Fascinating and beautiful story. Via Sean:
The husbands often feel excluded from the social infrastructure that women have built up over generations to make stay-at-home life more manageable and fun. (“You want awkward? Try a swim play date,” one father said.) Every man interviewed said that many school notices, invitations and Girl Scout troop updates were still sent to their wives, a river they are constantly trying to divert.
Really interesting article. What do you think?
11:48 // 4 months ago
With the notion of marriage – an exclusive, emotional, binding ‘til death do you part’ tie – becoming more and more an exception to the rule given a rise in cohabitation and high rates of divorce, why should the federal government be telling adults who love one another that they cannot get married, simply because they happen to be gay? I believe when there are so many forces pulling our society apart, we need more commitment to marriage, not less.
Murkowski is now the third Senate Republican to support same-sex marriage. The timing of this announcement is significant, as the Supreme Court is set to rule on marriage equality as soon as next week. source
18:46 // 10 months ago
I’m lacking in recent news updates on this, as the gay media world is abuzz with New York news, but it seems the newspaper that left out a deceased man’s partner from his obituary has gone back on its promise to reprint it.
GLAAD got involved when the man’s partner, Terrance James, noticed his name was missing from the obit. They offered to pay the fee to reprint, and the paper said the money would go to a charity of James’s choice.
Instead, the paper printed an editorial Friday saying they didn’t appreciate James’s motives and they didn’t owe him an apology or a reprinted editorial. The paper has a policy against including non-married partners in obituaries which they’re clearly not willing to change.
The Human Rights Campaign has a petition circulating demanding that the paper apologize and reprint the obituary. Please sign it.
Here’s the editorial where the paper basically attacks the dead man’s partner. The question is, obviously, how hard would it be to change the policy to simply allow life partners? Not hard at all. Problem is, they have to want to do it.
11:24 // 2 years ago