Perez Hilton.Com

Gay Wedding Rings For A Good Cause! Bid On OUR Designs!

11/29/2012 6:25 PM ET | Filed under: Gay Gay Gay • Inspiration



Aren’t they beautiful??
We are SO proud of GLSEN and all they do for the LGBT community, we have designed two romantical Proposition Love rings for them to auction off!!
They’re the PERFECT way to show your man he’s the only gay for you! HA!
100 percent of the proceeds will go towards achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work!
Oh, and YES! Of course those diamonds are REAL!
CLICK HERE to bid on the black ring and CLICK HERE to bid on the silver!
Bidding ends in three weeks, so you better hurry up!

Equally Wed Style Watch

Style Watch Celebs Design Proposition Love Bands to Auction for Marriage Equality

Celebs Design Proposition Love Bands to Auction for Marriage Equality

Friday, November 30, 2012 03:22 PM
Share on email Share on printfriendly 4

By Brittny Drye
Looking to pop the question soon? (It is engagement season, after all!) Or searching for the perfect band to exchange when you say “I do”? Might we suggest bidding on it …

GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, has teamed up with a variety of celebrities and Proposition Love to create a collection of engagement bands and auction them off on One hundred percent of the proceeds go toward full recognition of civil rights of the LGBT community through impact litigation, education and public policy work. Bidding ends on Tuesday, December 18.

Celebs such as Perez Hilton, the Guncles, Tori Spelling, Melissa Rivers, Jayson Blair from ABC’s The New Normal, and Kathy Griffin have all exclusively designed bands to bid on. Check out our favorites:


Place your bid for this chevron design cobalt chrome Proposition Love ring with an engraved message from Bill Horn and Scout Masterson—”Love Makes a Family.” Horn and Masterson, also known as “The Guncles,” appear on the hit reality television show Tori & Dean: Home Sweet Hollywood on Oxygen.

This beauty designed by actress, producer and television host Melissa Rivers. features interlocking 14K white gold rings and 1-carat diamonds.

This black diamond and ceramic ring is one of two designs by the blogger and television personality extraordinaire, Perez Hilton.

ABC’s Happy Endings’ Eliza Coupe designed a stunning diamond accented 14K gold and silver ring with the Proposition Love signature triangle and hammered finish, completed with braided edges.

Kathy Griffin designed this 14K gold and silver ring with her signature XOXO design and K-triangle design.


Huffington Post Gay Voices – Gay Marriage Questions, Cases Weighed By Supreme Court, Decision Delayed

Gay Marriage Questions, Cases Weighed By Supreme Court, Decision Delayed
By MARK SHERMAN 11/30/12 03:46 PM ET EST


FOLLOW: Supreme Court, Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage, Video, Gay Marriage Case, Gay Marriage Right, Gay Marriage Supreme Court, Scotus, Supreme Court Gay Marriage, Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage, Gay Voices News
WASHINGTON — The running fight over gay marriage is shifting from the ballot box to the Supreme Court.

Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices met Friday to discuss whether they should deal sooner rather than later with the claim that the Constitution gives people the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

The court also could duck the ultimate question for now and instead focus on a narrower but still important issue: whether Congress can prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.

There was no announcement about the court’s plans on Friday. The next opportunity for word on gay marriage cases is Monday, although the justices also could put off a decision until their next private meeting in a week’s time. That will be their last meeting until January.

Any cases would be argued in March or April, with a decision expected by the end of June.

Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington – and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.

Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.

But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state’s constitution.

The biggest issue the court could decide to confront comes in the dispute over California’s Proposition 8, the constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.

A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California’s ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation’s largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.

But if the high court ends up reviewing the case, both sides agree that the larger constitutional issue would be on the table, although the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.

Throughout U.S. history, the court has tried to avoid getting too far ahead of public opinion and mores. The high court waited until 1967 to strike down laws against interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had them.

Some court observers argue that the same caution will prevail in the California case.

