but left it up to the legislators to decide whether to call it marriage or civil unions.

The legislature opted for civil unions. But that, said civil rights groups, amounted to a situation that was separate but equal.

A commission established by the state to study same-sex civil unions in New Jersey agreed with that argument.

The commission held three public hearings last year at which the majority of the testimony came from people who were in civil unions who said they were still not being treated the way married couples are by government agencies, employers and others.

For instance, the commission found that many companies in the state that are self-insured – and therefore are regulated by federal, rather than state, law – refuse to provide health insurance to the partners of their employees.

A bill to allow for same-sex marriage was filed in the last session of the New Jersey legislature but gained little support in an election year from either House or Senate leaders. With a new legislature the bill is expected to be refiled and Garden State Equality believes it will have a strong chance of passage.

Gov. Jon Corzine has said he would sign a marriage bill if it were passed.

New Hampshire

There is a strong likelihood a gay marriage bill will pass in New Hampshire.

Rep. Jim Splaine, who sponsored the state’s civil unions law, said he believes there will be enough votes to pass his same-sex marriage bill.

But state Republicans not only oppose the marriage bill, they say they will bring in legislation that repeal the civil union law that went into effect last January.

Vermont

Vermont was the first state in the country to legalize civil unions in 2000.

An 11-member commission was set up by the leaders of the Vermont House and Senate, both Democrats, to look into Vermont’s civil unions law to see if it is providing equality for gay and lesbian couples.

It submitted its report to the legislature last April, but made no recommendations on revising the law to allow for same-sex marriage.

The legislature is expected to consider a bill this year that would amend the state’s civil union law to provide for full marriage.

Gov. Jim Douglas has said he would veto the bill if it passes.

Two other states also are likely to have marriage equality bills: Rhode Island and Maryland.

A bill to allow same-sex marriage was filed in the Maryland legislature last year but failed to gain traction. It is expected to be refiled in the new session but its fate is unknown. Legislation is also expected in Rhode Island.

Other States

In the state of Washington, lawmakers this year will consider adding new rights and obligations to the 2007 Domestic Partner law. It already covers areas such as hospital visitation rights among the 200 rights offered to same-sex couples and opposite-sex coupled seniors.

Openly gay Sen. Ed Murray (D-Seattle) says he thinks it still is too early to push for full marriage rights but believes that can be achieved in increments.

He is proposing adding pension and parenting rights and tax obligations. His draft already covers 1900 pages.

The New Mexico legislature will consider a domestic partner registry in the new session. It would allow any two people who live together in a committed and economically dependent relationship to register.

Both same and opposite-sex couples would be allowed to register with county clerks. The legislation would provide few direct benefits but could be used as proof of a relationship for benefits at private companies that have domestic partner insurance plans for their workers.

Several other states will take up bills expanding human rights laws to include members of the LGBT communities.

The court issued a one-paragraph order, saying its full decision would be released later.

“We’re pleased with this victory. The court ruled in our favor in our challenge to this improper referendum,” said Lambda Legal attorney Natalie Chin. “Though the order was brief, we feel confident that we’ve stopped this referendum from being on November’s ballot.”

Last year, the Montgomery County Council unanimously passed legislation adding gender identity as a protected characteristic under the county’s civil rights law in order to address discrimination against transgender individuals. 

A group calling itself Citizens for Responsible Government immediately began collecting signatures to block the law from going into effect. The group submitted its signatures and county said sufficient names were collected to put the issue on the ballot in November. 

Lambda Legal, together with Equality Maryland, represented a group of Montgomery County registered voters who oppose the referendum effort and went to court to fight it.

Lambda argued in lower court that the Montgomery County Board of Elections used the wrong formula to determine the required number of signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot. 

Lambda said and the court agreed that the calculation was incorrectly derived from five percent of only “active” voters when state law requires counting all registered voters—resulting in a shortfall of hundreds of signatures. 

Last month the lower court ruled that the referendum should be allowed on the ballot this fall. The court said that even though the group pressing for the repeal had not gathered sufficient signatures the legal challenge came too late.

The appeal argued that the lower court judge erred in determining the statue of limitations for filing the case.

“This long overdue, crucial law is all about assuring that unchecked bias is not allowed to inhibit our neighbors’ abilities to make a living or rent a home, and as a Montgomery County resident, I breathe a sigh of relief that this campaign to roll back anti-discrimination protections is now over,” said Dan Furmansky, Executive Director of Equality Maryland.

“While we were ready to make our case to the voters of Montgomery County, it is far better that our transgender brothers and sisters be spared the rhetoric that the referendum proponents have subjected them to over the past year.”

The high court will hear arguments in the case on Sept. 8.

Last year, the Montgomery County Council unanimously passed legislation adding gender identity as a protected characteristic under the county’s civil rights law in order to address discrimination against transgender individuals. 

A group calling itself Citizens for Responsible Government immediately began collecting signatures to block the law from going into effect. The group submitted its signatures and the county said sufficient names were collected to put the issue on the ballot in November. 

Lambda Legal, together with Equality Maryland, is representing a group of Montgomery County registered voters who oppose the referendum effort and went to court to fight it.

In court papers, Lambda Legal argued that the Montgomery County Board of Elections used the wrong formula to determine the required number of signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot. 

Lambda argued and the court agreed that the calculation was incorrectly derived from five percent of only “active” voters, when state law requires counting all registered voters—resulting in a shortfall of hundreds of signatures. 

Last month, a lower court ruled that the referendum should be allowed on the ballot this fall. The court said that even though the group pressing for the repeal had not gathered sufficient signatures the legal challenge came too late.

The appeal argues that the lower court judge erred in determining the statue of limitations for filing the case.

Supporters of the amendment say the ruling was correct and voters should be allowed to decide the fate of the ordinance.

The court ruled that even though the group pressing for the repeal had not gathered sufficient signatures, the legal challenge came too late.

“The referendum is a drastic measure to block a law that was unanimously passed by the duly elected Montgomery County Council after extensive public hearings,” said Natalie Chin, Staff Attorney at Lambda Legal.

“The court agreed with our arguments but said we didn’t make them soon enough. We disagree and will be seeking an appeal,” she said.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the Montgomery County council unanimously passed an act adding gender identity as a protected characteristic under the county’s civil rights law.

A group calling itself Citizens for Responsible Government immediately began collecting signatures to block the law from going into effect.

Lambda Legal, together with Equality Maryland, represented Montgomery County registered voters who oppose the referendum effort. They say repeal would set back the clock on civil rights in Montgomery.

In court papers filed on June 16, Lambda Legal argued that the Montgomery County Board of Elections used the wrong formula to determine the required number of signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot.

Lambda argued and the court agreed that the calculation was incorrectly derived from five percent of  “active” voters when state law requires counting all registered voters—resulting in a shortfall of hundreds of signatures.

“Strict compliance is supposed to provide safeguards for the vulnerable minority that the law is intended to protect and this ruling disregards those safeguards,” said Carrie Evans, Equality Maryland policy director.

“We are working with our attorneys to assess where we go from here. In the meantime, Basic Rights Montgomery, a broad-based coalition working to ensure this law remains in place, is in full swing.”

The anti-discrimination law under attack was unanimously passed after extensive public hearings.