Social conservatives and religious leaders condemned his remarks.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign attacked Republican Mitt Romney, who restated his opposition to same-sex marriage, as out of touch on the issue.

Mr Obama travelled to the West Coast on Thursday for fundraisers in Seattle and Los Angeles likely to raise millions.

One fundraiser, to be held at the home of George Clooney, is expected on its own to raise $15m (£9.3m), partially from a general raffle offering members of the public the chance to meet the Hollywood actor.

In the wake of his interview with ABC News, gay advocates applauded Mr Obama's remarks.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said that the president's comments would "inspire thousands more conversations around kitchen tables and in church pews".

'Deeply saddening'

But Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, labelled Mr Obama's remarks "deeply saddening".

"We cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society," he said in a statement. "The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better."

On Thursday morning, the Obama campaign sought to capitalise on the president's political gamble by releasing an internet video titled Mitt Romney: Backwards on Equality.

It shows a clip of Mr Romney, the Republican who is expected to challenge Mr Obama for the White House in November, saying on Wednesday that he opposes gay marriage.

The video says that even former Republican President George W Bush supported civil unions, a step short of marriage.

On Wednesday evening, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives moved to reinforce the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (Doma).

By 245-171, lawmakers voted to prevent the justice department from using taxpayer funds to actively oppose the act, which prevents gay marriages from being recognised at the federal level.

Mr Obama ordered the department to stop actively defending Doma in February 2011.

The vote's sponsor, Kansas Republican Tim Huelskamp, said it was not Mr Obama's "prerogative" to decide "which laws matter and which do not".

Mr Obama broke from his long-claimed indecision on the issue of gay marriage to express outright support for the right of homosexual couples to marry, in an interview on Wednesday with ABC News.

The US president acknowledged that his interview had been prompted by Vice-President Joe Biden's remarks on Sunday that he was "absolutely comfortable" with gay marriage.

He said he had planned to speak on the issue before the Democratic convention in September, and would have preferred to have "done this in my own way, on my own terms without, I think, there being a lot of notice".

In 2010, Mr Obama said his views on the issue of gay marriage were "evolving", a stance that had frustrated gay rights supporters and donors.

However, Mr Obama's newly declared stance does little to change the legal status for gay people who wish to wed in states where such marriages are outlawed. Thirty-one US states have passed constitutional amendments or legislation against same-sex marriage.

'Bible's against that'

On Tuesday, North Carolina approved a constitutional amendment - 61% in favour and 39% against - effectively banning same-sex marriage or civil unions.

A Gallup poll on Tuesday suggested that 50% of Americans were in favour of legalising gay marriage - a slightly lower proportion than last year - while 48% said they would oppose such a move.

Mr Obama's announcement is seen as politically risky in the upcoming election, especially in the South, where one in three swing voters strongly opposes allowing gays and lesbians to wed. Mr Obama narrowly won North Carolina in the 2008 election.

BBC North America editor Mark Mardell says the Obama campaign hopes the announcement will energise younger voters.

But Mr Obama's remarks may not play so well with religious African-American voters, a key Obama voting bloc. Recent polling suggeststhat support for gay marriage among black church-goers remains lower than many other groups.

Pentecostal Pastor Charles Bargaineer, of the largely black New Fellowship Church of God in Florida, told the Associated Press he was troubled by the president's position.

"I don't think that's appropriate for the president," Mr Bargaineer told Reuters news agency. "The Bible's strictly against that."

When asked whether he would vote again for Mr Obama, Mr Bargaineer said: "I'll have to pray about that."

Reverend Scott Clark, a gay pastor from the San Francisco Theological Seminary, said it had been "deeply moving" to hear Mr Obama "finally acknowledge the full dignity and humanity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and our families".

Source: BBC News

He has become the first sitting US president to back gay marriage.

Mitt Romney, the Republican who is set to challenge Mr Obama for the White House in November's elections, promptly said he was against gay marriage.

