Here's a poll taken by Queerty, about how their readers feel about marriage and monogamy. It's actually more than that, though. LGBT people were asked a series of questions about marriage that range from whether or not SCOTUS will rule in our favor to how some view marriage and religion.
Here's the answer about monogamy:
This one is not going to make Pat Robertson happy either. One-third of you agreed that marriage does not necessarily include monogamy, favoring the Dan Savage term “monogamish.” Perhaps because of this appreciation for sexual flexibility, only five percent predicted same-sex couples will have a higher divorce rate than opposite-sex marriages. Nearly 13 percent believe opposite-sex couples actually will divorce at a greater rate (it could hardly be worse!). (Nearly 80 percent said divorce rates have little or nothing to do with the gender of the married couple.)
I actually think this is pretty spot on when I think about all the same sex couples in long term relationships I've known over the years. I also think this could apply to heteronormative couples as well...at least to those who tell the truth.
You can read the rest here. The reply to the question about religious marriages is also pretty accurate...I think.
Justice Scalia and SCOTUS Ruling
Everyone's speculating and parsing everything on how SCOTUS will rule on same sex marriage this week. Now it's reached a point where some are suggesting that Justice Scalia may have dropped a hint.
In short, Scalia is trying to limit the right to marry to just that–the right to marry. Adoption by married couples, for example, is a separate issue. Scalia argues that unless something is “deeply rooted” in American tradition, the Court will need to be shown exactly how it is a fundamental right. And guess what’s not exactly rooted in American tradition.
Scalia’s reasoning could be used by opponents of same-sex marriage who want to define it as narrowly as possible. Being married wouldn’t necessarily grant you other rights, like protection from vendor discrimination or parental rights. You would have to prove those separately.
You can read more here. As someone in the comments said, it would be in everyone's best interest if Scalia recused himself from this one.
Here's another related piece.
False Arrest for Spreading HIV
I didn't know how else to title this, because it's so backward and so far-fetched that when I saw the headline I'm linking to I actually blinked.
Evidently, an Oklahoma City man was arrested for spitting on a woman because the woman claimed he was spreading HIV. I'm not joking. Spitting.
The alleged “victim” told authorities that she and 32-year-old Apollo Gonzalez got into an argument on Saturday. During the squabble, Gonzaelz, who the woman claims was drunk, spit in her face.
“The [woman] said it is well-known that [Gonzalez] is HIV positive and [Gonzalez] admitted to me he had HIV,” the police report stated.
The cops arrested him at the scene for “knowingly transferring the HIV virus and assault and battery.”
You can read the rest here. I thought everyone knew how HIV was spread by now. Evidently not. So if you don't know there's a link with the article that will explain it in more detail. But it's not spread through spitting or casual contact.
The Rainbow Detective Agency
Box Set Series $5.99