This follows a “courtship” of 3,000 rides over ten years with the 80ft gondola ride called 1001 Nachts.

Miss Wolfe, 33, from Pennsylvania, will change her surname to Weber after the manufacturer of the ride she travels 160 miles to visit 10 times per year, according to reports

“I love him as much as women love their husbands and know we’ll be together forever,” she said.

…Although she faces discrimination from employers, most of her family and friends have been supportive. “I’m not hurting anyone and I can’t help it,” she said. “It’s a part of who I am.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5972632/Woman-getting-married-to-fairground-ride.html

In perhaps a first for the Garden City, Laurel Bank Park hosted the wedding of Joseph Guiso and Honey, a labrador he adopted five years ago.

Thirty of the couple’s closest friends and family were in attendance for the emotional ceremony, held at dusk.

“You’re my best friend and you make every part of my day better,” Mr Guiso’s vows read.

The couple decided on the location – and to tie the knot – after stumbling upon a wedding in Laurel Bank Park during an afternoon walk.

“I said that could be us,” Mr Guiso said.

“She didn’t say anything so I took that as a yes.”

Mr Guiso said as a “religious guy”, he could no longer take the guilt of living with Honey out of wedlock.

“It’s not sexual,” he assured the onlookers.

“It’s just pure love.”
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/man-marrys-dog-city-first-toowoomba/710538/

The advertisements titled “21 great reasons to keep marriage as is” and “If you vote to change ‘marriage’ we will vote to change you” were published in the lead up to the passing of a bill legalising gay marriage last month.

A complainant said the material was offensive, inflammatory and “largely incorrect and was filled with biases”.

But the Advertising Standards Authority threw out the complaint saying the advertisements allowed for points of view and robust expression.

Another complaint against Family First’s “My Marriage Pledge” newspaper advertisements was also rejected.

“Once again, we see evidence of people who are demanding tolerance and diversity showing very little of it,” said National Director of Family First New Zealand Bob McCoskrie.

“The ASA was completely correct to send the complaints to the paper shredder.” http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/anti-gay-marriage-ad-complaints-thrown-5441701

Complainant A Charman said that the “21 great reasons to keep marriage as is” was ‘extraordinarily offensive’, ‘inflammatory, largely incorrect and was filled with biases’. But the Advertising Standards Authority threw out the complaint saying that advertisements allowed for points of view and robust expression. There was therefore no apparent breach of Advertising Codes and therefore no grounds for the complaint to proceed.

And a complaint by activist Calum Bennachie along with an orchestrated campaign of identical complaints against the “My Marriage Pledge” newspaper adverts was also rejected as having no apparent breach of the Codes of Advertising.

“Once again, we see evidence of people who are demanding tolerance and diversity showing very little of it. Fortunately the ASA understands the need for robust and open debate,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“The ASA was completely correct to send the complaints to the paper shredder.”
ENDS

During the oral arguments about Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to children being raised by same-sex couples. Since I was one of those children—from ages 2-19, I was raised by a lesbian mother with the help of her partner—I was curious to see what he would say.

I also eagerly anticipated what he would say because I had taken great professional and social risk to file an amicus brief with Doug Mainwaring (who is gay and opposes gay marriage), in which we explained that children deeply feel the loss of a father or mother, no matter how much we love our gay parents or how much they love us. Children feel the loss keenly because they are powerless to stop the decision to deprive them of a father or mother, and the absence of a male or female parent will likely be irreversible for them.

Over the last year I’ve been in frequent contact with adults who were raised by parents in same-sex partnerships. They are terrified of speaking publicly about their feelings, so several have asked me (since I am already out of the closet, so to speak) to give voice to their concerns.

I cannot speak for all children of same-sex couples, but I speak for quite a few of them, especially those who have been brushed aside in the so-called “social science research” on same-sex parenting.

Those who contacted me all professed gratitude and love for the people who raised them, which is why it is so difficult for them to express their reservations about same-sex parenting publicly.

Still, they described emotional hardships that came from lacking a mom or a dad. To give a few examples: they feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them, feel intermittent anger at their “parents” for having deprived them of one biological parent (or, in some cases, both biological parents), wish they had had a role model of the opposite sex, and feel shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents for forcing them into a lifelong situation lacking a parent of one sex.

