Traditional Image of Marriage Being Eroded by Same-Sex Unions, Warns Top UK Family Lawyer: The Daily Mail

reports:

English law no longer has a clear concept of marriage, a leading family lawyer has said.

Baroness Deech, the chairman of the Bar Standards Board, also believes that human rights law could soon be used to legalise full homosexual marriage.

She said the traditional Christian image of a lifelong union of man and woman is no longer accurate because of the changing nature of relationships and the introduction of legal rights for same-sex couples.

Lady Deech said she believes that human rights law may soon rule that it is discriminatory to ban homosexuals from marrying in the same way that heterosexual couples do.

But she added that some differences between civil partnerships and marriages should be preserved, and criticised recent Labour laws that allow same-sex couples to be named on birth certificates with no mention of a father.

more

Labels: civil unions, Fathers, gay marriage, gender, Marriage, United Kingdom

posted by Imapp Staff at 11:36 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

BARONESS DEECH: ENGLISH LAW NO LONGER HAS CLEAR CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE: Telegraph

reports:

Baroness Deech, the chairman of the Bar Standards Board, claims that traditional Christian image of a lifelong union of man and woman is no longer accurate because of the changing nature of relationships and the introduction of legal rights for same-sex couples.

She believes human rights law may soon rule that it is discriminatory to ban homosexuals from marrying in the same way that heterosexual couples do.

However Lady Deech adds that some differences between civil partnerships and marriages should be preserved, and criticises recent Labour laws that allow same-sex couples to be named on birth certificates with no mention of a father. ...

But she will conclude that “civil partnerships do still differ from marriage a little, and this is an area where the difference ought to be preserved with justification”.

This is because she disagrees with provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which allow same-sex couples to be named as parents on birth certificates with no reference to a father.

more

Labels: civil unions, donor conception, Fathers, gay marriage, gay parenting, United Kingdom

posted by Eve at 3:51 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Separation of Marriage and State Watch

Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulation czar, urges the abolition of marriage. (link)

Labels: beyond marriage, civil unions

posted by Imapp Staff at 3:55 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

ON MARRIAGE RITE, GAYS REFOCUS ON JUST UNIONS: USA Today

feature:

New Hampshire performed its first gay marriages this past week. New Jersey lawmakers vote on gay marriage today. Even so, advocates are shifting strategy to focus on having same-sex relationships legally recognized in other forms.

The reason: Despite those victories for gay rights, the end of 2009 saw momentum on the marriage issue stall.

Two states rejected same-sex marriage, reflecting the fact that most Americans do not support it, says John Green, a political science professor at the University of Akron. No other state is actively considering legislation.

As a result, Green says, advocates will push for states to grant civil unions or domestic partnerships, which allow similar rights to those of married couples. Americans are more likely to support those relationships, he says.

An August survey by the Pew Research Center found that 53% of Americans oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to marry legally, but 57% favor allowing them to enter into civil unions, arrangements that give them many of the same rights.

"By picking away a little bit by little bit, advocates hope to create a trend and shift public opinion, as people see it's not as pernicious as they may have thought," Green says. "The ultimate goal is same-sex marriage."

more

Labels: civil unions, culture, domestic partnership, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 2:53 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

LAMBDA LEGAL TO SUE NJ IN WAKE OF GAY MARRIAGE'S LEGISLATIVE DEFEAT

press release:

Today Lambda Legal announced plans to go back to court to seek marriage equality after the New Jersey Senate failed to pass a marriage bill, effectively ending hope for passage this session.

"The requirement to ensure equality for same-sex couples, established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in its decision in our marriage lawsuit in 2006, has not been met," said Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director at Lambda Legal. "There is enormous, heartbreaking evidence that civil unions are not equal to marriage, and we will be going back to the courts in New Jersey to fight for equality. Too many families are at risk. We cannot wait any longer."

more

Labels: civil unions, gay marriage, New Jersey

posted by Eve at 2:28 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

SOME GAYS SEEK A RENEWED FOCUS ON CIVIL UNIONS: Associated Press

reports:

Leland Traiman, who runs a sperm bank in California, worries about his lesbian clients in more conservative parts of the country when he hears fellow gay rights activists talk about winning the right to wed.

With 34 states lacking any legal recognition of same-sex relationships, Traiman wonders if all the emphasis on matrimony is misplaced.

"When I speak to women from Florida or Wisconsin or Minnesota, they are like, 'I don't care what it's called, I just want to be able to visit my wife in the hospital and cover my children with my health insurance,'" said Traiman, who helped pass the nation's first domestic partnership law a quarter-century ago in Berkeley. ...

Activists like Traiman point to the success of efforts to extend spousal rights and other civil rights protections to same-sex couples, even as the passage of gay marriage bans grab headlines.

On the same day that Maine rejected a gay marriage law approved by its Legislature, for example, voters in Washington state approved a law giving same-sex couples or straight older couples who register as domestic partners all the state rights and responsibilities of marriage. Washington's so-called "everything but marriage" law passed by the same margin as Maine's gay marriage rebuff, 53 percent to 48 percent. ...

