|
 |
 |
 Thursday, October 23, 2003
WHAT IS THE FEAR?: Mark Tardiff vs. Mark Miller
Mark Miller writes, "As I've said before and I still believe it, the fear is not that the acceptance of same sex relationships will doom the institution of marriage. The fear is that they will not." I cannot speak for everyone, but my fear certainly is that legally recognizing same-sex unions as marriage will do great damage to the institution of marriage, though I grant that the sky will hardly fall the following day. In many posts on this site and others many make the point that legalization of SSM is the next logical step following upon changes in society and in marriage during these last 40 years. Others make what Maggie Gallagher keeps referring to as the "argument from despair," that marriage is in such bad shape now that there is not much sense in opposing SSM. Both of these arguments acknowledge an important fact: SSM is in continuity with the sexual revolution and growth of the divorce culture. Therefore it is not at all unreasonable to anticipate that SSM would exacerbate the problems brought on by these cultural and legal changes: family disintegration and social chaos. (These problems, by the way, were certainly not brought about by decriminalizing interracial marriages.) In fact, if the sexual revolution and divorce culture had not already redefined marriage in many people's minds already, the arguments for SSM would not have been able to make any headway. The social cost of this redefinition is simply too high: We cannot afford to embrace what is tearing our society apart.
THOMAS LANG ON MARRIAGE PROTECTION VS. MARRIAGE PROMOTION: From The American Prospect's website--a response to Rick Santorum's speech below:
But by continuing to feature marriage protection and marriage promotion side by side -- as if they are the same thing -- conservatives appear oblivious to a central paradox in their argument: If two-parent families are really the best way to raise children, shouldn't we want all parents -- including gay and lesbian parents -- to get married? And if so, isn't marriage protection, as conservatives define it, incompatible with marriage promotion, at least for the not-insignificant number of parents, biological and adoptive, who are homosexuals? ... Following Santorum's Heritage speech, I asked him the following questions: "If our answer to single women for financial stability and welfare is to get married, or that marriage will help them out, what do we tell single gay women? Isn't that kind of painting a bleak future for them?" ...In fact, in his response to my question, he lumped childless heterosexuals together with homosexuals, drawing no distinction between the two. If, as he argues, it's all about the children, Santorum either believes that heterosexuals unable to have children should be banned by law from marrying or that we should throw open the floodgates of marriage to homosexuals as well. Which is it? more
RICK SANTORUM SPEAKS ON NATURE OF MARRIAGE: From the Heritage Foundation website:
To answer these questions, let me first address the culture in which we live and why marriage is an institution that is countercultural. In its essence, marriage is a selfless act. It is the act of giving oneself to somebody else and becoming one. ... ...But looking at marriage in general, from the utilitarian perspective, there is no question that marriage is good for society: Children, women, and men all benefit enormously. more Wednesday, October 22, 2003
"WHAT TO DO WITH GAYS": Gabriel Rosenberg vs. Eve
Of course, I can't speak for Andrew, but I do support many of his views on SSM and have also thought the question of what to do about same-sex relationships was an important one to ask. Please allow me to try my best to answer your questions. "If 'social conservatives' did have a big powwow and come up with Guidelines for Same-Sex Canoodling and Commitment... would anyone listen?" Some people wouldn't listen, but many would. More importantly, knowing what the goals are can encourage discussion as to what policies might best achieve those goals. "Where does the government get off telling me how to run my life? Why should the government structure my sex life?" First of all, I think even with opposite-sex marriage the government is not telling people how to run their lives. Society and the government can inform people of how beneficial marriage is. They can make some of the responsibilities of marriage easier to bear. They can help to enforce the obligations we undertake when we marry. Still, marriage is not forced on anyone. Likewise, if marriage were available to same-sex couples they would be free to choose marriage or reject it. I think if it were available, we should encourage it. I see the third (and first and second) party benefits of marriage and harms of unmarriage to be significant even for same-sex couples. "What are [people whose closest, most committed chosen relationship is non-sexual] to do? Why is your relationship a civil-rights issue, but ours are merely philia, nothing to get excited over?" This is a great question and I agree with you that we should do more to honor friendship and to help people care for their loved ones. If we allow same-sex couples to marry, it should not be because those relationships are sexual. It should be because those couples are willing to take on the responsibilities of marriage. If a couple in a non-sexual relationship promised to take on the same responsibilities (including permanence and sexual fidelity), I believe they too should be allowed to marry. Whether a given couple should be encouraged to marry, though, would depend on the nature of the relationship.