I have heard of the supposed “consensus” on the soundness of same-sex parenting from pediatricians and psychologists, but that consensus is frankly bogus.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/what_do_the_children_say

The words in capital letters were in capital letters in the words on the youtube video

Poster : I am against « Marriage for All »

I have always tried

To listen to learn,

What some live

With their difference

But sometimes to tolerate

Rhymes unconsciousness

You then have to speak,

And say what you think

To live with a man

Or live with a woman

Is a choice of each one

That is made WITHOUT GRUDGE

But to live and to get married

Are not the same thing

And it is society

That is questioned

I believe in man and in woman

In their beautiful and fecund union

I also believe in marriage

As ferment of our world

Show me a child,

Blooming and serene

With their two parents,

Who are only one and one

I know some of them

Who need a father

But also cuddles

In the arms of a mother

To say that all is allowed

That all is negotiable

That to love one another is enough

To be able to get married

Isn’t it to pursue

The quest of a false Graal,

And to run always ,

After a new ideal

I believe in man and in woman

In their beautiful and fecund union

I also believe in marriage

As ferment of our world

I have always tried

In my SOUL and CONSCIENCE

To understand to accept

What men think

But when the society

Has lost its landmarks

You have to wake up

And shout your anger

To live with a man

Or live with a woman

Is a choice of each one

That is made WITHOUT GRUDGE

But to live and to get married

Are not the same thing

And it is society

That is questioned

I believe in man and in woman

In their beautiful and fecund union

I also believe in marriage

As ferment of our world

CHILD

1 FATHER

1 MOTHER

Particularly offensive no-fault divorces are those where one spouse is protesting. In these cases, one spouse is literally abandoning the other (and frequently the children as well), despite having made public vows and having signed a contract before civil and religious officials stating their lifelong commitment to his or her spouse.

In this country you can come home from work and tell your spouse the marriage is over and he or she can do nothing but cry, and fight for the best financial payout possible. Try doing that with Verizon. Or while under contract to buy a home. Or with your gym membership. You’ll get laughed at.

Eighty percent of divorces are unilateral. The legal sanctioning of human abandonment must end.

The Feminist Case against No-Fault Divorce

It’s true that we can thank women for no-fault divorce laws. They fought hard in the 1960s and 1970s for the right to be freed from that terrible, hierarchical construct that is marriage. In 1970, California was the first state to fall, triggering a nationwide no-fault domino wave. Feminists like Betty Friedan, who once called marriage a “comfortable concentration camp” from which women should be freed, were jubilant. And they got their wish. Each state that subsequently enacted no-fault divorce laws saw immediate spikes in divorce rates. Surprise!

Yet twenty-seven years later, even Friedan admitted, “I think we made a mistake with no fault divorce,” recognizing that no-fault divorce had led to “unintended consequences” that adversely affected women. That same year, the president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, founded by Friedan, made the case against no-fault divorce in the pages of the New York Times. New York was the last state where it had not been legalized. New York fell four years later, making our country a fully no-fault nation.

The reason for feminists’ about-face on no-fault divorce has largely to do with the reality that no-fault divorce, especially unilateral no-fault divorce, has a disproportionately negative economic impact on women.

The Pro-Father Case against No-Fault Divorce

The rights of fathers are a frequently overlooked part of divorce. This is unfortunate because currently, divorce (especially unilateral no-fault divorce) is largely used against men. In Stevenson’s words, “On balance, unilateral divorce favors those who most want out of the marriage, which more often than not are women.” Women are more likely to be worse off economically as a result of divorce. But men are more likely to be the disadvantaged party protesting the divorce.

A full two-thirds of divorces are initiated by wives. Among college-educated couples, 90 percent of divorces are initiated by women. In child custody cases, mothers are awarded custody 70 percent of the time. Joint custody is granted 20 percent of the time. In 40 percent of all child custody cases, the father is completely barred from seeing his children. This certainly includes cases where the father has been abusive and there are good reasons to keep him away. But the courts are heavily biased toward women in custody battles.

No man should ever be deprived of the right to see his children solely because the woman wants to leave and the man has done nothing wrong. And no man should have to support a woman who abandons him when he is not at fault. It’s a disgrace to feminism and equal rights to demand anything otherwise.

The Pro-Child Case against No-Fault Divorce

The pro-child case against no-fault divorce can be summed up in two sentences, because really we all know that divorce wreaks havoc on the lives of children. Divorce makes children worse off emotionally and economically, in addition to raising the odds that children from broken homes will break up their own homes as adults (and fall into crime, drugs, become a teen mom, get sick, pick up smoking, have a stroke…and die young). By making it easier to break up a home, no-fault divorce only makes it more likely that parents will commit this injustice against their children.

Above all, divorce strips children of their human right to a mother and a father bound in a permanent bond to each other and to them.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/05/10031/?utm_source=RTA+McGuire+No-Fault+Divorce&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email