New Hampshire finally seems to be living up to lofty license plate motto: “Live Free or Die,” as its House of Representatives this week made the first move towards legalizing civil unions. Amidst protestor cries to “keep the Massachusetts agenda out of New Hampshire,” the state’s lower chamber voted 243-129 on Wednesday to join neighboring Quebec, Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts, in sanctioning a form of partnership rights for same-sex couples. (Quebec and Massachusetts have marriage, Vermont has civil unions, and Maine offers domestic partnerships.)

Last week, Canada one-upped the U.S. in the battle over equal rights for same-sex couples once again. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that denying survivor benefits to gay and lesbian couples is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The decision – which could cost Ottawa $50-75 million in back payments to about 1,000 gay men and lesbians whose partners are deceased – is just one more in a series of unprecedented rulings to come from Canada.

In 1991, Olive Watson, the heiress to the fortune of a little computer company named IBM, adopted her same-sex partner in a Maine courtroom (where the pair summered) in a bid to secure inheritance rights that were unavailable to them as a lesbian couple. Little did they know the drama that would ensue after breaking up.

I write to you this week from ground zero of Red State America: Salt Lake City. I’m certainly not someone with a big chip on my shoulder, but every time I come to Utah I can’t help but feel like the place is “against me.” After all, this is the home of the powerful Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has been a vociferous opponent of same-sex marriage and has been one of the nation’s leading backers of anti-gay legislation.

The first thing visitors notice about Temple Square–besides that creepy feeling those of us heathens get for intruding in such a sacred spot–are all the brides.

I have a few confessions to make: I used to work for a Republican governor. I have a Republican brother. I have Republican friends. And I even have gay Republican friends.

I admit these facts with caution, since Republicans don’t have a stellar reputation for being moderates these days, particularly on issues of importance to the LGBT community. But things haven’t always been that way. The vilified party that we know today no longer feels rooted in the Republican Party that was created 152 years ago and that was once rooted in the founding fathers’ opposition to corruption and aristocracy. So it seems fitting that if 2006 was anything, it was the year of Republican-bashing. As we close out the year, let’s recap the most glaring examples of Republican moral hypocrisy to dominate the headlines this year…

Legal marriage for same-sex couples will continue to be available across Canada indefinitely and, with any luck, forever. Earlier today, Canada’s Parliament voted definitively not to revisit Canada’s marriage laws or seek to take away same-sex couples’ right to legally wed.

The margin of votes was significant: 175 members of parliament (MP) voted down Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s bid to reopen the same-sex marriage debate, compared to 123 MPs who voted in favor.

Gay. Lesbian. Queer. Bisexual. GLB. GLBT. LBGT. GLBTQQI. There’s no shortage of ways people describe the gay and lesbian community. In politically correct circles, today, the ‘community’ as it is often described for short is more completely described as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender community (LGBT) to be as inclusive as possible.

The same diversity of nomenclature holds true for marriage. What you might call “gay marriage,” and another person might call “equal marriage” or “same-sex marriage”, I call “marriage for same-sex couples.” Who’s got it right? Well, that depends on who you ask.

After several months of delay and weeks of ducking the question that the LGBT community has been asking – when will the Prime Minister hold the vote to reopen the same-sex marriage debate – we finally have our answer. Next week.

Since Canada elected its first Conservative government in thirteen years this past January, I receive regular inquiries from people interested in understanding exactly what this will mean for Canada’s progressive marriage laws and marriage for same-sex couples.

One week after seven different U.S. states voted to support constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, South Africa – a country that only 12 short years ago abolished state-run racism – voted overwhelmingly to support the legalization of same-sex marriage.

What’s wrong with this picture?

“Aren’t you glad you didn’t move to Canada?” asked Los Angeles Daily News columnist John Yewell this weekend, two years after suggesting that Americans were dusting off their passports and getting ready to flee to our more liberal and peaceful neighbor to the north after George W. Bush’s re-election.

Sure, Nancy Pelosi, a liberal woman from San Francisco who is pro-gay and pro-choice is poised to become the Speaker of the House when Congress reconvenes in January, but is it time to give up on those plans to move to Toronto just yet?

Since I founded Hudson in 2005, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that I find myself thinking long and hard about the same-sex marriage issue. The more I read about the epic political, judicial and legislative battle going on around the world and the myriad resulting editorial reactions, I occasionally find myself getting bogged down by the intricacies of the dialogue.

After all, the gay marriage dialogue brings together a labyrinth of topics: human and equality rights, the institution of marriage (and its future), religion vs. secularity, politics and politicking, love and relationships, partnership rights, morality and family values, and children.

You’ve probably never visited Toronto. You may not even be able to imagine what the city looks like, but chances are you’ve seen a lot of it. After all, the biggest city in Canada regularly stands in for Boston, Chicago, New York, L.A. and other cities in TV and film (its gayest role was Pittsburgh in “Queer As Folk”).

At first glance Toronto may look like your typical North American metropolis–big, brawny, and bustling–but the city has a feel that is distinctly its own, influenced in part by its Canadian-ness and a worldliness that you won’t find in most places.

It’s not news that U.S. politicians have been talking about increasing border security since 9/11. But, what you might not know is that the fruits of their labor come to life in three short months, despite the constant political controversy on both sides of the border.

Effective January 8, 2007, everyone flying between the U.S. and Canada, including children, will need a passport (those traveling by land or sea have until January 1, 2008 to get a passport).

The long-awaited Supreme Court ruling in the state of New Jersey on October 25th, 2006 is at best a compromise.

It is truly wonderful and indeed refreshing (when compared to discussions of passed and pending constitutional amendments banning marriage for same-sex couples) to read some of the language in the 90-page ruling issued by the court that same-sex couples deserve and are entitled to all the rights and benefits afforded by marriage under the law. It is even better when the court ‘requires’ the legislature to act within 180 days to make it so.