“What do they have to gain by hearing this case? Either they impose same sex marriage on the whole country, which would create a political firestorm, or they say there’s no right to same-sex marriage, in which case they are going to be reversed in 20 years and be badly remembered. They’ll be the villains in the historical narrative,” said Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University. Koppelman signed onto a legal brief urging the justices not to hear the California case.

Yet some opponents of gay marriage say the issue is too important, and California is too large a state, for the court to take a pass.

“The question is whether there’s a civil right to redefine marriage, as the California Supreme Court did. We don’t think there is,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

Regardless of the decision on hearing the California case, there is widespread agreement that the justices will agree to take up a challenge to a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The law was passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage for all purposes under federal law as between a man and a woman and has been used to justify excluding gay couples from a wide range of benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.

Four federal district courts and two courts of appeal have overturned the provision in various cases on grounds that it unfairly deprives same-sex couples of federal benefits. The justices almost always will hear a case in which a federal law has been struck down.

The Obama administration broke with its predecessors when it announced last year that it no longer would defend the provision. President Barack Obama went further when he endorsed gay marriage in May.

Republicans in the House of Representatives stepped in to take up the defense of the law in court.

Paul Clement, the Washington lawyer representing the House, said the law was intended to make sure that federal benefits would be allocated uniformly, no matter where people live.

“DOMA does not bar or invalidate any state-law marriage, but leaves states free to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriage,” Clement said in court papers.

The court has several cases to choose from, including that of 83-year-old Edith Windsor of New York. Windsor faces $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her partner of 44 years in 2009. In two other cases, same-sex couples and surviving spouses of gay marriages in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are seeking a range of federal benefits, including Social Security and private pension survivor payments, access to federal employee health insurance and the right to file a joint federal income tax return.

In the only instance in which a gay couple already is receiving federal benefits, federal court employee Karen Golinski in San Francisco has been allowed, under a court order, to add her wife to her health insurance coverage. That could be reversed if the Supreme Court upholds the marriage law provision.

No matter which case the court chooses, the same issue will be front and center – whether legally married gay Americans can be kept from the range of benefits that are otherwise extended to married couples.

Justice Elena Kagan strongly suggested in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that she would not take part in a gay marriage case from Massachusetts because she worked on it while at the Justice Department. The Massachusetts case is one of only two cases that have been decided by a federal appeals court. Windsor’s is the other.

Another case, from Arizona, has some similarities to the Defense of Marriage Act appeals. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which invalidated Proposition 8 in California, struck down a state law that said only married state employees were eligible for health benefits and withdrew domestic partner benefits for unmarried state workers. Separately, the Arizona constitution bars same-sex marriage, so gay couples had no way to obtain the state benefits.

Mark Sherman can be reached on Twitter at


Yahoo News – Anti-gay marriage marchers take to French streets

Anti-gay marriage marchers take to French streets
By The Associated Press | Associated Press – 9 hrs ago


PARIS (AP) — Groups opposed to President Francois Hollande’s plans to legalize gay marriage and gay adoptions took to the streets Saturday across France.
Hollande said he would enact his “marriage for everyone” plan within a year of coming to power in May, but vocal opposition from religious leaders, some politicians and parts of rural France has divided the country.
Saturday’s protest, called the “March for Everyone,” included pro-family and Catholic groups. Several thousand people marched in Paris, carrying signs with slogans such as “One child (equals) one father + one mother.”
Their final destination was the Invalides monument, the final resting place of Napeolon Bonaparte, the French leader who invented the country’s prized civil code, which is still in force today. It states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, a point the gay marriage bill seeks to overturn. Another reform would be to replace the entries in a child’s registry book from “father” and “mother” to “parent 1” and “parent 2.”
Elsewhere, France’s largest demonstrations — estimated to be several thousand people strong — took place in Toulouse and France’s second city, Lyon.
The marches Saturday had a dress code of blue, white and pink — putting a spin on the French tricolore flag’s traditional colors of blue, white and red.
A recent survey found that most French favor gay marriage, while support for adoption by gay couples hovers at around 50 percent.