In recent days, Vice-President Joe Biden and cabinet member Arne Duncan had expressed support for gay unions.

A Gallup poll on Tuesday suggested that 50% of Americans were in favour of legalising gay marriage - a slightly lower proportion than last year - while 48% said they would oppose such a move.

The interview with ABC News was apparently hastily arranged as Mr Obama came under mounting pressure to clarify his position on the issue.

"At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," Mr Obama told ABC.

He pointed to his administration's commitment to increasing rights for gay citizens. He cited the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and said his administration had dropped support for the Defense of Marriage Act.

"I've stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community. I hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient," Mr Obama said.

He said he had changed his views after seeing gay members of his own staff who were in "incredibly committed monogamous relationships", and service personnel who felt constrained by not being able to wed.

Mr Obama also said discussions with his own family had helped the "evolution" of his views on the issue.

"There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and... Malia and Sasha, it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently," Mr Obama said.

"It doesn't make sense to them and frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective."

In 2010, Mr Obama said his views on the issue were "evolving", a stance that had frustrated gay rights supporters and donors.

His comments aired on Wednesday come a day after North Carolina approved a constitutional amendment effectively banning same-sex marriage or civil unions.

The Obama campaign had opposed that measure, which was passed with 61% in favour and 39% against.

In the US, 31 states have passed constitutional amendments or legislation against same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, Mr Romney set the stage for an election year clash over the polarising social issue by saying he was against gay marriage.

The former Massachusetts governor told a Fox News affiliate: "I do not favour marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favour civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name.

"My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."

Source: BBC News

During a wide-ranging interview with David Gregory on NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday, Biden weighed in on a wide range of topics--the economy, foreign policy, gay marriage, blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangjang, Mitt Romney and Osama bin Laden--six months ahead of the general election.

Biden said "it's not a concern" that job growth appears to have stagnated because "there is no stagnation."

"There were four million jobs lost in the six months or so before we came to office," Biden said. "Before I lowered my right hand on Jan. 20 [2009], we lost 700,000 jobs that month. And before we got out first major economic initiative passed, we lost another 3.5 million jobs. Since that point, it's been steady growth, not enough. There's still a lot of people in trouble. But there's no stagnation.

"I come from a household where whenever there was a massive recession, somebody around that table was gonna lose their job," Biden continued. "Here's the deal. What is Romney proposing? He's proposing, as to quote Bill Clinton, 'going back to the last policy of the last administration on steroids.' I mean, what is [Romney] talking about? He talks about another $2 trillion in tax cuts for the very wealthy. Is that how he's gonna do it? Is he gonna create jobs by continuing to undercut getting people to college and helping them get there by undercutting education? Is he gonna continue to create jobs by eliminating investments in research and development? I mean, what, what's the plan? We've seen this movie before."

While Biden wouldn't say if the Obama administration would support gay-marriage legislation in a second term, he expressed his personal views on the topic:

DAVID GREGORY: And you're comfortable with same-sex marriage now?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I-- I-- look, I am vice president of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don't see much of a distinction-- beyond that.

DAVID GREGORY: In a second term, will this administration come out behind same-sex marriage, the institution of marriage?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: 
Well, I-- I-- I can't speak to that. I-- I-- I-- I don't know the answer to that.

Later in the interview, Biden conceded his public criticism of Romney regarding Osama bin Laden was hypocritical.

DAVID GREGORY: You questioned Romney's bona fides on foreign policy in a wide area. But in this particular area, you said, "Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive. Could you say that slogan in reverse for Governor Romney?" And it's striking, Mr. Vice President, given that at the H-hour of D-day for this operation, you told this president, "Don't do it. Don't do it now," is what you said. And yet you're saying Governor Romney should be questioned? When that was your judgment at the time?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: 
That-- that's a valid point. I don't know what Governor-- I didn't say he wouldn't.

