The Lords have been discussing amendments to Government's Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill this week and will continue to do so next week. The vast majority of the amendments have been about protecting "conscientious objectors", i.e. those who don't like the gays. Unfortunately, for religious freedom, these amendments have been written prejudicially and are championed by people who (until this week) were deeply against allowing this bill through at all. What do I mean that these amendments are prejudicial? It seems the proponents of these amendments have a very 2D view of freedom and are astonishingly short-sighted. As evidenced by the debates in ...

I've no answer to this question, it is simply a question for those more in the know. Tiffer Robinson has pointed out on Twitter an area of possible concern that doesn't seem to be quite covered in the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill. At the moment female same-sex couples have two different ways they can register their children? Female civil partners   Either woman can register the birth on her own if all of the following are true:

• the mother has a child by donor insemination or fertility treatment 

• she was in a civil partnership at the time of the treatment 

• her civil partner is

...

An edited version of this piece appeared in the June 13, 2013 edition of the SF Bay Times. Next week is our anniversary. That is, one of our anniversaries. I’ve joked that one of the rare upsides to the lack of marriage equality is that unlike our opposite-sex counterparts, for whom the wedding anniversary is the focus for commemorating the relationship, same-sex couples can celebrate a number of mini anniversaries. For example, Jeff and I mark, to varying degrees, the dates of registering our domestic partnership, of becoming engaged, and of our commitment ceremony, among other milestones. But next week’s anniversary is ...