This month, more than 150 Christian conservative leaders published a 4,700-word declaration, pledging to fight any legislative efforts to equate same-sex unions with traditional marriages. In theory, though, the Manhattan Declaration would not oppose extending legal protections to two people in a nonsexual relationship, such as two sisters or even a same-sex couple that abstained from sex, said Robert George, a Princeton law professor who serves as board chairman of the National Organization for Marriage.

"What you couldn't have is ... an explicit reference to partners in intimate relationships because 'intimate' is an euphemism for 'sexual,'" George said. "In that case, all a civil union scheme is a semantic substitute for marriage, or same-sex marriage by another name."

more

Labels: civil unions, culture, domestic partnership, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 5:32 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Few Takers for Gay Marriage in Vermont

according to this story from the Rutland Herald:

Very quietly – and with little fanfare – same-sex Vermonters have begun filling out the necessary paperwork to get married next month.

Vermont town clerks began offering civil marriage license applications to same-sex couples this month as the Sept. 1 start of the state's new law allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry draws near. ...

So far, very few same-sex couples in Vermont seem to be lining up to get the applications, although more than two weeks remains in the month before the start of the new law. ...

In Montpelier, the state capital of 8,000 where supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage battled just months ago, no gay or lesbian couples have yet to ask for a civil marriage license application, according to City Clerk Charlotte Hoyt.

more

Labels: civil unions, gay marriage, Vermont

posted by Imapp Staff at 3:44 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

SYMBOLISM AND NEUTRALITY: Andrew Sullivan

blogs:

Jon Rowe argues against both me and Robert P. George in favor of a libertarian position in which no-one gets married but civil unions are available for all. I sure understand the theoretical reasoning for this, but I have two objections.

The first is simply that there are some minimal tangible social goods associated with marriage that I believe would be enormously beneficial for gays and straights: the institution encourages stability and commitment in an emotional and sexual world which often pulls us away from that. It encourages shared sacrifice; it instills the disciplines of shared living; it promotes thrift; it integrates gay people into their own families and society; it harms no-one. In that sense I'm a weak libertarian, believing in a minimal state that can nonetheless encourage core shared values and social goods and treats the equal inclusion of minorities as something worth sacrificing for. That's the social conservative side of marriage equality - and the evolution of gay culture even in the past decade shows how that could occur, especially as the first generation of gay kids grows up knowing in advance that marriage is an option.

In fact, a great deal of this symbolism has to do with gay kids more than adults.

more

Labels: adolescence, childhood, civil unions, gay marriage, government interest in marriage, Marriage

posted by Eve at 7:11 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

CATHOLICS LIKELY TO SUPPORT (SOME) GAY CAUSES: The Advocate

reports:

A study to be published by Columbia University will examine how a state’s percentage of Catholic residents affects its opinion of gay marriage.

A similar survey by Mark Silk of the blog Spiritual Politics suggests that in issues related to marriage, adoption and civil unions, a conservative majority would win. However, when presented with issues concerning hate crimes, health benefits and job protection, research shows Catholics typically sympathize with civil rights causes despite guidelines passed down from Vatican City.

more [I'm assuming this is everyone who answers "Catholic" to pollsters, rather than e.g. weekly Massgoers; still of course it's notable, and in line with other data I've seen--Eve]

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, civil unions, gay marriage, homosexuality, religion

posted by Eve at 10:56 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

FULL SPEECH OF HEAD OF UK CATHOLIC MARRIAGE-PREP PROGRAM TO GAY CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

speech:

...For example, from the point of view of Church, a proper family must have a marriage in it – as I have just said, we have had this repeated over and over. As I have said elsewhere, I am more interested these days in the concept of the sacrament of relationships, rather than merely marriage, but this is certainly a bridge too far for our own Church. So, we do get a clear idea from Church, even if we don’t subscribe to it, of what family is, or isn’t!

The State is much more open to other forms and is perhaps driven by other considerations, not least the views of the electorate. But it is ironic that the State appears to be much more pastoral and compassionate in its acceptance of what family is. The fact that there are all kinds of benefits available for different family forms, and legal imperatives to support families suggests that the State is even more concerned for families than Church. ...

The cohabitation of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s bears no resemblance, other than in purely external form, to the current cohabitation of hetersexuals. Where wedding ring and suburban housing once were consequences of marriage, the modern day wedding ring is a mortgage, children, and a personal and private decision to be together. Duncan Dormor writes well on this phenomenon in his book, Just Cohabiting, where he suggests that modern cohabitation is akin to Mediaeval betrothal.

Add to this the increasing openness, and tolerance, of same-sex unions and the picture of today’s family society starts to come into focus. The Civil Partnerships legislation in this country was somewhat ground-breaking in giving gays and lesbians similar legal rights to heterosexual partnership. The real consequence of this is the legal acceptance, and partial social acceptance, of this family form.

We know, nevertheless, that there are many who are outrightly opposed to same-sex unions having any legal status. Our own Church is particularly active in some areas on this front, perhaps missing the point that when we look at intimate relationships, we should be less concerned, as Church, with the purely civil, and focus on sacrament that is more about the expression of the presence of God mediated through commitment, consent and covenant. Where this exists in married couples, in cohabiting heterosexual couples and same-sex couples, there is sacrament, I believe.

more

Labels: Catholic Church, civil unions, cohabitation, gay marriage, marriage counseling, religion, United Kingdom

posted by Eve at 7:23 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Poll: Support for Gay Marriage Dips: CBS

reports:

Support for same-sex marriage has declined slightly from two months ago, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds.