But Biden hinted the country would be less safe in a Romney presidency. "Based on what [he] has said, for example, him saying our archenemy, I'm paraphrasing, is Russia. Oh, he called it the Soviets. If that's his prism through which he views our national security interest, I would say it would not be as strong."

He also addressed bin Laden's apparent criticism of his ability to step in as president in a letter--released last week--in which the terror leader concluded " Biden is totally unprepared for that post."

"Osama bin Laden's been wrong about a lot of things," he said on Sunday. "I hope he was wrong about that."

Biden added that he wasn't sure if he'd be interested in running in 2016, with or without Hillary Clinton. But he's locked into the 2012 ticket.

"There's no way out," he said. "I mean, they've already printed Obama-Biden."

Source: ABC News

When Avarice Guerrero, a Marine, returned from duty in Afghanistan to San Diego’s Camp Pendleton he was greeted by his boyfriend Cory Huston, a Navy veteran who was discharged under the former Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Act -- a legislation the prohibited gays from openly serving in the military.

Before the couple was reunited Huston waited nervously for his boyfriend’s return as he chain-smoked and repeated his proposal. Huston and Guerrero had been separated for ten long months.

"This is a huge step for me," Huston told the newspaper.

Once Guerrero spotted Huston he dropped his bags and kissed his partner. After a few minutes of embrace, Huston got down on one knee and asked his boyfriend to marry him. Guerrero of course said, "Yes."

"I was blown away," Guerrero said. "I was shocked that after all we’d been through, he would honestly want to spend the rest of his life with someone like me."

LGBT Weekly claims that the event could be the first public engagement to a same-sex couple on a military base.

In December 2011, two Navy officers becamethe first women to share a "first kiss." Petty Officer Second Class Marissa Gaeta and Petty Officer Third Class Citlalic Snell kissed in the rain on the dock after the USS Oak Hill returned to Join Expeditionary Base in Virginia.

A photo of a Marine kissing his partner after he returned home from Afghanistan went viral in late February. Marine Sgt. Brandon Morgan embraced his boyfriend, Dalan Wells, by jumping into his arms and planting one on him. A friend photographed the couple and soon the picture and their story spread across the Internet.

"I can only imagine that it went viral because we were the first men to kiss," said Morgan. "To everyone who has responded in a positive way, my partner and I want to say thank you," Morgan wrote on his Facebook. "Dalan, the giant in the photo, can’t believe how many shares and likes we have gotten on this. We didn’t do this to get famous, or something like that we did this ’cause after three deployments and four years knowing each other, we finally told each other how we felt."

Source: EDGE

Speaking to an audience of Catholic bishops from England and Wales at their plenary meeting in Leeds, he asked them to be prepared for what would be a “lengthy and probably difficult campaign,” adding, “I wonder if we shouldn’t ask for and look for more support among other Christian confessions and indeed, persons of other faiths.”

“It seems to me that, concerning the institution of marriage, and indeed the sanctity of human life, we have much in common with the position of the Jewish community, the Chief Rabbi and many of the more significant representatives of Islam,” he said.

His comments come after yesterday, Archbishop Peter Smith said that while there has been no “formal” contact with Jewish groups to form what he called a united front on the subject of marriage, “we will work with anyone who agrees with us that to redefine marriage is not a good thing for society and will lead to confusion.”

Archbishop Smith is the second most senior Catholic cleric in England and Wales. He called the current plans for equal marriage “dangerous,” adding, “the Church of England is very much along the same lines as ourselves on this.” He also used the opportunity to defend the teaching of homophobic definitions of marriage at Catholic schools, which, as PinkNews.co.uk reports today, is now the subject of government investigation.

The Catholic Church has been so far the most vocal of opponents to the government proposals, with the country’s most senior Catholic calling it “a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.” Liberal factions of the Jewish and Christian faiths, however, have come out strongly in favour of the proposals.

Source: Pink News

A student at St Philomena’s Catholic High School for Girls in Carshalton voiced concerns to PinkNews.co.uk that pupils from 11 to 18 years of age had been “encouraged” to sign the anti-equality pledge by the school’s headmistress.

