And Now for Some News "Relative" to Same-Gender Marriage

...relative, that is, as in relatives like cousins. Instead of looking at the world of states which do and do not allow for marriage between same-gender couples, lets look at how states handle the often-controversial issue of whether cousins should be allowed to marry. Credit goes to Mac McClelland of Mother Jones, who put together this map:

There are four categories of states:

1) Cannot do it here, period (in white in map) -- 15
2) Cannot do it here, but okay if you do it elsewhere (in brown on map) -- 9
3) Can do it here, but with limitations like only if you don't reproduce -- 5
4) Can do it here (red) -- 21

As with gay marriage, you have the states that will allow it and the states that will not. But unlike gay marriage, you don't have any states that allow for gay marriage with caveats --like it's okay if you do it, but only if you do not adopt children. Or only if ... you name it.

Where it gets really interesting is the states that say, "No, we don't allow it, but will recognize it if other states do it." There is something to be said for this: it's as if the states are saying they respect the decisions of other states. On the other hand, it calls into question how firmly those states really don't think first cousins should be married. It's a bit loosy-goosy. Interestingly, there are some places (DC is one, before they decided to do it themselves and New York, Rhode Island and Maryland are others) that said "we'll recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere."

Since you can marry in Massachusetts without residency, there are now essentially eight states (IA, NH, CT, MA, and VT as well as NY, RI and MD) and the District of Columbia where a gay person can live and have their state recognize their marriage.

Add to this three other categories, as reported by the Nat'l Conference of State Legislatures:
Civil unions (state spousal rights):NJ
Domestic partnerships (nearly all state spousal rights):CA, OR, NV & WA
Domestic partnerships (some state spousal rights):HI, MN and WI

Loosy-goosy or willy nilly, state by state --and marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships -- the map of gay rights for partners and spouses is expanding.

Nepal's Mount Everest Tops Latest List of Gay Marriage Destinations

Wonders never cease to amaze. Even if they are man-made wonders that focus on natural wonders.

Gay marriage is just about to reach new heights.

Nepal's leadership sees the financial benefits of being the only Asian country and only place on the entire continent to allow gay marriage: they are promoting Mt Everest as a place for gay marriage. Why? It's all about boosting tourism. They hope to attract one million tourists in 2010 - double that of 2009.

Amazingly, homosexual activity was criminal as recently as 2007, but a Supreme Court ruling in 2008 changed that and a gay marriage law is working its way through Parliament.

Perhaps they have seen the economic benefits that other countries (South Africa, countries in Europe), formerly California and now Massachusetts in the U.S. have realized from allowing gay marriages among people from other places.

Whatever their rationale, they know the country can reshape its image and attract attention by making this bold move.

Go Nepal! Onward and upward!

Gay Divorce - A Major Problem for Exes

Sabina Daly & Angelique Naylor were joined in matrimony in Massachusetts in 2004. All was wedded bliss until it was not - an all too familiar sad story across America. The couple, who have one child, agreed to separated in 2007.

Naylor filed for divorce in Texas. A judge in Austin granted the divorce, but Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is appealing the decision and that of two men from Dallas, stating protecting the "traditional definition of marriage" means doing the same for divorce. Abbott argues that the state cannot dissolve a marriage it does not recognize.

Now, it seems that Texas' solution to the impossibility of gay divorce is an annulment of the marriage, or considering it invalid in the first place.

"We didn't ask for a marriage; we simply asked for the courtesy of divorce," said Naylor, who just wants to get on with her life.

Funny thing, this case, and the one with a man named JB who seeks to divorce his former spouse. On the one hand, the couples are asking for a non-marriage... something the traditional marriage folks should be okay with and does not ostensibly violate TX' prohibition of same-sex marriage. On the other, perhaps Abbott and others recognize that they cannot have their wedding cake and eat it too -- and are at least being consistent: no recogition of marriage or divorce. By doing this, they make gay couples doubly unhappy -- by not allowing them to express their happiness through the bonds of marriage and by not letting them express their unhappiness once the love between the two has gone away.

Interestingly, as judges such as District Court Judge Tena Callahan take up cases like that of JB, they can also consider constitutional issues, such as whether Texas' constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman violates the U.S. constitution and its promise to provide all citizens the equal protection of the law.

Wouldn't it be ironic if a gay divorce case might have the power to grant gay marriage rights?