On other issues that have come before the Supreme Court -- namely, affirmative action and abortion -- Americans' opinions have remained relatively stable for years, according to the poll, conducted June 12 - 16.

Most Americans support some legal recognition of a same-sex couple’s relationship. The poll found 33 percent favor marriage for same-sex couples, down somewhat from a high of 42 percent in April, and another 30 percent support civil unions. A third of Americans think there should be no legal recognition of a same-sex couple’s
relationship. Views in this poll are similar to those found back in March of this year.

more

Labels: civil unions, culture, gay marriage

posted by Imapp Staff at 11:58 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

NEVADA'S DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP ACT: Linda McClain

at Balkinization:

With comparatively little notice, on May 30 and 31, Nevada’s legislature overrode Governor Jim Gibbons’s veto of a new Domestic Partnership Act (Senate Bill 283). Several features of this Act warrant comment. First, the legislature passed it mindful of Nevada’s constitutional amendment (approved by voters in 2002) providing: “Only a marriage between a male and a female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.” Thus, the Act states: “A domestic partnership is not a marriage for the purposes of . . . the Nevada Constitution.” But marriage is the clear reference point for the “social contract” between domestic partners. The Act provides them “the same rights, protections and benefits” and subjects them to “the same responsibilities, obligations and duties” under law as spouses, former spouses, and surviving spouses, with some exceptions (such as employers providing health care to partners). The law of marriage supplies the substance of this new status.

But entering this new status is – as with other state domestic partnership laws – different than entering marriage. Persons seeking to register as domestic partners must file a statement declaring that they “have chosen to share one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.” They must share a “common residence.” However, by contrast to some state laws, persons in Nevada need not declare their intention to be financially responsible for each other. The Act itself, by referencing the rights and responsibilities of marriage, will impose on domestic partners –as on spouses – a duty of mutual support.

Second, Nevada’s new law is available both to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. ... Like others, I have argued that creating a new civil status alternative to civil marriage might provide a good option for heterosexual couples who resist marriage either because of its historical association with sex inequality or its religious connotations. Will any opposite-sex couples in Nevada choose this new status? Will critics charge that the Act weakens marriage precisely because it provides this alternative? ...

In sum, the Nevada Domestic Partnership Act illustrates how a state legislature constrained by such a constitutional amendment may find a way to maneuver to create a new legal status to support and recognize intimate relationships other than civil marriage. It changes yet again the landscape in the United States with respect to the recognition and support of intimate relationships.

more

Labels: civil unions, equality, heterosexual couples, marriage amendments, Nevada

posted by Eve at 2:39 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Doug Kmiec v. Robert George on Marriage and the State: Catholic.org

post:

A top constitutional law professor who served as a surrogate for then-presidential candidate Barack Obama told CNSNews.com that he would like to see “marriage” replaced in the legal sense with a neutral “civil license.”

“As awkward as it may be, I think the way to untie the state from this problem is to create a new terminology that they would apply to everyone--straight or gay--call it a ‘civil license,’ said Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University and author of “Can a Catholic Support Him?’

“The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” Kmiec said.

Kmiec said that one of the things that motivated the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, “was a genuine concern on the part of religious believers--including myself--that the previous California ruling was not addressing what that would mean for religious practice.”

“After the state of California acknowledged same-sex marriage, would that mean, for example, that churches like the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, which don’t acknowledge those relationships as a marriage by virtue of their scriptural and theological teaching--would they be subject to penalty? Would they lose public benefits? Would they be subject to lawsuits based upon some theory of discrimination?” Kmiec said his idea would address those questions.

“One of the possible outcomes that would be good in this case, would be if the state got out of the marriage business, did their licensing under a different name--which, of course, would satisfy the state’s interests for purposes of distribution of taxation and
property, but then the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community.

“We know that religions differ as to how they see that question,” Kmiec said. “But it
seems to me that would be a nice way to reaffirm the significance of marriage as a religious concept--because that is a much fuller concept than just civil marriage.” ...

But Princeton University law professor Robert George, who is also a top constitutional scholar--and a Catholic academic--said that Kmiec’s idea would do away with the public role of marriage--and banish it to the religious “ghetto.”

more

Labels: beyond marriage, civil unions, gay marriage, government interest in marriage, Marriage, religion, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 8:58 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Quinnipiac Poll: Majority of New Yorkers Disapprove of Same-Sex Marriage

here:

Given three choices, 41 percent of New York State voters say gay couples should be allowed to marry legally, while 33 percent say they should be allowed to form civil unions, but not marry and 19 percent say there should be no legal recognition of a gay union.

Among Republicans, 26 percent support gay marriage, with 36 percent for civil unions and 28 percent for no recognition.

Democrats go 49 percent for gay marriage, 29 percent for civil unions and 17 percent for no recognition.

Independent voters go 41 percent for gay marriage, 40 percent for civil unions and 14 percent for no recognition.