The Catholic Education Service confirmed to PinkNews.co.uk that it had written to at least 359 Catholic state secondary schools in England and Wales last month asking them to draw attention to a letter by senior archbishops which told Catholics of their “duty” to do “all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations”.

It also asked schools to “draw attention” to the Coalition for Marriage campaign and petition against civil marriage equality, which now has over 460,000 signatures.

Responding on the school’s behalf, the Catholic Education Service said St Philomena’s itself had designed the presentation which is said to have encouraged minors to add their names to that campaign.

It confirmed the presentations for all age groups had consisted of the Archbishops’ letter and ended with a slide displaying the Coalition for Marriage’s website and the words: “Sign the petition”.

Experts in the handling of gay and transgender issues in schools have today questioned whether the presentation may have breached equality laws.

Sixth form student Katherine told PinkNews.co.uk of her experience: “In our assembly for the whole Sixth Form you could feel people bristling as she explained parts of the letter and encouraged us to sign the petition.

“She said things about gay marriage and civil partnerships being unnatural. It was just a really out-dated, misjudged and heavily biased presentation.”

Katherine added that students had begun to respond: “A few of us in my year are buying Gay Pride badges to pin on our uniform and thought about staging a Stonewall coup by posting the ‘Some people are gay – get over it’ posters around school.”

“Most importantly though, there are several people in my year who aren’t heterosexual – myself included – and I for one was appalled and actually disgusted by what they were encouraging.

“After all, that’s discrimination they were urging impressionable people to engage in, which is unacceptable.”

Greg Pope, the Deputy Director of the Catholic Education Service told PinkNews.co.uk: “We wrote to Catholic secondary schools to let them know of the archbishops’ letter on the government’s gay marriage proposals. We’ve asked them to draw attention generally to the Coalition for Marriage petition which is an open petition that people of all ages can sign.

“We have been aiming this towards older pupils and parents. The archbishop’s letter is a positive statement of the Church’s support for marriage, rather than negative comments about gay marriage.”

The Coalition for Marriage themselves pointed out that the petition is not open to people “of all ages” as the Service suggested, but only to those aged 16 and above.

When alerted to this, Mr Pope said today that the Catholic Education Service would be clear in any future correspondence with schools that the Coalition for Marriage petition had an age restriction, but that it was not planning to contact schools again on the subject.

The Coalition for Marriage confirmed the age restriction on its petition yesterday but has not made any further comment on the story this morning.

On the particular claims made by the student that the headmistress had called gay marriages “unnatural”, Mr Pope said: “All pupils deserve to be treated with respect and tolerance.

“If a pupil or parent feels the school has not lived up to that, all schools have complaints procedures which meet the Department for Education requirements.”

Conor Marron, who set up the Coalition for Equal Marriage to build grass roots support for equality and oppose the campaign of the Coalition for Marriage, told PinkNews.co.uk: “This is incredibly worrying.

“These children are shamelessly being used and manipulated to further the goals of the religious right, most likely without the knowledge or permission of their parents.

“With children as young as 11 being drawn into this without being adequately equipped with maturity and an understanding of the issues at hand is nothing less than abusive scaremongering.

“They claim that one of their reasons to campaign against same-sex marriage is to try to protect children.

“This just goes to show how untrue that is, and that they will use any tool and stoop to any low to get what they want.

“They are the ones who are a threat to children, and this is a shining example as to the dangers of faith schools.”

Concerns have been raised that the school may have breached its public sector equality duty to have “due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity” and “foster good relations” between “persons who share a relevant protected characteristic [including sexual orientation] and persons who do not share it” in decision-making.

Sue Sanders, co-chair of Schools Out, told PinkNews.co.uk: “The Public Duty of the Equality Act requires schools to amongst, other things, foster good relations across all characteristics. I hardly think telling people to sign a petition that limits LGB people their human rights is either appropriate or legal.”

