The web site Dictionary.com defines marriage asa “social institution under which man and woman establish their decision to live together as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” But the organizer of an online petition is trying to correct it. 

Mike Raven organized a petition asking Dictionary.com to correct its definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and more than 90,000 people have already signed on. The definition is currently incorrect, he says, because there are states where legal marriages are between two people of the same sex. 

More from Raven on the definition:

They then brush same-sex marriage off as “a similar institution involving partners of the same sex.” Because why should same-sex marriage get the detail and care that “traditional” marriage gets? They got a blurb right? Isn’t that enough? No. With [its] separate but “equal” styled wording and placement, it is time they hear our voices and correct their definition.

Never would have thought about this in a million years - what a cool way to get our message across. If you feel so inclined, sign the petition! 

Washington citizens will soon be voting on whether or not to repeal the state’s new marriage equality law, and a judge has decided on the language of the referendum in question.

More specifically, County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee ruled on Tuesday that the referendum cannot include the words “redefine marriage,” because this has become such a loaded phrase. From the Advocate:

The decision cleared the way for Preserve Marriage Washington, a coalition working with the National Organization for Marriage to overturn the law, to start gathering signatures Wednesday to put the referendum on the ballot. The marriage equality law signed by Governor Christine Gregoire last month takes effect June 7, but it will be put on holding pending the outcome of a November referendum if opponents collect 120,577 valid signatures by June 6.

Opponents of same-sex marriage show a high success rate at the ballot in over 30 states since 1998, but advocates in Washington, who have been preparing for the referendum, have strong reason to believe they can break the streak. In 2009, voters approved Referendum 71 to uphold the expanded domestic partnership law, making Washington the first state to affirm LGBT relationship recognition on the ballot.

Come on, Washington. Come on. We can win this.

As more and more states join the discussion about marriage equality (what up, Washington and hopefully Maryland?) it’s important to think about how we talk about the issues at hand. More specifically: why do we use the language we do? 

For a while, we referred to the overall political topic of people of the same sex getting married as “gay marriage.” But that’s never been right. Why? Because marriage is marriage. Whether two people who enter into a marriage are the same gender or not, it’s still a marriage under the law, and we don’t need to distinguish between those that are “gay” or not.

The op-ed linked here is from TV personality Jim Morrison and it explains the debate perfectly. As Morrison points out, there are great sayings out there that relate back to this whole issue: 

We’ve all seen the great ads that play on this: “If you don’t like gay marriage don’t get gay married,” and “I don’t gay park my car, I park it. It’s just marriage.” 

He takes it a step further to explain how opponents of equality use the term “gay marriage” as a way to make LGBT people seem like a deviant minority who just don’t enter “normal” marriages. Using “gay marriage” further segregates gay people from straight people, as if they are simply not capable of the same commitments. Surprise, anti-equality folk: a marriage is a marriage no matter what. 

This article is a quick read, but it’ll teach you something. Marriage equality is the way to go, in language and in life. Take “gay marriage” out of your vocabulary. 

Do you see this as an accurate description? 

Now I get it! 

confirmed-bachelor-john-watson asked: I'm probably the only person who doesn't know this by this point, but I always see people writing "trans*" instead of "trans" now. I'm curious as to what that signifies, if you know?

As far as I know, the asterisk represents the ability to fill in whatever word would follow to specify the person’s identity, such as trans man. (This glossary agrees.) However, I could be mistaken, so I’d love to hear thoughts from you all. 

(Edited the spelling of trans man after lavenderpanda’s thoughtful suggestion! Their intelligent and much more informed response to your question: “Actually, the asterisk is there to recognize the trans* people that are non-binary since most people just mean ‘transgender’ or ‘transsexual’ when they say ‘trans.’”) 

A transgender woman was murdered on Christmas Eve in Kansas City, and LGBT activists are angry with the way the story has been reported. 

Kenyan L. Jones is accused of killing Dee Dee Pearson, also listed as Darnell Pearson in some stories. Several hours after paying her to have sex with him, Jones allegedly learned that Pearson was biologically male and then shot her.  

The primary complaint is that a number of news sources referred to Dee Dee with a male name and male pronouns rather than using her chosen female gender identity to refer to her. In addition, some sources cited that she was a prostitute when that information came from her alleged killer and was not verified anywhere else. 

Here’s GLAAD’s take on the issue:

Covering crime stories about transgender people can be challenging, but it is extremely important that it be done well.  Because transgender people do not always have access to the resources to change their names through the courts, legal documents and police reports will not always reflect a person’s chosen name or pronouns.  As this is often the case in the transgender community, the AP and New York Times style books provide guidelines for journalists reporting on tragedies like Dee Dee’s by stating that journalists should always use the pronoun and names with which a transgender person identifies, and when a journalist is unable to ask the individual involved to always defer to the pronouns consistent with how the person lives publicly.

This is a very tricky subject in a lot of different ways. Anyone have thoughts? 

Out entertainer Lance Bass used a slur on air to describe transgender people during an appearance on Access Hollywood and seemed unapologetic when comic Billy Eichner casually mentioned the word wasn’t “supposed to be used.”

Here’s the Advocate’s summary of what went down (and there’s a video at the link above): 

“So you need to go to Christopher and Hudson and get those trannies on the corner there — that would be perfect,” Bass suggests to Eichner. Eichner agrees, saying “I love a tranny” before realizing his error and correcting himself. 

“We’re not supposed to call them trannies anymore,” Eichner says. “Did you see that Neil Patrick Harris called them a tranny [sic] on Twitter?” Bass replies, “Oh, no? Great, now I’m going to get in trouble.”

Cohost Kit Hoover asks Eichner if there’s a “new name.” Bass says, “I didn’t get the memo.” Eichner suggests “really, really gay? I don’t know.” Bass replies, “I like my good ol’ trannies.”

When Kelly Osbourne and Neil Patrick Harris recently had similar slip-ups, they apologized profusely. We better see something similar from Lance - not that it would make this OK. This absolutely must stop, especially from within the community. 

Ignorance hurts. Even if you don’t know much about asexuality, start here to learn.