"The word among politicians is that gay marriage might pass this year. Voters split three ways, as they have for some time. Divided three ways, the gay marriage option tops the list. But if it's yes or no, where do those backers of civil unions line up?" Carroll asked.

more

Labels: civil unions, gay marriage, New York

posted by Imapp Staff at 1:42 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Catholic Bishops Revealed as Key in Marriage Battle: Bay Area Reporter

reports:

From California to Maine, Catholic bishops are increasingly taking on public roles on behalf of what LGBT activists call a "politicized" U.S. Catholic Church. Aiding the faith leaders in their campaign against same-sex marriage is the Knights of Columbus, a tax-exempt fraternal beneficiary society known as the church's "strong right arm."

And nowhere is the full impact of the Knights of Columbus' efforts felt than in the fight against awarding same-sex couples marriage rights.

In what turned out to be the largest total contribution from a single organization, $1.4 million of the Yes on 8 campaign's coffers came from the tax-exempt Knights of Columbus, based in New Haven, Connecticut. The Catholic Church operates its legislative efforts through the little understood entity, of which nearly all Catholic bishops and priests are members.

But the church's involvement in repealing same-sex marriage rights in California has been largely obscured by the intense public and media attention Mormon leaders received last year for their efforts to pass Proposition 8. After voters passed the anti-same-sex marriage constitutional amendment in November, LGBT protesters rallied outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' temples throughout the state rather than Catholic churches. Campaign finance reports indicate that while California's Conference of Catholic Bishops, as an organization, did not contribute to Prop 8, money did come nationally from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which contributed $200,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. The minuscule amount belies the fact that Catholic officials played just as a substantial role as their Mormon counterparts in the anti-gay campaign. ...

Harry Knox, the religion and faith program director for the Human Rights Campaign, said the community must engage in dialogue with representatives from the Knights of Columbus.

"The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case, they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression," Knox told the B.A.R. , referring to its role in the Prop 8 campaign.

Knox noted that the Knights of Columbus "followed discredited leaders," including bishops and Pope Benedict XVI. "A pope who literally today said condoms don't help in control of AIDS," Knox said Tuesday, shortly after the pope's comments were released.

Catholic officials, however, have deliberately cloaked their actions in opposing marriage equality from public view.

Case in point, San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer, who quietly reached out last summer to Mormon leaders he had met while stationed in Salt Lake City to ask them to become involved in the Prop 8 campaign. It wasn't until after the election that the archbishop's letter surfaced. ...

A key component of the Catholic Church's strategy has been the Knights of Columbus.

Obscure Catholic group

On its Web site the group proclaims itself as "the strong right arm of the Catholic Church."

To LGBT activist Jerry Sloan, the group is "an obscure and uniquely tax-exempt insurance company acting under the guise of a fraternal order."

Classified by a 19th century IRS code as a 501(c)8, the fraternal beneficiary society is able to operate as a tax-exempt organization providing "$70 billion in force" worth of life insurance to its members, according to Patrick Korten, vice president of communications and past grand knight of the organization.

According to the IRS Web site, a 501(c)8 is unlike other 501(c) nonprofit organizations. It is not required to abide by the non-discrimination clause required by Congress for other nonprofits. Rather, one IRS qualifier for the tax-exempt code states, "membership must be limited." Like the priesthood, the Knights of Columbus membership is restricted to Catholic men. Among those men are "almost every, if not all, bishops and most priests," explained Korten.

Besides providing life insurance to members, Korten told the B.A.R. that the purpose of the organization is to promote and lobby for the social issues important to the Catholic Church, including opposition to stem cell research, abortion, gay rights, and assisted suicide. ...

"I think it is fair to say the Knights of Columbus have been involved in virtually every one of the 31 states that have had referendums," on same-sex marriage, Korten said.

Korten also said the organization opposes civil unions.

"We support the church on that," Korten said. "And quite simply because the [heterosexual] family is the most important fundamental unit of society. A mother and a father is unquestionably the ideal. The purpose of the church is to provide the optimal environment in the begetting, raising, and education of children."

more

Labels: Catholic Church, civil unions, Proposition 8

posted by Imapp Staff at 1:08 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

WHY GAY COUPLES ARE LIKE STRAIGHT COUPLES: John Corvino

at 365Gay.com:

...Anderson and Girgis instead propose the following: “revisionists would agree to oppose the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thus ensuring that federal law retains the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife …In return, traditionalists would agree to support federal civil unions offering most or all marital benefits.” But these unions “would be available to any two adults who commit to sharing domestic responsibilities, whether or not their relationship is sexual,” provided that they are “otherwise ineligible to marry each other.”

In other words, there would be federal civil unions for gays--but also for other domestic pairs: elderly widowed sisters, for example, or bachelor roommates.

At first glance, their claim that Rauch and Blankenhorn base their proposal on “the presumption that these relationships are or may be sexual” seems strange. After all, Rauch and Blankenhorn never mention sex, and the state neither knows nor cares (nor checks) whether people are having sex once they’re married or “civilly united.”

On the other hand, people generally assume (with good reason) that marriages and civil unions are sexual, or more broadly romantic. Romantic pair-bonding seems to be a fundamental human desire--for straights and gays--and part of what marriage does is to acknowledge pair-bonds. It does so not because the government is sentimental about such things, but because it recognizes the important role such bonds have in the lives of individuals and the community.

Anderson and Girgis are correct that there are other important bonds in society, and we may well want to extend more legal recognition to them. There is no reason that two cohabitating spinsters shouldn’t be granted mutual hospital visitation rights if they want them.