The Catholic Education Service said in response today that the school is permitted by the Act to teach sex and relationship education in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church, but that it would not be allowed to discriminate or permit discrimination against pupils on the grounds of sexual orientation.

New regulations mean that by 6 April, schools should have published information showing how they are complying with the equality duty aims of eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equal opportunity and fostering good relations.

PinkNews.co.uk has requested the school’s information through the Catholic Education Service (CES).

In a statement, the British Humanist Association said: “Pink News’s article highlights that the CES’s actions likely broke the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination against pupils based on their sexual orientation. The BHA believe the CES’s actions likely break sections 406-7 of the Education Act 1996, which forbids ‘the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school’, and requires balanced treatment of political issues. This law was successfully used in 2007 to stop schools showing Al Gore’s climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, without also explaining scientific errors in the film.”

BHA Faith Schools Campaigner Richy Thompson added: “This action by the Catholic Education Service is absolutely outrageous. Not only might this break equalities legislation, it also breaks laws against political partisanship.

“If any pupil at one of the schools concerned is interested in taking a legal case forward on this, we urge them to get in touch with us.”

Source: Pink News

Chen Jing-hsueh and Gao Jhih-wei had their marriage formally recorded in a family pedigree last year – the first among Chinese ever. According to the Taiwanese civil law, marriage between two individuals before May 2007 would immediately take effect as long as there was a public ceremony with two witnesses. Chen and Gao publicly tied the knot in September 2006.

However, the Department of Household Registration has since turned them down twice, meaning that they were not entitled to the benefits open to every married heterosexual couple in their country.

Jing-hsueh decided to take their case to court, and in August 2011, the Department of Household Registration accepted their application for a joint household registration – then formally denied it a month later.

The Department said that marriage was defined as “a monogamous conjugal union between a husband and a wife”, adding it needed further research and discussion to decide whether two men or women could constitute a family.

The hearing begins tomorrow.

Source: Pink News

The previous parliament, dominated by a centre-left coalition, passed a new family law in June 2011 but the Civil Initiative for Family and Children's Rights challenged it, arguing that homosexuals should not receive adoption rights.

By February the group, which enjoys the support of the Catholic Church, had collected the 42,000 signatures necessary for a national referendum.

Opinion polls show voters are likely to narrowly endorse the law.

Under the legislation, gay couples do not have the right to adopt children from a third party but conservative groups want it annulled because it allows homosexuals to adopt the children of their partners.

"We are against the new family law because it does not recognize the exceptional importance of women and men in giving birth, the personal development and upbringing of children, and does not bring new rights to children," Ales Primc, head of the civil group which initiated the referendum, told Reuters.

"It also paves a way for a homosexual education in the school system and we believe such an education should be followed only in agreement with parents."

The small Adriatic country which joined the European Union in 2004 is relatively tolerant of homosexual couples, who have been able to formally register their relationship since 2006.

Last year a court sentenced three Slovenians to up to seven months in jail for attacking a gay activist in Ljubljana in 2009.

Human rights ombudsman Zdenka Cebasek Travnik told Reuters the public was unnecessarily focused on the issue of gay adoption rights because the law also contained "many, many things that are distinctively in favor of all children".

The law envisages a special ombudsman for children's rights and is expected to speed up court processes on matters concerning children's rights. It also simplifies divorce for childless couples.

Slovenians have rejected five laws in a row in referendums over the past 16 months, which paved the way for parliament to oust Prime Minister Borut Pahor's government in September.

The new conservative cabinet of Prime Minister Janez Jansa, which took office last month after a December election, is not participating in the referendum campaign although three of the five coalition parties oppose the family law.

Source: Reuters

The Petoskey News-Review and WPBN-TV report the American Indian tribe would be the first in Michigan and among a few nationwide to legalize gay marriages if the amendment is adopted.

