(At least one company, Wilton, has a topper featuring a “Runaway Bride“—but for the most part it seems to be the men who need persuading. And in an attempt at diversity (!?), Wilton also offers the “Oh, No You Don’t” figurine (the first one below) in an “Ethnic” variety, because apparently anyone who isn’t white is “ethnic.”)

And yes, there are same-sex cake toppers around. Google “lesbian cake toppers” or “gay cake toppers,” and you’ll get plenty of hits. Many companies also offer separate brides and grooms so you can mix and match gender, ethnicity, hobby, etc. to suit your needs. Funny though—I looked through a bunch of sites in preparing this post, and saw no same-sex toppers that indicated one of the parties needed to be dragged or chained into marriage.

Photo credits: Top row, l-r: Sailor Coruscant; Sebastien Paquet. Bottom row, l-r: Kim Marius Flakstad; nola.agent.

He also affirmed support for a law in Arkansas that prohibits same-sex couples from becoming adoptive or foster parents. “I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family,” Huckabee said. “And always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults.”

“Children are not puppies,” he continued. “This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?

Leave a comment. Consider it a form of Monday morning catharsis.

Robert P. George, in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled, “Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts,” begins by stating that it would be “disastrous” for the U.S. Supreme Court justices to rule on a federal lawsuit that “has been filed to invalidate traditional marriage laws.” He continues, “They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights.”

Those of us who believe Roe v. Wade was a valid ruling made on the basis of sound legal reasoning will see the obvious error of the second statement. Let’s also be clear that any federal lawsuit to invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will not in any way, shape, or form “invalidate” traditional marriages. They will remain as legitimate and traditional as ever.

George then goes on to try and refute those who say the fight to legalize marriage for same-sex couples is similar to the fight to legalize interracial marriage. He says the two situations are not the same, however, because those who sought to permit interracial marriages did not question the concept of marriage “as a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life.” He continues:

This unity is why marriage, in our legal tradition, is consummated only by acts that are generative in kind. Such acts unite husband and wife at the most fundamental level and thus legally consummate marriage whether or not they are generative in effect, and even when conception is not sought. . . . But as a comprehensive sharing of life—an emotional and biological union—marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to procreation. This explains why our law has historically permitted annulment of marriage for non-consummation, but not for infertility; and why acts of sodomy, even between legally wed spouses, have never been recognized as consummating marriages.

He seems to be targeting those who have sarcastically suggested that if marriage and procreation are linked as a reason to ban marriage of same-sex couples, then couples who are childless after a certain number of years should be forced to divorce. He ends up trying to have his cake and eat it, too, though: claiming that a sex act with the potential for reproduction is what defines marriage, but that it still does even if conception does not occur or is not the end goal. That makes no logical sense.

He goes on:

Of course, marital intercourse often does produce babies, and marriage is the form of relationship that is uniquely apt for childrearing. . . . And only this view can explain why the state should regulate marriage (as opposed to ordinary friendships) at all—to make it more likely that, wherever possible, children are reared in the context of the bond between the parents whose sexual union gave them life.

If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play.

Let’s see. If children should be raised “in the context of the bond between the parents whose sexual union gave them life,” then George must not be supportive of fostering and adoption, nor of infertile opposite-sex couples who used IVF or surrogacy to conceive. If “organic bodily union” is the determining factor for a legitimate marriage, does the fact that I donated an egg that was implanted into my partner’s uterus count? That seems as organic a union as a man implanting his sperm into a woman’s uterus. And what if a lesbian impregnates her partner using a turkey baster (read: medical syringe) while they’re having sex? There is some evidence that the contractions of the cervix and uterus during orgasm have a salutary effect on causing sperm to reach their goal. Does that mean the women’s sexual union gave their children life and their marriage should be permitted?

And can I have “organic bodily union” with that pint of Stonyfield yogurt I just bought? If so, can I marry it?

Not only that, but what on earth does the sexual union of the parents have to do with how good a “context” they provide for childrearing? I have railed before against the media focus on how lesbian parents create our families, because really, the method of their creation is much less important than the loving, teaching, and protective environment we provide over the course of our children’s ascent to adulthood. The same applies to families of all types.

I know the Wall Street Journal leans to the right, but really, they should think twice before printing something that has so many inconsistencies and logical holes, and which insults so many families, LGBT and not.

Feel free to leave your own exasperated comments about such drivel.

The Connecticut border, where hordes of maritally minded same-sex couples from New York are pouring across into towns like Greenwich and Stamford to get hitched, according to several recent newspaper reports. “Connecticut Border Town Is Same-Sex Marriage Haven” declares Newsday, making it sound a little like a refugee camp.

The Connecticut Post adds, “Aside from New York, same-sex couples from as far away as Texas, Nevada, Colorado and California have married in Greenwich.”

Rumor has it the California Supreme Court will rule on Prop 8 later today. Will they expand the territory of equality, or continue to force their own citizens to travel in search of it?

(Greenwich Town Hall photo credit: Umuzungu. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License.)

It’s hilarious, as one might expect from Mutchnick, but the real kicker is at the end. A lesson for us all.

(Thanks to 23/6, via Andy Towle, via Good As You.)

Well put.

Then she blew it: “. . . who happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made.”

Given that the LGBT community jumped all over Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson when he said that being gay was a choice (a statement he later retracted, saying he didn’t understand the question), Palin should have been much more careful with this one. Even if it is her belief, the fact that she talks about it on national television indicates a lack of judgment, or lack of media training, which in her case may amount to the same thing. (If you want to test out Palin’s interview skills yourself, visit the new site Interview Sarah Palin.)

The best part about Palin’s comment, though? Gay dad and sex columnist Dan Savage’s response. After the jump.

Artistic director Tony Mercer said, “I don’t think there is anything offensive about including a gay couple. You see them day in, day out on the street.”

Conservatives are having the usual conniptions about exposing children to this sort of thing. Geez, it’s not like it’s a couple of guinea pigs or anything. (Coincidentally, though, Sarah Brannen, author of Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, also does beautiful photos and watercolors of champion figure skaters. Check them out if you’re already looking ahead to the Winter Olympics.)

(Thanks to PageOneQ for a link to the the Herald Sun coverage of this.)

What’s next? Happy people suing to reclaim the word “gay”? Besides, haven’t copies of The L Word or Ellen made their way to Greece by now, at least via Internet video? Lesbians are beautiful, rich people with gorgeous homes and active social lives. Sometimes they tell jokes and dance. Where’s the disgrace in that?