"WHAT TO DO WITH GAYS": Mark Miller vs. Eve and Maggie
I admit that I don't understand what it is about same-sex sexual relationships that refers to an "ad-hoc, Chinese-menu approach" to marriage. I do agree with Eve that the third party benefits of marriage are very much different (and less in some ways) for same-sex relationships than they are for opposite-sex relationships. But I argue that the third party benefits are irrelevant to the debate. I use the analogy of affirmative action in education. The argument of those who support affirmative action is the third party benefit of having a "diverse" group of educated people. But the more important question is .... is it fair to discriminate to support this "third party benefit"? As a conservative, I am not in favor of the government deciding that a specific group is not entitled to a certain benefit based on any "third party benefit" analysis. Also, regarding the comment "... seeking governmental sanction and guidance for your relationship when you don't have to ...." -- based on this view, then why should the government sanction ANY relationship that does not produce kids? I'll concede that gay relationships cannot produce children, so to be fair -- why not support that the government get out of the business of "guidance and sanction" until there are children involved? And then, you can say that the government only sanction those relationships with children in which there is both a mother and father. Does that work for you? Ultimately, people such as Andrew and myself just want one thing -- for the government to treat (i.e.: guidance, sanction, etc.) gays the same way they treat everyone else. Finally, Maggie referred to Andrew Sullivan's conservativeness consisting of calling for government to make emotional pets of gay people by developing "programs" and "social policies" towards "integrating" them, poor dears. First, in what world is allowing people to get married or join the military a "program" or "social policy"? (other than Iraq or Cuba...) Also, can we substitute "black" or "female" or "disabled" for "gay" in your statement? Does it still apply (especially the "emotional pets" and "poor dears" parts) Why not? And speaking of condescending, the truth comes out in your statement regarding how you feel about gays.
"WHAT TO DO WITH GAYS": Mike Pignatello vs. Eve
"What do we do with gay people?" Why does society need to answer this question? Because most gay people have societal needs that are not being met: for example, non-discrimination in employment and housing, as well as the need to protect and support gay families with children (from arbitrary and discriminatory laws that make family life difficult or, in some U.S. states, impossible). Gay people want and need to construct the frameworks that support their relationships, and we need the State, as guarantor of civil rights and economic privileges, to participate in that process. I mention this because Eve, in the prior posting, says that it is undesirable to have government "tell me how to run my relationships." Well, like it or not, government does have some impact in running heterosexual relationships. It provides marriage licenses, it recognizes common law marriages in states where a marriage license is not required, and it provides arbitration in divorce disputes, among other things. It also provides benefits to heterosexual couples. Government has also been in the business of managing homosexual relationships (even without the prospect of same-sex marriage on the horizon). So government has a role in marriage, and we probably agree that the legal and economic benefits conferred upon married heterosexuals would not exist without government regulation of the institution. But to support conferring rights only on heterosexuals because "third party concerns exist much more strongly" for them, and because those concerns relate to children, seems to forget that plenty of gay people have kids, too, and that this is a driving reason that many gays want SSM in the first place. Gays are not simply asking for marriage regulation for the sake of regulation, nor for the sake of elevating gay people to some special status. For example, children of gay parents across the U.S. are at risk in their families because the government, while recognizing adoptions, does not often recognize second parent adoptions and does not have laws that will provide for the security of a child should the single adopting parent no longer be around. Laws change state to state, and states are not required to recognize adoption laws in other states. Can a heterosexual parent imagine not having her parenthood recognized in the state of Florida? I think it's a useful exercise for readers to imagine what it must be like to be raising a family in a state of legal nebulousness, ready to have your life changed at the drop of a hat. Finally, I notice a change in language when the topic switches to gay relationships. Somehow, gay relationships are often viewed as mostly "sexual" in this blog while straight relationships are something else. For gay people, relationships contain both emotional and sexual components, just like heterosexual relationships. To compare the healthcare needs of lifelong gay partners with the needs of lifelong friends is therefore like comparing apples and oranges. Gay spouses are not simply "interchangeable" with friends. They maintain an intimate, emotional role just like a heterosexual spouse would. Can a straight woman trade in a husband for a dog? Yet interestingly, I find in Eve's argument a rationale in favor of the greater menu of marriage options that she doesn't agree with -- heck, why shouldn't the friend get benefits, too?!