Most of the about 4,000 people in the tribe live in Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula. If the measure is approved, at least one of partner would have to be a member of the tribe. The idea was initially encouraged by two tribal citizens in a letter to the tribal council urging consideration of an amendment.

The proposal currently is in a public comment period. The current tribal constitution defines marriage as between “one man and one woman.”

Source: CBS News

The state House voted 211-116 to kill the measure, ending a push by its new Republican majority to rescind New Hampshire's 2-year-old gay marriage law. Nevertheless, both sides are pledging to continue fighting into the fall elections.

Repeal opponents hoped to solidify what they argue is public support for gay marriage, while supporters hoped to reverse the law in a region of the country where gay-rights groups have strength.

"Today is a banner day for the freedom to marry," said Craig Stowell, co-chairman of Standing up For New Hampshire Families. Stowell said the House, where Republicans hold a 189-seat advantage, was supposed to give conservatives their best shot at repeal. "They blew it. This was supposed to be the most favorable legislative climate for repeal and they couldn't even get a majority."

The Republican-backed bill called for repealing gay marriage in March 2013 and replacing it with a civil unions law that had been in place in 2008 and 2009. Gay marriages occurring before the repeal took effect would have remained valid, but future gay unions would have been civil unions. The bill also would have allowed voters to weigh in on the issue through a nonbinding November ballot question.

Tom Czapieo, 63, of Keene, watched the House debate from the gallery with his partner, Mike Bellrose, 61. Czapieo said he was surprised and thrilled by the vote, even though he and Bellerose have no immediate plans to marry.

"I was born this way. I should have the right to marry who I want," he said.

Bellrose noted that the House session began with the Pledge of allegiance, and quoted the ending passage: "with liberty and justice for all."

"This certainly is a big step toward that," Bellerose said.

Eleanor Vander Haegen, 71, of Keene, married her partner of 22 years in January 2010.

"It's such a significant recognition of our human rights," she said of the vote.

If the House passed the repeal measure following its two hours of debate, it would have gone to the Senate; both houses are controlled by Republicans. Democratic Gov. John Lynch had promised to veto the bill if it had reached his desk.

An attempt to strip out a provision in the legislation calling for voters to weigh in on the issue in November in a nonbinding ballot question was rejected, helping to seal the bill's fate since some lawmakers objected that with a 400-member House, lawmakers should be able to make those decisions themselves.

State Rep. David Welch, R-Kingston, said he had opposed gay marriage, but the time for a repeal was past because "the Legislature has given certain rights to members of our community and now we're being asked to take them away."

The National Organization for Marriage has pledged to spend $250,000 to help lawmakers running for re-election who support repealing the law. On the other side, the New Hampshire Republicans of Freedom and Equality PAC is raising money to back Republicans who vote to retain it.

Democrats enacted both the civil unions and gay marriage laws when they controlled the Legislature, and Lynch signed both. After Republicans took control of the House and Senate in 2010, repeal legislative was introduced, but held over until this year. In Wednesday's fight, Republicans took the lead on both sides of the debate.

The repeal legislation, sponsored by state Rep. David Bates, would ensure the 1,906 existing same-sex marriages would remain valid if the gay marriage law is repealed. Bates said it would replace the current "illegitimate definition" of marriage with one defining it as between one man and one woman.

Bates tried in vain to convince the House that supporting traditional marriage did not make someone a bigot.

State Rep. Warren Groen, R-Rochester, argued allowing gays to marry opened up the definition of marriage to polygamists and others with non-traditional lifestyles.

"We are indeed on a slippery slope," Groen said.

Same-sex marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington and the District of Columbia. New Jersey lawmakers recently passed a gay marriage bill, but the governor vetoed it. An override vote could come as late as January 2014.

Since 1998, 31 states have had ballot measures related to same-sex marriage, and opponents have prevailed in every state. Those states include Maine, where voters in 2009 rejected the state's gay-marriage law.

Last month, a federal appeals court declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional. The ruling could mean the bitterly contested, voter-approved law will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source: ABC News