Proposition Love and Moovz Celebrate Pride

Happy Pride Month, everyone!

June is a time to encourage equality and celebrate love in all its forms. This year we teamed up with the LGBT global social network Moovz to show how easy it is to erase hate and spread love. Three members of the LGBT community shared their stories with us and tested the kindness of strangers in this daring experiment.

Watch how powerful love can be below.

:

Chelsea Handler Gives Proposition Love Founders Some Guidance

Image via Fast Company

If you don’t know by now, Chelsea Handler has a new show available on Netflix, eponymously titled “Chelsea”. Handler is all about trying new things on and off the air, and in this collaboration with Fast Company she gives being a therapist a shot. She sits down with none other than Proposition Love founders, Sam and Jonathan to provide some cheeky relationship guidance on how to work with your spouse.

Check it out below!

Justice Ginsburg Eviscerates The Case Against Marriage Equality In Just Five Sentences

Justice Ginsburg Eviscerates The Case Against Marriage Equality In Just Five Sentences
BY IAN MILLHISER POSTED ON APRIL 29, 2015 AT 8:54 AM
CREDIT: AP PHOTO/JESSICA HILL
During Tuesday’s marriage equality arguments in the Supreme Court, several of the Court’s conservative members suggested that same-sex couples should not be given equal marriage rights because these couples have not enjoyed those rights for most of the past. As Justice Antonin Scalia summed up this argument, “for millennia, not a single society” supported marriage equality, and that somehow exempted same-sex couples from the Constitution’s promise of equal protection of the law.
Not long after her conservative colleagues raised this argument, however, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained exactly why marriage was long understood to be incompatible with homosexuality in just five sentences:
[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.
There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.
Justice Ginsburg’s point was that, until surprisingly recently, the legal institution of marriage was defined in terms of gender roles. According to Sir William Blackstone, an eighteenth century English jurist whose works are still frequently cited today to explain the common law principles we inherited from our former colonial rulers, “[t]he very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything.” As late as 1887, fully one third of the states did not permit women to control their earnings. And married women could not even withhold consent to sex with their husband until shockingly recently.
Under the common law, “by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband,” and this consent was something “she cannot retract.” The first successful prosecution in the United States of a husband who raped his wife did not occur until the late 1970s.
So American marriage law, and the English law that it was derived from, presumed that the wife was both financially and sexual subservient to the husband. In a world where marriage is defined as a union between a dominant man and a submissive woman, each fulfilling unique gender roles, the case for marriage discrimination is clear. How can both the dominant male role and the submissive female role be carried out in a marital union if the union does not include one man and one woman? This, according to Justice Ginsburg, is why marriage was understood to exclude same-sex couples for so many centuries.
But marriage is no longer bound to antiquated gender roles. And when those gender roles are removed, the case for marriage discrimination breaks down.

Costa Rica seeks law to allow same-sex civil unions

Costa Rica seeks law to allow same-sex civil unions

Reuters

SAN JOSE, Costa Rica (Reuters) – Costa Rica will this week put forward a plan to allow same-sex civil unions based on previous initiatives to change the law in the Central American nation, a government official said on Wednesday.

Costa Rica follows Chile, which in January became the most recent Latin American country to recognize same-sex marriage or unions after Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil and some parts of Mexico.

“This week we will launch (draft legislation), honoring the commitment our government made in this area and … we will open a space for consulting with various organizations,” said Ana Gabriel Zuniga, deputy minister of the presidency.

The government hopes Costa Rica’s legislature will discuss before April 30 two existing draft bills with the purpose of combining them to legalize same-sex civil unions.

Same-sex marriage, however, is not on the agenda, Zuniga said following a meeting with activists.

Gay rights activist groups praised the plan, which follows other recent moves to fight discrimination in the country such as extending some social security benefits to same-sex couples.

Costa Rican President Luis Guillermo Solis last year hoisted the rainbow gay pride flag at the presidential palace to mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

(Reporting by Enrique Pretel; Editing by Bernard Orr)