This is The Blast [CNN report]

Washington (CNN) -- The District of Columbia's same-sex marriage law will go into effect as scheduled this week, after the Supreme Court refused to stop its enforcement.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued a three-page order Tuesday, a day before the law becomes official. He concluded the high court should defer to local matters in the federal district of Washington. And he said a separate ballot initiative to overturn the law would give voters a chance to weigh in on the question.

A group of Washington residents had objected to the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act, which expands the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Those opponents had argued city residents should have been given a chance to vote on the high-profile issue before the city council passed the measure. They still seek to force a ballot initiative after the law takes effect. Local courts had turned down various lawsuits to block it.

The district's marriage bureau says same-sex couples can begin applying for marriage licenses Wednesday. However, by law, "three full days must pass between the day of application to the day that the license can be issued," the bureau, part of the district's superior court system, says on its Web site, so no marriages would be held this week.

A $35 application fee is waived for couples who are registered domestic partners, although a $10 fee for the license is not, the bureau said.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty signed a measure recognizing same-sex marriages as legal in December, after the city council overwhelming passed it. It then had to go through a review period during which Congress had an opportunity to intervene.

The district joins Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa in allowing same-sex couples to marry.

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
March 2, 2010 -- Updated 2246 GMT (0646 HKT)

Washington [New York Times]

WASHINGTON — It was cold and drizzling outside the City Courthouse just after 6 a.m. on Wednesday, but no one seemed to mind among the same-sex couples waiting for the chance to apply for a marriage license.
“This is a dream come true,” said Sinjoyla Townsend, 41, as she smiled ear to ear and held up her ticket indicating she was first in line with her partner of 12 years, Angelisa Young, 47. “We wanted it so bad.”
Gay rights advocates hailed the day as a milestone for equal rights and a symbolic victory as same-sex marriage became legal in the nation’s capital.

Washington is now the sixth place in the nation where same-sex marriages can take place. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Despite failing in court, opponents of the law vowed to fight another day.
The law survived Congressional attempts to block it, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday rejected a request from opponents of same-sex marriage to have the United States Supreme Court delay it.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty signed the measure into law in December, but because the District of Columbia is not a state, the law had to undergo Congressional review, which ended Tuesday.
Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington on Tuesday limited employee health care benefits to avoid coverage of same-sex couples. It was the second time Catholic Charities changed its rules to protest same-sex marriage, having earlier ended its foster care program.

The new law was already having regional implications.
Maryland’s attorney general, Douglas F. Gansler, issued a legal opinion last week concluding that Maryland should immediately recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
Mr. Gansler’s move is expected to draw legal and legislative challenges, but for Terrance Heath of Montgomery County, Md., it was the turning point that persuaded him to get married.
“We realized that we can finally get many of the benefits and protections that other couples take for granted,” said Mr. Heath, 41, a blogger who lives with his partner, Rick Imirowicz, 43, and their two adopted sons.
“Before that attorney general decision we could have the legal documents, like wills and medical power of attorney,” Mr. Heath said. “But there was no guarantee that those documents would be recognized.”

He said that he and Mr. Imirowicz had worried about what might happen to any inheritance meant for their sons, Parker, 7, and Dylan, 2. “Marriage gives us peace of mind,” Mr. Heath said. “It gives my family security that we deserve.”
At the city’s Marriage Bureau inside the Moultrie Courthouse, just blocks from the Capitol, the mood was giddy as couples hugged and talked about a day they never thought would arrive.
“I became a naturalized U.S. citizen in the mid-’90s,” said Cuc Vu, a native of Vietnam who was third in line with her partner of 20 years, Gwen Migita. “But this is really the first time that I feel like I have the full rights and benefits of citizenship.”

Court officials explained that the Marriage Bureau had changed its license applications: They ask for the name of each spouse rather than the bride and groom. Officials who perform the weddings read, “I now pronounce you legally married.”
On a typical day the office processes 10 licenses, court officials said. By late Wednesday afternoon, more than 140 couples had filed to be married, the mayor’s office said.

Because of a mandatory waiting period, couples will not be able to marry in the city until Tuesday.
City officials say the measure will also provide a financial boost to the local economy. A study by the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, predicted that more than 14,000 same-sex marriages would occur in the city over the next three years, which would bring in $5 million in new tax revenue and create 700 jobs.


By IAN URBINA
Published: March 3, 2010

He Said they are cured?

ok let's check out this l.a. times talk about.
i guess it is so very ridiculous, right?
if some christians want gay to change their life to the opposite path of their desire?
it's just the same way as we're asking a straight woman to be totally lesbian, or begging a straight man to be totally not desiring for woman [be completely gay]~!!!

i dont know what is it in their head?
they dont see people by the inside but just appearances [you know what i mean.]
like we see a doll!!!! they want other people to be like what they desire!
it's totally insane!
and so many insident in church, why dont they take care of this first?
how come you want to change tiger's desire of eating meat become vegetarian?

it's all just the fake, right?
they said they are fine and totally straight but i dont believe that they've lost even for small amount of desire or attraction to the man!
it's just forcing or compeling their own heart~!....

if a gay is a mistakes, you know, hmmm i think parents should use condom
since the very first time making love till forever.
just not making baby! hahaha
because the source of problem is who make a gay be born?
that's the point right?
even Lord himself, He didnt squeeze woman's breast or makin' love with woman.
but yes, The Almighty made love with her mother. [as it is said in bible]
why is it still be debated? why people debate about homo?

even in the country like Amerika Serikat [United States of America]
where education and science develop so very sophisticated and in the front line than in Asia, why are they still debating the useless topic of this!