But the question remains whether we want to extend “most or all” federal marital benefits to any cohabitating couple otherwise ineligible to marry, as Anderson and Girgis propose.

And this question prompts additional ones: why limit such recognition to couples? Mutually interdependent relationships don’t only come in twos. Oddly, Anderson and Girgis seem to have more in common with radicals who seek to move “beyond marriage” than they do with anyone in the mainstream marriage debate.

more

Labels: beyond marriage, civil unions, David Blankenhorn, gay/straight differences, Jonathan Rauch, Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis

posted by Eve at 12:26 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

FORGET MARRIAGE--CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL: Terry J. Allen

in In These Times:

...Making your marriage sacred should be between you and your goddy thing.

Making your union legal, on the other hand, should be between you and state-guaranteed legal and human rights. And it should be available to any two people, gay or straight, in whatever configuration: Mother and son, grandparent and grandkid, mother and daughter, and best friends should all be able to form legal couples that enjoy the rights, privileges, financial benefits and responsibilities now assigned to marriage. (Calm down Rev. Rick: Only two people, no pets allowed.)

America’s current marriage system, even when it includes same-sex couples, inherently discriminates against millions of people who are not in a sexual relationship. (That many legal marriages are platonic only adds irony to injustice.) Ensuring equal rights for all requires relegating or elevating (however you look at it) marriage to the realm of religion. Kind of like christenings, bar mitzvahs and chicken sacrifice.

The state’s job, then, would be to assign benefits, if any, to couples, but not to define who can enter into coupledom. There is no rational, as opposed to religious, reason why any two people shouldn’t be able to form a civil union that carries the same rights as marriage: to pass on and inherit property, make decisions for the sick, visit inmates and get discounts on Carnival cruises.

Without the religious framework, joining civil, secular rights to heterosexual or even gay coupledom becomes bizarre. Think about it: To enjoy the tax and other benefits of marriage (or its gay stepchild, current civil unions), a couple is assumed to have consummated the deal with sex--with each other.

But why shouldn’t any practical or loving couple be able to form a unit and consummate it with anything they choose? A night at the opera, a day at the races, a signature on a will?

Irrational fear and religion (but I repeat myself) underlie the state’s stance that it can assign secular rights to a sacred institution designed for sexual partners—and can exclude platonic couples. But really, would the legal right to shared Social Security benefits so excite two heterosexual women that they would turn lesbian? Would allowing two brothers to share medical benefits inspire them to acts of incest?

Or would, God forbid, too many people get health benefits and share incomes and resources?

more

Labels: beyond marriage, civil unions

posted by Eve at 12:09 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Can We Find Common Ground on Gay Marriage?: John Corvino on Blankenhorn/Rauch

at 365Gay.com:

...Certainly, the proposal deserves a rigorous discussion from all sides. In order for that discussion to be more productive, I’d like humbly to suggest some guidelines:

Rule #1: Do not criticize the proposal by saying, “The other side is not going to like it because…” Let the other side speak for the other side.

Rule #2: Do not respond to an admirable attempt at peaceful negotiation by immediately ratcheting up the rhetoric. For example, at the National Review Online Maggie Gallagher writes, “From where I stand, it looks like the progressive/democrat position states: If you believe marriage means a husband and wife, you are not just wrong, you are downright wicked and deserve to have your home address put up on the internet so strangers can harass you.”

Oy. That violates Rule #1 and Rule #2—in one sentence!

Nobody doubts that there has been excessive rhetoric on both sides. There are advocates who claim that anyone who opposes marriage equality is a hateful bigot; there are opponents who hold that gays by their very existence offend God.

But thankfully, there are also those like Blankenhorn and Rauch who are interested in moving us past such conversation-stoppers. Let’s take the cue.

Rule #3: If you don’t like the proposal, suggest a better idea.

Note: “Give us full marriage equality!” is not what I mean by a better idea. Sure, that’s what would happen in my ideal world. Rauch’s too. And no one is saying that we should stop making the case for it.

But in the meantime, there’s a proposal on the table that would provide federal rights and benefits to those in state-issued same-sex unions. Moreover, it’s a proposal that one major same-sex marriage opponent has endorsed.

more

Labels: civil unions, David Blankenhorn, gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:41 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

CONTINUING CONVERSATION ON BLANKENHORN/RAUCH EDITORIAL

(and please do send me more links if you have 'em)

Barry Deutsch:

...But the compromise doesn’t cede the word “marriage.” Blankenhorn and Rauch aren’t trying to end debate over the word “marriage.” What the B/R compromise (as I shall now call it) attempts to do is put aside two sub-debates associated with marriage, while leaving the primary debate — over formal marriage equality — untouched and ongoing.

I think marriage equality proponents should take this deal, if it becomes a real legislative possibility.

more

Jonathan Rauch on the Andersen/Girgis counterproposal:

...So we'd go from today's world, where one side demands full marriage rights and the other side rejects even minimal recognition of gay couples, to a world where same-sex couples got federal civil unions—which they'd have to share with a few nuns and aging sisters—but gays agreed not to ask for more. States, presumably, could continue to tussle over gay marriage, but the federal debate would be over.