THE PURPOSES OF SEX: Andrew Sullivan vs. William Bennett
From The New Republic's website--a response to Bennett's Los Angeles Times column, here: "Bennett merely echoes a key social conservative trope: that marriage is both a tenuous institution that can be destroyed by the mildest of reforms or tinkerings; and yet at the same time, marriage is an integral part of the natural order that nothing can gainsay. Again: which is it? ... "...Why isn't the basis of sexual connection love and companionship and mutual respect between two people, in which our bodies, in the mystery of sexuality, take part? And why shouldn't the criterion be one in which all people can equally participate, rather than simply those fortunate enough to be born with the 'correct' sexual wiring? "And why, for that matter, can sexual expression only ever be legitimate within a single human relationship? What is so bad, after all, with mutual objectification? If both parties are willing and equal and adult, why is sexual pleasure--that isn't related to some ulterior social good--so wrong? Maybe it isn't as profound as other sexual expressions; maybe it should be given no social standing. But always wrong? Why? "...But gay people do not want to enter into civil marriage in order to destroy it; and that claim is a grotesque assault on our good faith. Gays don't want to join the straights-only golf club in order to destroy the game of golf. They want to join in order to play golf. The question Bennett has to answer is: Why would opening the institution to all citizens somehow make marriage less rather than more meaningful? ..." more
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL'S MARRIAGE PROTECTION PLEDGE: From the Associated Press
A conservative group is asking politicians across the country to sign a ''marriage protection'' pledge before Congress takes up a proposal that would bar states from recognizing gay marriages. The Family Research Council in Washington wants legislators to ''protect the inviolable definition of marriage'' with a pledge that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. It calls for laws barring contractual obligations for common law marriages, gay marriages and people who live together. more
CENSUS SHOWS MARRIAGE STABILIZING IN '90s: From the Washington Times
...When compared with Census 1990 figures, the 2000 marital statistics "barely changed -- really, the changes were only about 1 percent. Very, very slight shifts," said Rose M. Kreider, lead author of the 2000 report. For instance, when the 1990 census was taken, 54.8 percent of adults said they were married and 8.5 percent said they were divorced. In addition, 7.4 percent were widowed, 2.3 percent were separated and 26.9 had never married. The changes during the 1990s are insignificant compared with family trends in the 1970s and 1980s, when divorces, separations and the number of never-married people rose rapidly and, in some age groups, doubled. "The big news" in the 2000 report "is that there has been a strong slowing down of most marriage-weakening trends," said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think tank in New York City. Trends such as divorce, unwed childbearing, teen pregnancy and teen sexual activity have either "stopped getting worse or actually started getting better," he said. Despite this, "we should certainly recognize that marriage is a weakened institution in our society," Mr. Blankenhorn said. Recent media reports about the country's new "unmarried majority" haven't been helpful, he said. As the 2000 data show, "the overwhelming majority of people get married." more Tuesday, October 21, 2003
IS ANDREW RIGHT? Maggie Gallagher
Andrew is so prolific that the question of what he is or is not right about is constantly changing. I am referring here to his recent piece in the NYT agonizing over whether or not he will remain a Roman Catholic (you can find pretty much everything Andrew writes on his website.) This is pretty much a digression from our topic of marriage as a legal and social institution (which I view primarily from the standpoint of the interests of the state, not the church), so forgive me. The number of people who sent me Andrew's NYT column makes me think our readers might be interested. Andrew is something of the Rousseau of our times (or perhaps the Montaigne?), attempting to throw light on vast questions by revealing in minute detail the state of his own emotions. It is a method that tempts one to ridicule. Andrew, "enabling" the Catholic Church by attending Mass? Really Andrew, I agree you are a pretty important fellow, but don't you think that is a tad, well, self-absorbed? But it also occurs to me that Andrew has spent his career, both in print and personally, running around attempting to convert others. But almost no-one extends to him the intellectual or moral courtesy of attempting to convert him. His dialogue has been a one-sided monologue from the beginning. Not perhaps his fault. Of course you are right about many things, Andrew, including the moral inappropriateness of creating a special category of exclusion for people who (in the Catholic vernacular you and I share ) are tempted to commit this particular sexual sin, as opposed to all the rest of us with illicit sexual desires. Fornication and adultery are far more obviously and immediate threats to children than sodomy, so why by what moral calculus should homosexual acts or desires be the unforgiveable sin? God does not see it that way. As one Catholic to another Andrew, let me say this to you: The teachings of this Pope and this Church are not based on "hostility." The idea of that people have persistent and not apparently self-willed desires to commit a variety of non-marital sexual acts is hardly a new one. (In forty years of sexual liberation we have not yet plumbed the depths that Roman elites reached. Yet.). Your