'coz, this is nature phenomena!
you are against the universe and cosmic law!
because being gay is not making it up! we can not!
"~~~~it's been made up!~~~~"

then what is the use of therapy for? included the psychiatrist who try to alter one to be another one!
they are nothing more than just for MAKIN' MONEY
you pay to them a bunch of money, and then they can not make anything.
because it is not illness! how can you cure anything that not an ill!
on the contrary, they made a new illness in the future!
pain and emptiness. try to convert someone becoming other personality

If American, European and people all over the world fear of gay and also homophobia
THE ONLY EFFECTIVE THERAPHY is make your ovarium and sperm damage or disorder.
or prohibit man having sex with woman! then no more gay and lesbian be born in the future! that's what you people very desire, to get rid of gay and lesbian.
i think this is the best way to all of you who hate or antipathy to gay and lesbian.
you must prevent all of your friends, neighbours, and included your family not to havin' sex or at least kill ur sperm and ovum so that you will never see a gay, lesbian or anything you dont like it exsist in this world.

and now, so, i dont believe Religion led us to peace then!
because it is from the church and also inside of that which said to be holly book that there are several problems. and religion also taking part of the chaostic to entire human life in the world.

like Lord ever said:
Matius 10:34-36 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." For I have come to `set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughterinlaw against her motherinlaw and `a man's enemies [will be] those of his [own] household."
....

and after we believe in Him, then what happened now?
i feel been backstab all this time!
they talk so sweet to church members but sometimes also givin somekind of provocation
to people in there in smooth way but the point is condamning other religions,
people's culture, etc! and especially homosexualy. ok i'm sorry, i just feel like
someone led me to the middle of the forest and leave me alone there with no compass.
and i am very dissapointed by the church with their half eye seeing entire world by the unjust.

ok nevermind, let's see these news talk about:

From the Los Angeles Times
New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
Christian ministries who see homosexuality as a treatable disorder are starting to think that choice may not be a factor.
By Stephanie Simon
Times Staff Writer

June 18, 2007

Alan Chambers directs Exodus International, widely described as the nation's largest ex-gay ministry. But when he addresses the group's Freedom Conference at Concordia University in Irvine this month, Chambers won't celebrate successful "ex-gays."

Truth is, he's not sure he's ever met one.

With years of therapy, Chambers says, he has mostly conquered his own attraction to men; he's a husband and a father, and he identifies as straight. But lately, he's come to resent the term "ex-gay": It's too neat, implying a clean break with the past, when he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation. "By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete," Chambers said.

His personal denunciation of the term "ex-gay" — his organization has yet to follow suit — is just one example of shifting ground in the polarizing debate on homosexuality.

Despite the fundamental gulf that divides them, gay-rights activists and those who see homosexuality as a sinful disorder are starting to reach agreement on some practical points.

Chambers and other Exodus leaders talk deliberately about a possible biological basis for homosexuality, in part to explain that no one can turn a switch and flip from gay to straight, no matter how hard they pray.

A leading conservative theologian outside the ex-gay movement recently echoed the view that homosexuality may not be a choice, but a matter of DNA. To the shock and anger of many of his constituents, the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote that "we should not be surprised" to find a genetic basis for sexual orientation.

That's heretical to many conservative Christians. But it's a view increasingly embraced by the public at large; a Gallup Poll last month found that 42% of adults believe sexual orientation is present at birth. (Three decades ago, when Gallup first asked the question, just 13% held that view.)

Mohler's willingness to discuss the issue was welcomed by Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York psychiatrist who advocates for gay rights and has been a vocal critic of the ex-gay movement. "I saw it as a sign of openness," Drescher said.

"Something's happening. And I think it's very positive," agreed Michael Bussee, who founded Exodus in 1976, only to fall in love with another man — a fellow ex-gay counselor.

Now a licensed family therapist in Riverside, Bussee regularly speaks out against ex-gay therapies and is scheduled to address the Ex-Gay Survivor's Conference at UC Irvine at the end of the month.

But Bussee put aside his protest agenda recently to endorse new guidelines to sexual identity therapy, co-written by two professors at conservative Christian colleges.

He and other gay activists — along with major mental-health associations — still reject therapy aimed at "liberating" or "curing" gays. But Bussee is willing to acknowledge potential in therapy that does not promise change but instead offers patients help in managing their desires and modifying their behavior to match their religious values — even if that means a life of celibacy.

"It's about helping clients accept that they have these same-sex attractions and then allowing them the space, free from bias, to choose how they want to act," said Lee Beckstead, a gay psychologist in Salt Lake City who uses this approach.

The guidelines for this type of therapy — written by Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University — have been endorsed by representatives on both the left and right. The list includes the provost of a conservative evangelical college and the psychiatrist whose gay-rights advocacy in the 1970s got homosexuality removed from the official medical list of mental disorders.

"What appeals to me is that it moves away from the total polarization" common in the field, said Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist.

"For many years, mental-health professionals have taken the view that since homosexuality is not a mental disorder, any attempt to change sexual orientation is unwise," said Spitzer, a Columbia University professor.

Some therapies are widely considered dangerous, and some rely on discredited psychological theories. "But for healthcare professionals to tell someone they don't have the right to make an effort to bring their actions into harmony with their values is hubris," Spitzer said.

Activists on both sides caution that the rapprochement only goes so far.

Critics of Exodus note the group still sponsors speakers who attribute homosexuality to bad parenting and assert that gays and lesbians live short, unhappy lives.

And though Chambers has disavowed the term "ex-gay," his group's ads give the distinct impression that it's possible to leave homosexuality completely behind.

The Irvine conference, for instance, is being promoted with radio spots that talk of "sudden, radical and complete" transformation. (Chambers apologized for those ads in a recent interview, saying they were meant to urge church leaders to radically change the way they treat gays and lesbians, not to imply that conference-goers would magically transform their orientation.)

The American Psychological Assn. set up a task force this spring to revise the group's policy on sexual orientation therapy. The current policy is a decade old and fairly vague; it states that homosexuality is not a disorder and that therapists can't make false claims about their treatments.

The new policy, due early next year, must help psychologists uphold two ethical principles as they work with patients unhappy about their sexuality: "Respect for the autonomy and dignity of the patient, and a duty to do no harm," said Clinton Anderson, the association's director for lesbian, gay and bisexual concerns. "It's a balancing act."

stephanie.simon@latimes.com

The Beginning of the Debate

Gay Americans have been calling for the right to marry, or at least to create more formalized relationships, since the 1960s, but same-sex marriage has only emerged as a national issue within the last 20 years. The spark that started the debate occurred in Hawaii in 1993, when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that an existing law banning same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional unless the state government could show that it had a compelling reason for discriminating against gay and lesbian couples.

Even though this decision did not immediately lead to the legalization of gay marriage in that state (the case was sent back to a lower court for further consideration), it did spark a nationwide backlash. Over the next decade, legislatures in more than 40 states passed what are generally known as Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs), which define marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. While a few of these laws have been struck down, 36 states still have DOMAs on the books. In addition, in 1996 the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, a federal DOMA statute that, for purposes of federal law, defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The statute also asserts that no state can be forced to legally recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. The enactment of a federal DOMA is significant since the federal protections and benefits conferred by marriage are stipulated in over 1,000 laws and policies, including Social Security, family medical leave and federal taxation and immigration policies.

In the late 1990s, Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada amended their state constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. These constitutional changes were aimed at taking the issue out of the hands of judges. Conservatives, in particular, feared that without constitutional language specifically defining marriage, many judges would take it upon themselves to interpret other constitutional provisions broadly so as to allow a right to same-sex marriage.

Amid widespread efforts in many states to prevent same-sex marriage, there was at least one notable victory for gay-rights advocates during this period. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to all the rights and protections associated with marriage. However, the court left it up to the Vermont Legislature to determine how to grant these rights to same-sex couples. The following year, the legislature approved a bill granting gay and lesbian couples the right to form civil unions, which grant most of the legal rights of marriage but not the title.

Still Gay Marriage

In recent years, the debate over same-sex marriage has grown from an issue that occasionally arose in a few states to a nationwide controversy. Indeed, in the last five years, the debate over gay marriage has been heard in the halls of the U.S. Congress, at the White House, in dozens of state legislatures and courtrooms, and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at both the national and state levels. Moreover, the battle over whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed shows no signs of abating. In the last year alone, three states have banned same-sex marriage and four states have legalized the practice.

Recently, both sides in the debate have scored important victories. In April 2009, for example, Iowa's Supreme Court ruled that the state's constitution guarantees gays and lesbians the right to wed; the high court in Connecticut had issued a similar ruling in May 2008. Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates also won important legislative victories in a number of states, beginning in April 2009 when the Vermont Legislature legalized same-sex marriage.

The Vermont law marked the first time gay marriage was legalized as the result of a statute rather than a court ruling. By the end of May 2009, two other state legislatures, those in Maine and New Hampshire, followed suit, bringing the total number of states that allow same-sex marriage to six. Finally, in June 2009, President Barack Obama granted family medical leave and certain other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers. (The presidential memorandum did not include health insurance coverage, which would require congressional approval.)

Opponents of gay marriage also have had some success in recent years. In November 2008, for instance, voters in California, Florida and Arizona approved ballot initiatives amending their state constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage, raising the total number of states that have passed such constitutional amendments to 29. (Arizona voters had previously rejected a constitutional ban in November 2006.) The vote in California, on a ballot measure known as Proposition 8, was particularly notable since it overturned a May 2008 California Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in that state.

Passage of Proposition 8 also prompted an entirely new court battle over whether the just-approved ballot initiative itself was constitutional. That battle ended in May 2009, when the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 8.