There's much to think about here, but one practical question strikes me as a likely show-stopper: How could any agreement not to pursue changes in DOMA bind future activists and politicians? A gentlemen's agreement wouldn't be enforceable, and a constitutional amendment would be both difficult as a political matter and unacceptable to SSM advocates, who will see it as writing inequality into the Constitution—the nuclear option, from our point of view.

That's just a first-blush reaction, though. I think the most important thing about Anderson-Girgis is its willingness to reach out and try to do something for same-sex couples, as well as something to ameliorate the culture wars. It should be received by SSM advocates as a good-faith gesture, and it deserves to be broadly and respectfully discussed. And it's another sign that maybe, just maybe, the ice is beginning to thaw around the frozen gay-marriage debate.

more

Labels: civil unions, David Blankenhorn, gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, religious liberty, Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis

posted by Eve at 2:00 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

REACTIONS TO RAUCH/BLANKENHORN COMPROMISE

...a mighty link round-up! (I'm posting this now, unfinished, because I'm worried that my computer will crash--will keep adding to it. EDIT: Computer did crash, but I've now fixed this post, so there will be no new additions.)

First, here's their op-ed again, "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage."

Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis:

...But as we see it, this proposal grants too much to revisionists and too little to traditionalists. Revisionists get the substantive (if not linguistic) treatment of homosexual unions as marriages; traditionalists get conscience protection (of unspecified scope). But traditionalists’ primary concern is not simply to secure an enclave of personal liberty to regard marriage as they see fit. Rather, it is to promote a healthy culture of marriage understood as a public good that also fulfills spouses and the larger communities of which they are members. ...

But even people who hold differing views on marriage could agree that there is no special reason to extend recognition only to romantic same-sex unions. If hospital visitation rights and Social Security survivor benefits are appropriate for two cohabiting men who have demonstrated long-term commitment and care, does it matter whether they are sexually involved with each other? Wouldn’t those benefits just as well serve, say, two elderly, codependent brothers?

That brings us to our alternative proposal: The revisionists would agree to oppose the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thus ensuring that federal law retains the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife, and states retain the right to preserve that definition in their law. In return, traditionalists would agree to support federal civil unions offering most or all marital benefits. But, as Princeton’s Robert P. George once proposed for New Jersey civil unions, unions recognized by the federal government would be available to any two adults who commit to sharing domestic responsibilities, whether or not their relationship is sexual. Available only to people otherwise ineligible to marry each other (say, because of consanguinity), these unions would neither introduce a rival “marriage-lite” option nor treat same-sex unions as marriages. Their purpose would be to protect adult domestic partners who have pledged themselves to a mutually binding relationship of care. What (if anything) goes on in the bedroom would have nothing to do with these unions’ goals or, thus, eligibility requirements.

more

Josh Becker at NYU Local:

This is called separate but equal. Ask your local civil rights leader what he or she thinks of a separate-but-equal policy.

more

Dale Carpenter:

My initial and very tentative reaction, as a same-sex marriage supporter, is that the Blankenhorn-Rauch compromise probably gives little away since SSM was never really a threat to religious liberty anyway. As a practical matter, gay families gain a lot in very important federal benefits in exchange for what appears to be barring lawsuits that either weren't -- or shouldn't -- be available. The devil is in the details -- what exactly do "robust religious-conscience exceptions" cover? -- but the op-ed starts a conversation about federal legislation that might be politically achievable in the near future.

more

Maggie Gallagher:

...I have two big questions, one practical and one political:

1. Can Congress provide effective religious-liberty protections? Could Congress really tell the Massachusetts court or the California court it must provide — or must accept the legislature's provision of — substantive religious-liberty protections? The California court has just declared that orientation is a protected status just like race. And racial equality trumps religious liberty in our system of government. What would the language look like? Lawyers, please discuss.

2. Is anyone over at Human Rights Campaign and Marriage Equality seriously interested in this compromise?

more

Good as You:

Here again, we have church fears and desires casually tossed around as if they, in terms of American government, are interchangeable with testaments toward civil fairness. And once again the tone suggests that just because churches desire something, that they are automatically deserved of it. That's a very dangerous concept. And not only for LGBT people, but also for any group that might at any time find themselves within cross-wielding crosshairs. ...

Okay, first off: Yes, we still have work to do to get the president and the American public fully on our side. But you know how not to do that? By ceding ground on a matter that we know within our loving hearts and learned minds is nothing short of right! That would be to our movement's great peril. Especially when you consider that we, despite our setbacks, have made CONSIDERABLE gains in the past few years (with more potentials in the near-to-immediate pipe).

more

Kate Harding at Salon:

...Interesting, but doesn't the First Amendment provide a "robust religious-conscience exception" already? Or did I just miss all the stories about, say, the state forcing Catholic churches to marry previously divorced people, or threatening to withhold tax-exempt status from religious institutions that won't perform or recognize interfaith marriages? Blankenhorn and Rauch acknowledge that the First Amendment makes it "unlikely" that churches would ever be legally required to marry gay couples but argue that more protection is needed. "What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status? What if a faith-based nonprofit is told it will lose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to allow a same-sex wedding on its property?"