inability to describe the Church's disagreement with you as other than an emotional one, reveals how one-sided your dialogue has been. You have faith in your own moral infallibility on this question, the Church of Andrew Sullivan. The essence of your teaching to the Church is that a persistent sexual desire is its own justification. The only compassionate or reasonable response to an inerradicable sexual desire is to find a means to sanction it. When you come down to it Andrew, that is your position. Of course you find a lot of sympathetic support for this point of view in our current culture, among the many adults who accept this as their standard of personal behavior (gay and straight). You began many years ago by making a conservative case for gay marriage but have ended up making common cause with the sexual revolution in order to advance your cause (see, for example, "We are All Sodomites Now.") The costs of this point of view are increasingly evident and in my opinion, ill-disguised by your rhetoric of the "conservativeness" of your position. Increasingly your conservativenss consists of calling for government to make emotional pets of gay people by developing "programs" and "social policies" towards "integrating" them, poor dears. Apparently freedom, democracy, the rule of law, citizenship, are deemed nothing without a 12 step government program towards emotional affirmation. Does this strike anyone but me as more condescending than compassionate? I hope you stay in the Church, Andrew. I hope you begin an actual dialogue with its 2000-year- old unbroken teaching on sexual matters. From which you might be able to glimpse the possibility of something other than hostility at work.
SERIES ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Eve Tushnet
I've been doing a running series of posts on my own blog, EveTushnet.com; you can start here and scroll up to see the entire series, or you can get the highlights: intro: the three types of argument, including, "Marriage is, inherently, a 'special right'--something a relationship earns because of what it gives society." my basic position: "The same-sex marriage debate is... about a view of marriage that was first promoted by and for heterosexual couples." masculinity: "Same-sex marriage is unisex. ...When cultural signifiers become unisex, men move away from them fast." comparison of friendship and same-sex unions Heather Has No Daddy: "When you tell men they're not necessary to the family, you know, sometimes they believe you."
REPLY TO ANDREW SULLIVAN: Eve Tushnet
In the Wall Street Journal, Sullivan asks, "What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? ...Can you think of any other legal, noncriminal minority in society toward which social conservatives have nothing but a negative social policy?" Three things strike me as weird about Sullivan's underlying assumptions. First, there's the point made earlier on this site: "Does it ever strike you that this question: 'What should I do with gay people?' is deeply condescending and offensive?" If "social conservatives" did have a big powwow and come up with Guidelines for Same-Sex Canoodling and Commitment... would anyone listen? Secondly, and more importantly, Sullivan is asking for one of two things here. He's either asking for the smorgasbord of governmentally- and societally-sanctioned relationship options that David Frum argues against here and I argue against here; or he's asking the government and society to set up one model, one ideal, for his romantic relationships. Maybe it's just my lurking libertarian tendencies, but I find it almost eerie to have the government tell me how to run my relationships. When it comes to heterosexual sex I definitely see the need for government and society to promote one ideal structure, because the third party benefits of marriage and harms of unmarriage are so great. These third party concerns are mostly but not entirely to do with children. I won't rehash the arguments that these third party concerns exist much more strongly for opposite-sex couples than for same-sex ones, but you can find posts to that effect here, or by scrolling about on this site. And in the absence of these strong third party effects (I emphasize "strong" because obviously all of our relationships, from friendship to coworkership, affect third parties and serve to strengthen or weaken society to some degree), where does the government get off telling me how to run my life? Why should government structure my sex life? And finally, Sullivan's piece, I think, assumes that sexual relationships earn privileges that other close and/or committed relationships do not. Why? Why is it an injustice when a sexual partner can't get health benefits, but not when a beloved friend can't? People whose closest, most committed chosen relationship is non-sexual can pose Sullivan's questions back at him: What are we to do? Why is your relationship a civil-rights issue, but ours are merely philia, nothing to get excited over? EDITED TO ADD: I think this post was a bit unclear. What I am trying to say can be boiled down to: When it comes to sexual relationships between men and women, I don't think we can sustain society with an ad-hoc, Chinese-menu approach. The third party benefits of one particular relationship structure (marriage) and the harms of all the others are too great. So we do need a governmentally- and societally-sanctioned ideal. When it comes to other relationships, whether sexual or not (same-sex couples, friendships, mentorships, etc.), the third party benefits and harms are much less, and so we can sustain society without the government telling us what the structure of our relationships should be. Seeking governmental sanction and guidance for your relationship when you don't have to strikes me as pretty strange (especially for a libertarian-leaning type like Sullivan).
