From the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (September 20):
Guido Westerwelle, Germany’s foreign minister, wedded his long-time partner, Michael Mronz, on Friday, September 17, in a closed ceremony. Although Germany’s relaxed attitude to homosexuals is well-known not everyone shares this view and homophobia is far from extinct. While equanimity is demonstrated in public, in private, hatred and violence are rife. Neo-Nazis whip up homophobia at local taverns, where their message does not fall on deaf ears. Gay couples walking hand in hand through Berlin’s Kreuzberg district [with its large Turkish population] risk a severe beating. Many Muslim immigrants are tolerant, but many others are not.
It became known this weekend that Guido Westerwelle is thinking of resigning as head of the liberal FDP party due to the party’s deplorable results in polls. But he wants to stay on as foreign minister. And that is a good thing. It can only benefit the homophobic politicians the world over to be confronted with a little humane European decadence.
Eric Koch’s book, The Weimar Triangle, is available at Indigo-Chapters and in your local bookstore. 
Where is par. 175 of the (former) German Civil Code ? I doubt whether such a wedding would be possible in the US.
Same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 states, one federal district, and one Indian tribe.
I have been mystified by the Americans who came to Ontario to be married. My understanding of the law is that while the ceremony is governed by the place where the marriage takes place, one’s capacity or ability to marry is governed by one’s domicile or place of permanent residence. If one cannot marry in a particular state, how can residents of that state come to Ontario to be married? Why do we perform marriage ceremonies if the marriage will be invalid?
Maybe there are some states with very short residence requirements for recognizing foreign marriages. It’s not really up to someone in Ontario asked to officiate at a wedding to check the legal status of the marriage somewhere else. Let parties get married at their own risk. The validity of the marriage where they usually live is a pretty obvious question for them. Caveant sposantes, or words to that effect.
See above.
Let the lawyers who read your response answer it. My uninformed answer would be: an invalid marriage is better than none.