Oh, now I get it. The First Amendment is actually about preventing religious discrimination, so that's not helpful here. These hypotheticals are not about whether any given church has to formally recognize a particular marriage, but about whether it would have to comply with laws that protect the civil rights of all citizens equally. It's not enough for the state to recognize the right of religious institutions to define the parameters of a sacred rite on their own terms. A government of the people, for the people, and by the people must also recognize and defend their right to treat some human beings as second-class. Gotcha.

more

Nan Hunter:

...First, if federal law is going to continue to follow state law for the purpose of defining who is eligible when a federal program requires marriage, then it should recognize as marriages – not as civil unions – the Mass and CT and other same-sex marriages that are legal under state law. Following the status recognized by the state has always been the federal approach.

If that is going to change, as Blankenhorn and Rauch propose, then federal law should create a federal civil union status - independent of state law - as the eligibility requirement for federal programs. It would, as a federal status, be open to couples who qualify regardless of whether their state of residence recognizes civil unions. And note that I didn't say "gay couples" - a federal civil union status should be open to both straight and gay couples.

Second, satan is truly in the details of their proposal for a “robust” exception for religious belief. It was striking to me that the op-ed completely omitted any discussion of the impact when non-church (etc) entities – like charities or hospitals with a religious affiliation – accept public funds. When all of our tax dollars are supporting these organizations, then all of us have a legitimate concern about the services they provide.

more

David Link:

I am in complete agreement with this proposal, and think anyone who is participating in this debate in good faith could support it. That, I am afraid, is why I’m so doubtful about its success.

more

Amanda Marcotte:

The presumption that Blankenhorn, Saletan, Rauch, and pretty much all these dudes who think there’s a compromise point is that they can only make this argument by employing a false assumption, which is that since we’re all Americans (yes, these battles are worldwide, but they’re only speaking to Americans), we share a fundamental values system, and that the battles are about gradations of difference. Therefore we can all just move over a little and tah-dah! We all agree. That’s why Saletan thinks that it will be easy enough for anti-choicers to give up their hostility to contraception and for pro-choicers to give up our belief that an embryo’s value is defined strictly by the mother. And Blankenhorn and Rauch appear to think that the homobigots will be mollified by a few religious protections. And I sort of feel sorry for these dudes, because they are working under the assumption that everyone involved is arguing in good faith. By doing so, they encourage cultural conservatives to continue the strategy of lying about their motivations, because it’s so effective.

more

Jason Mazzone:

...One aspect of the proposal, which might easily be overlooked, strikes me as fatal.

Read carefully. Under the proposal offered, Congress would deem marriages and civil unions between same-sex couples and recognized under state law to be federal civil unions.

Think about that. A couple married in Massachusetts would be downgraded to a civil union for purposes of federal law.

more

John McGreevey at Commonweal:

One wonders — given the public opinion data showing very strong support for gay rights, generally, among people under 30 — if this will be a hot issue at all 20 years from now. In this sense the contrast with abortion — 36 years after Roe v. Wade – is striking.

more

Pam Spaulding:

...OK. I have a problem with this already, though I see where they are trying to accomplish -- getting same-sex couples access to the rights and benefits of civil marriage and cede the word marriage to those who cannot decouple it from religious marriage in their heads. Obviously, Kate and I would take that considering we have no recognition in our state and won't unless action comes from the feds or SCOTUS, but Blankenhorn and Rauch's solution, by accommodating the "misunderstanding" about the word marriage -- rather than redefining it (something that has occurred countless times in the past), chooses to draw an institutionalized line of discrimination. Many of the same excuses for bans on interracial marriage revolved around religious objections to it, with scripture cited about the morality of race mixing. Would they have suggested an entire new federal civil institution be created to resolve the problem because the American people weren't ready?

more

Glenn Stanton:

How many religious people or groups concerned about their religious freedom in the face of the political advances of the gay community would trust the current or future Congress (or any one of the past 20 years for that matter!) to protect their rights to robust religious freedom? It would nice to believe such a thing were possible, but if such religious beliefs are built on bigotry anyway – for this is precisely the script of most gay- and much mainstream-commentary on Prop 8 -- how rigorously can such rights be protected?

more

Jacob Sullum at Reason:

It seems to me this proposal moves in the right direction: toward evenhanded legal treatment of gay and heterosexual unions and, ultimately, getting the government out of the "marriage" business altogether. Let private institutions decide what constitutes a marriage (as they did through most of human history), with the government's role confined to enforcing contracts and policing the various legal prerogatives currently associated with civil marriage.

more

Rob Vischer:

So the federal government would support, not supplant, states' decisions on marriage and civil unions. For someone (like me) who believes that the legal treatment of same-sex relationships should remain a state-level responsibility, who believes that the law will (and should) do more to support long-term, committed relationships among gays and lesbians, and who is concerned that the rhetoric of "marriage equality" has shown a tendency to minimize the importance of religious liberty (especially institutional religious liberty), what's not to like about this proposal?

more (and he's been posting a bit about the Anderson/Girgis piece as well, if you scroll about here)

Labels: civil unions, David Blankenhorn, gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 1:33 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A RECONCILIATION ON GAY MARRIAGE: David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch

in the New York Times:

IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now.

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

For those not immersed in the issue, our proposal may seem puzzling. For those deeply immersed, it may seem suspect. So allow us a few words by way of explanation.