REPLY TO DAVID FRUM: Michael Rappaport
University of San Diego law professor and blogger criticizes David Frum's Wall Street Journal piece opposing same-sex marriage and civil unions: "Frum has therefore explained why he is against civil unions, he has not told us why one should be against full-fledged gay marriages. ... "In the end, Frum's essay mixes both moral arguments (based on consequences) and political feasibility arguments. Many social conservative arguments against gay marriage rely on this same strategy, but what is politically feasible can change over time. If social conservatives are to participate in this debate, they need to articulate why they think gay marriage is a bad thing rather than merely explaining why it will not happen in the face of trends that appear to suggest just the opposite." more
THE NEXT GENERATION: Maggie Gallagher
Ah! The exquisite moral wisdom of the young! Perhaps it is true the next generation is morally more intelligent and perceptive than everyone else, integrating gay marriage into a conservative moral framework. Time will tell. But the point I was making was rather different: Twenty years ago, everyone claimed that the trends towards universal acceptance of sexual liberation, abortion, the genderless family ideal, the death of the homemaker, etc. were inevitable, because young people supported them. The future belonged to the sexual liberationist. Remember when we were told divorce was a good thing for children and that social science had exploded those old traditionalist myths about marital permanence? Instead it turns out, contrary to the progressive myth, the future is not fixed it is undiscovered territory. Here is my only point. It is a response to the myth of inevitability Andrew among others is trying to create as a replacement for argument: Simply because today's young people, who are relentlessly propogandized on this question, especially in the academy, are more supportive of gay marriage, doesn't mean this trend will continue.
MARRIAGE AS THE PLACE TO HAVE CHILDREN: Mark Miller
I don't doubt at all that there are abusive and irresponsible same sex couples. There are also abusive and irresponsible opposite sex couples. Those are 'individual cases'. The individual cases you referred to in my post are not individual indeed. They are examples of arrangements where marriage is a legal option yet not in the best interests of children. The argument against same sex marriage on the grounds that children need mothers and fathers is hollow. If that were your real concern, you could support same-sex marriage or civil unions but be against adoptions by anyone other married couples. Regarding a couple of other posts, the post of the William Bennett article was very interesting. While I do not agree with it, I find it intellectually honest. This debate is all about normalizing homosexuality. It is not about marriage. If same-sex relationship were given any legal status, that would mean that the government is accepting of gay relationships, thus normalizing them - just as the Lawrence decision does for homosexual acts. As I've said before and I still believe it, the fear is not that the acceptance of same sex relationships will doom the institution of marriage. The fear is that they will not. And that may lead to the further acceptance of gay relationships. Finally, Michael Triplett has it exactly right. The younger generation appears to understand that traditional morality can encompass gays and lesbians. Therefore, they don't see the connection you are trying to make between ones personal values and stigmatizing gays and gay relationships.
2,500 PROTEST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CANADA:
"Thousands of people crowded on to the lawn of the New Brunswick legislature Saturday to urge Ottawa not to change the definition of marriage." more 365gay.com's take on it.
MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE WILL HOLD HEARINGS THURSDAY:
"The center of the Massachusetts gay-marriage debate will swerve -- at least temporarily -- from the judicial to the legislative branch next week as lawmakers conduct the first-ever public hearing on bills legalizing same-sex unions. ... "Next Thursday's hearing before O'Flaherty's committee occurs as gay advocates across the nation await word from Massachusetts' highest court on a case filed by seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses." more
TORONTO STAR: "SAME-SEX HOUSEHOLDS 'COOL' FOR KIDS":
Sunshiney piece. "Numbers of gay and lesbian families are hard to gauge. In the 2001 census, 2,900 same-sex couples reported having at least one child living at home, according to Statistics Canada. But that doesn't include single or non-custodial parents or those not willing to identify themselves as a same-sex couple. "...'No research indicates any emotional, cognitive or mental health problems compared to children of heterosexual parents,' says Judith Stacey, sociology professor at New York University. Some studies indicate that they exhibit a greater respect for people's differences. "...More than 12 years ago, André Chamberlain answered an ad in a gay newspaper looking for a potential sperm donor and co-parent. For him, being an anonymous donor held no appeal. 'I always wanted a child in my life, but being a full-time dad wasn't realistic,' says Chamberlain, 41, a lawyer. "He met numerous times with Mariana Valverde, who would carry the baby, and her partner, Maggi Redmonds. "'We both really wanted kids -- it was a pivotal issue in coming together,' explains Redmonds, 56, a health care administrator. If possible, they felt it preferable for the child to know his father. "A son was born. ... "The family grew five years ago when Redmonds adopted a girl, now 7. Chamberlain and the little girl bonded quickly. "...He has the kids every second weekend, either one or two at a time, pitches in with child care and takes them both on holiday every summer. 'They're pretty much my anchor to the world,' he says." more Monday, October 20, 2003
THE NEXT GENERATION: Michael Triplett
I think Maggie is probably correct that young people are more conservative on sexual matters and I believe that bodes very well for the future. If young people can avoid the mistakes of prior generations when it comes to sexuality and poor decisionmaking, then it is an important sign. I think, however, that the evidence also bodes well for those arguing for gay rights and acceptance. If these morally conservative and sexually traditional young people show higher acceptance of same-sex marriage and gay issues in general, it demonstrates that they understand that traditional morality can encompass gays and lesbians. They have seen a disconnect between their personal values and stigmatizing gays and gay relationships. It is likely further proof, for those who pay attention to such things, that the culture war is over and the gays have won. The fact that young people--despite growing increasingly conservative on many other social/moral issues--support gay relationship and acceptance seems to show that the arguments of social conservatives and the family rights groups have proved hollow while the arguments of gays make a great deal more sense. Despite attempts by social conservative elites to politicize and polarize the issue, they have failed to convince the group they most need to persuade.
"A CONFLICT OF IDEALS": William J. Bennett (posted by Eve)
[This is from a Los Angeles Times column; full text here.] "In marriage alone do men, women and children find the relationship that balances their sometimes mutual, sometimes competing, needs. ... "To normalize homosexuality requires us to deny that man linked to woman is both natural and ideal--that it is the purpose of our human sexuality--and to affirm the aberrant view that sexuality is an arbitrary construct and choice. "The homosexual vanguard proposes to replace sexual identity--that inescapable fact of nature that we are created male and female--with sexual behavior as a fundamental organizing principle of society. And if sexual behavior is the determinant, then appetite is the guiding principle." more
"MORALLY ANGUISHED FENCE-SITTERS" (posted by Eve)
Support for gay rights... but not same-sex marriage: "They have accepted the gay man next door, the lesbian couple down the street. They have agreed that gay Americans should not be discriminated against. "But same-sex marriage is something else. ... "'I'm a MAFS,' said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think tank on the family, based in New York. 'On the one hand, people like us don't want to be bigots, and we believe in equal dignity for people, regardless of sexual orientation. "'On the other hand, we believe children deserve a mother and father and are worried about a law that would write that idea out of the script. People are torn about this.'" more
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SAME-SEX COUPLES BREAK UP? (posted by Eve)
This news item from Spokane, Washington seems relevant to Andrew Sullivan's column "The State of Our Unions." "Can a state that has legislation barring the recognition of same-sex couples impose 'community property' rules on gay couples when they break up? That is the question a Washington state appeals court will have to determine. "When the 10-year relationship between Julia Robertson and Linda Gormley ended last year Gormley went to court seeking a division of assets. In November Superior Court Judge Heather Van Nuys ruled that the couple's relationship was 'sufficiently marriagelike to provide equitable relief.' "In her ruling Van Nuys called the couple's relationship an 'intimate domestic partnership,' allowing both women the same property rights given to a husband and wife in a divorce. "Van Nuys said the women must divide their assets equally -- a decision that amounted to a divorce in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage. Washington has a Defense of Marriage Act in place that also prevents recognition of domestic partners." more |
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|