- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee Blog
According to Female First, Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi will be getting married this June!
This makes me really happy–I’m a big fan of Ellen’s show and thought Portia was hilarious on Arrested Development; they’re one of my favorite celebrity couples! I really admire that they keep their private life private, yet everything I’ve read indicates that they’re really great together.
I haven’t done much research on gay/lesbian weddings or commitment ceremonies, but I know that as more states legalize some sort of same-sex union, they’re becoming more popular everyday. That said, and without trying to start a fight:
Totally for it! I don’t society should have the right to tell others how to live their lives and who they are and are not allowed to love.
Congratulations to Ellen! I love her show! (wish I could skip work and watch it more, hehe) That is great news.
Completely irrelevant, but I am loving Portia’s dress! Me wants one! And Ellen is hilarious 
Honestly I think that whether a couple wants to get married and a church wants to perform the ceremony is all that should be involved in the process. But since marriage is a partially legal process I think that there shouldn’t be any legal prohibitions or impediments for a couple who love one another.
I LOVE Arrested Development and Portia de Rossi as Lindsey. I could quote the show all day long!
I agree with the above. Same-sex married couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
For it! Also, I just love these two together, a comedy powerhouse!
I personally believe that if you don’t believe in gay marriage, then don’t get one. But to me, there’s no reason to impede those who would like to get married.
My uncle/godfather is gay and he’s been with is partner for about 15 years now. They’re probably the most functional couple I’ve ever met.
I personally believe that if you don’t believe in gay marriage, then don’t get one. But to me, there’s no reason to impede those who would like to get married.
My uncle/godfather is gay and he’s been with his partner for about 15 years now. They’re probably the most functional couple I’ve ever met.
I personally believe that if you don’t believe in gay marriage, then don’t get one. But to me, there’s no reason to impede those who would like to get married.
My uncle/godfather is gay and he’s been with his partner for about 15 years now. They’re probably the most functional couple I’ve ever met.
We are one of those couples!! I am glad to see that 78% of weddingbee readers have our back
Portia is beautiful. If I was into women I would totally have a huge crush on her and probably want to marry her myself.
It seems so absurd for the government to not give gay and lesbian couples the same rights afforded to heterosexuals. Hopefully that will change in the near future.
I think that the legalities are being held up by the religiousities (if that word exists, and I’m not saying it does). But the point is that, since our government was formed during a time when marriage was clearly defined by religious sources it necessarily inherited those religious definitions. And it’s the people and the religions that initially defined it that don’t want to re-define the word (at that’s the majority of this country). On the other hand, most of this country also thinks that same-gender couples ought to have a way of setting up legal arrangements similar to hetrosexual couples.
Bottom line? Calling the legal process something different (Domestic Partnership; Espousal Agreement), but leaving it so that the term ’spouse’ is generic to either type of couple would transfer over much of the current law to same sex couples. It would mean that the definition of these couples could be spelled out differently than (but very similar to) state marriage licencing. But most activists don’t want just the rights (which is possible), they want the name (which is politically impossible). And because activists are busy ignoring what could be done for what won’t be, the politicos in both parties are also ignoring it for fear they’ll be painted as “caving” to the other party.
Absolutely. In fact, we’re even doing a registration similar to this — https://secure.ga4.org/01/shiriandben!!
Totally for. Love is love.
I’m one of those same-sex couples. However, we’re marrying in Canada where it’s fully legal and backed by the government. It won’t be recognized back in the US, but we’re deliberately making a statement and spending our money supporting an economy that believes we’ve got just as much of a right to have our relationship legally recognized as anyone else.
i’ve heard of a joke. i don’t remember the particulars but the punch line is something along the lines of “they should be as miserable as the rest of us”. 
not saying that we’re all miserable in marriage, but just that we should all have the same rights.
nony mouse- I get your point- accept realities and take it as far as you can, but I have to respectfully disagree.
Marriage comes with thousands of instant privileges, domestic partnersips only a few. Not the least of which the rights inherent are recognized federally and are transferrable from state to state. Gay couples have to fight for these rights politically, and through the courts by filing contract after contract to gain similar rights. These rights often do not apply to children being raised jointly. And if the couple moves to a new state the whole process, extending their spouse the right to make medical decisions, etc, start over. Not to mention the monetary penalities in taxes and employee benefits that come from not being able to marry legally. We cannot discount these injustices as being “reality” as if that makes it unchangeable and absolves us of our duty to do something.
If we look at the early women’s movement, the inequalities women faced in legally and socially were abysmal. Not allowed to serve on a jury, bring lawsuits and considered incompetent to give testimony the barriers must have seemed insurmountable. Denied access to education, elected office and the right to vote their political reality was the need to scrape by out of the sight of the public. We’re very lucky they did not do so. For more than 70 years they struggled to achieve the unattainable- the right to vote. Despite ridicule, despite repeated attempts to force them to accept less than full equality they pushed on. How can we tell another group facing discrimination to accept reality?
Sorry about the book- can you tell I feel strongly about this?
ms. mouse,
No need to apologize about the length. And you are correct that current domestic partnerships are not very good legal arrangements. Nor are powers of attorney, either, but you’ve probably heard that sob story. These are relationships that are being stretched to accomodate something they aren’t really suited for, as far as I can tell. At any rate (and correct me if I’m wrong), since most of the policies (and my 1040) I’ve seen contain the word “spouse” not “husband” or “wife” I’ve thought that if there was a legal arrangement between same-sex couples that left them as each other’s “spouse” not “partner” (which implies a business, not personal relationship) those protections and priviledges would follow. Moreover, one of the reasons that I’ve seen push-back is because of ‘ruling by judicial fiat’ rather than by passing a law.
The women’s sufferage movement took such a long time because they split over the cause of racial suffrage and they had to reconcile after the 15th passed and build up steam again. Which part of the country thought women were incompetent to give testimony? The parts of the country that had common schools also tended to have female teachers. The political reality was that they had to be seen as competently involved before they would be given suffrage (WWI).
I agree with Ms. Mouse (and no, we are not related! - how funny is it that there are 3 of us on here with mousy names?)
To me the issue is that WE ARE ALL EQUAL so settling for something that is “differently than (but very similar to)” is simply not good enough. As I am Canadian I KNOW that it is “possible” for government recognized gay marriage to exist. I truly believe that gay marriage will be a reality in the States within the next 10 years - it is at its most basic level a human rights issue and as more and more countries recognize the rights of same sex couples (South Africa being the latest) it will be impossible for the self proclaimed “leaders of the free world” to be so far behind the rest of us.
Without adding another very volitile topic to the mix, I have always thought it quite ironic that the States is “spreading democracy and freedom” in Iraq and Afganistan while still treating some of their own as second class citizens.
I fully support the fight for government recognized gay marriage and want to offer my congratulations and best wishes to Starrgurrl and Jaxgirl on their upcoming weddings!
all the best and cheers to ellen and portia!
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Mrs. Blueberry, Kansas City Age and Occupation in 06: 21, Full-time Student Fiance's Age and Occupation: 23, Full-time Student Engagement Date: September 10, 2005 Wedding Date: May 25, 2007 Venue: Wynbrick Center - a historic mansion in my hometown. About Me: We're having an intimate, 125-ish person wedding with a full-blown dessert reception. When I'm not obsessing over wedding stuff or studying for my BA in English, I'm usually playing with our two kitty cats, blogging, doing crafty things, or hanging out with Mr. Blueberry!
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Latest Gallery Pics