Whatever our disagreements on the merits of gay marriage, we agree on two facts. First, most gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany legal marriage. Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions. Neither of those realities is likely to change any time soon.

more

Labels: civil unions, David Blankenhorn, gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 12:10 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Either they're experts or they're not

By David Benkof
DavidBenkof@aol.com

A June 10 report in the Health section of the New York Times headlined "Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage" has led proponents of same-sex marriage to trumpet the news that same-sex marriage may actually be good for marriage as a whole. Comments about the article at the Web sites and print editions of the Human Rights Campaign blog, Marriage Equality News, the Washington Blade, the Volokh Conspiracy, the Huffington Post, Seattle's The Stranger, and the comments section of my own blog, GaysDefendMarriage.com, have treated the article as the smoking gun that proves gay marriage is good for America after all.

It's clear that the alleged differences pointed to in the article, that same-sex couples are "far more egalitarian" and "have more relationship satisfaction" are intended to show that admitting gay couples to the institution of marriage will help marriage altogether. Other very real differences that while perhaps beneficial, would clearly have no influence on straight couples, like the fact that lesbian couples often find their menstrual cycles in sync, or that gay couples frequently share an entire wardrobe of clothes, were not mentioned.

Now, if the experts cited in the New York Times article are reliable on ways same-sex couples are different that make gays look good, surely they are reliable on the ways same-sex couples are different that make gays look, well, less good. All three of the experts directly quoted in the article, Dr. Sondra Solomon, Dr. Esther Rothblum, and Dr. Robert W. Levenson have written other studies that the "marriage equality" movement would surely prefer nobody find out about.

For example, Solomon and Rothblum did a 2005 study together examining the attitudes toward sexual fidelity of couples that entered civil unions in Vermont - a status that provides all state benefits of marriage. More than 50 percent of the male-male relationships reported having arrangements with their partner that allowed for sexual activity outside the relationship. Do "marriage equality" advocates believe that Solomon and Rothblum's findings about egalitarianism will spill over to the entire society but that their findings about sexual infidelity will not?

In addition, Levenson participated in a 2003 study that stated that compared to married male-female couples, both gay and lesbian couples reported more autonomy and more frequent relationship dissolution. I guess it's possible that California same-sex relationhips have become more stable and interdependent now that the exact same rights and benefits the state grants are called "marriage" instead of "domestic partnership," but I doubt it.

Now, it's possible that some people want marriage to be more egalitarian as well as less monogamous and less stable. Personally, I want none of those things. As an Orthodox Jew, I expect any marriage I enter into to have a fairly traditional division of roles. But surely the expectation of the "marriage equality" activists in publicizing the article citing these experts is that undecided voters who want marriage to become more egalitarian should support same-sex marriage. My response is that their expectation is fine, as long as those voters also want marriage to be more sexually open and more likely to dissolve.

The other options are for gay-marriage activists to withdraw their argument based on the Times article, or to come up with some explanation why these academics are trustworthy in some of their research, but fraudulent in other parts of their research.

I'd like to close by citing Rothblum one more time. She said two years ago that these days the difference when a state grants marriage or a marriage-like status to same-sex couples is "largely symbolic," which supports my question why the gay movement is spending millions of dollars on a symbolic issue in California when there are many, many actual and painful problems facing LGBT people, especially in states much less friendly than California, that we could be addressing. I have yet to hear a good answer to that question.

Labels: civil unions, Marriage

posted by David Benkof at 11:54 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

What's the matter with civil unions?

By David Benkof

Some opponents of same-sex marriage have agreed to civil unions or domestic partnerships - some enthusiastically, some with hesitation - in hopes of forestalling same-sex marriage. And I understand and respect that approach as an acknowledgement of the political reality that there may be no other way to prevent the legal redefinition of marriage.

But I'm not sure those of us in the traditional camp have spent enough time exploring the pros and cons of societal recognition and privileges for same-sex couples that resemble those of marriage, albeit with another name.

Personally, I oppose any governmental benefits for two individuals based on the fact that they have gay sex with each other. I am an Orthodox Jew, and in my religion same-sex relations are considered deeply immoral. I don't want my tax dollars spent to reward people for engaging in behavior my religion abhors.

But wait - you might think, "Civil unions for gays and lesbians are not about sex, they're about love!" Oh, really? I love my brother. I know two straight men in a close, non-sexual relationship who love each other. But the gay community isn't proposing that my brother and I qualify for a civil union - nor my two straight friends. Civil unions are intended for same-sex pairs who are in a sexual relationship, and I am against the government blessing such couplings with recognition and privileges.

On the other hand, I don't like the fact that various gay people in hospitals have had the most important person in their lives barred from visiting them, and that long-term same-sex couples have faced obstacles in inheriting property when one partner dies. So why can't we have public policies that allow any unmarried adult to designate one other person who can visit them in the hospital and inherit their property? That person could be a roommate, a best friend - or a lesbian lover. The government doesn't need - and shouldn't want - to know the nature of the relationship.

Such a solution would relieve some of the distress felt by gay and lesbian partners without giving in to the demands that society celebrate and single out a kind of relationship that overwhelming numbers of Americans do not consider to be the equivalent of marriage.

Labels: civil unions

posted by David Benkof at 2:20 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT